I'm writing because today is the Democratic primary for the 2nd Congressional District in Louisiana, a seat that includes New Orleans and is currently held by Rep. William Jefferson of $90,000-in-the-freezer fame.

There is a lot of enthusiasm here, and some people are saying that Rep. Jefferson may not even make the runoff for the seat (to make the runoff, you have to be one of the top two vote-getters in Louisiana's strange primary system).  We have many great candidates, including New Orleans City Councilman James Carter, Louisiana State Rep. Cedric Richmond, and former newscaster Helena Moreno (who got my vote today).

Now, in all likelihood, Rep. Jefferson will make the runoff.  But he will probably lose in November -- and I think this does stand in contrast to the Stevens' and Young's of the world who survive Republican primaries despite ethical troubles.  Defeating Rep. Jefferson is good for our country and good for the party.

We should know much more after 8:00pm Central time.  Keep an eye out!

Let me say up front that I'm not one of those PUMA crazies. Obama has grown on me and I always pledged to support the nominee no matter what. However, it does bother me a bit that Obama does not even seem to be seriously considering Hillary for VP. It's possible that he considered it early on and one or both Clintons said no, for whatever reason (vetting, no interest in the position, etc.) If that's the case, then the campaign's attitude makes sense. However, I suspect that Obama's high level staffers (if not Obama himself) never wanted Hillary as VP, never liked her, and never considered her. That would be troublesome, because I think it would indicate that they don't actually have the interests of the party and country in mind. Kaine and Sebelius both gave horrible SOTU responses. Evan Bayh is pretty, well, boring. Edwards has rumors following him. My first choice for VP, Wesley Clark, is apparently out of the running because he dared to speak the truth. Hillary bring a lot to the table. I truly believe she would help the ticket. Others disagree, but they usually refer vaguely to "high negatives" or alternatively to "firing up the Republican base." I think we're beyond the charicatures of her now -- she's her own woman and she's certainly come a long way. If the roles were reversed, she would likely have been forced to choose Obama as VP by the party elders, most likely in the name of party unity. And it would have been the right choice. That's why the silence now is disheartening when Obama has made it clear she's not even being seriously considered. I know this sounds like sour grapes. It's just that no one excites me the way Hillary does. I know she dropped out months after most Obama supporters wished she would. But when she went out, she went out classy. I hope she gets another look.

I'm a Hillary supporter who believes that she should drop out immediately after Pennsylvania regardless of the outcome -- it would be a nice psychological victory for her and it would be classy to drop out following a win instead of after a loss.

However, even if Hillary chooses to continue her campaign through the summer, I don't believe everyone should panic and start looking for some sort of escape hatch out of the primary.  Joe Klein today (and some Congressman a couple days ago) suggested that perhaps the party needs a "savior" and mentioned Al Gore as a potential presidential nominee.

I would like Obama supporters to join me in calling "Bullshit."  Please excuse my language, but there's a reason Al Gore did not run for President this year -- it's because he knew he could not defeat Hillary and Barack in the primary.  The truth is that the two candidates we have right now are our two strongest candidates.

Please don't let "liberal" media elites get away with talking up their favorite (white, male) candidate as the "only" answer to reconciling the "fractured" Democratic party.  Al Gore did not compete in the primary and therefore should not get the nomination.  Period.  It's laughable to argue that superdelegates are undemocratic and then to turn around and hand the nomination to someone who has not gotten a single vote.

I like Hillary but I'll be supporting Obama in the general -- most of his supporters will support Hillary if something outrageous happens that magically hands her the nomination.  But it has to be one of the two.

A contested primary is a feature of the system, not a bug.  Just because some party elders are getting their panties in a twist does not mean that we, the lowly voters, need to be rescued by someone who is "above" politics, be it Gore, Bloomberg, or whoever they fixate on at any given moment.

The truth is, I love Al Gore.  I think he's a patriot, a great man, and would make a fantastic President.  But to get the nomination of the Democratic Party, you have to run for it.  We're going to be fine.

Full disclosure: I voted for Clinton in my primary (Louisiana), and I still narrowly favor her for the nomination. I like both candidates very much and will be voting for the Democratic nominee no matter what.

However, I do have some genuine advice for the Obama campaign:
I have seen many Obama supporters in comment sections across the blogosphere saying that Obama really needs to fight back hard against the recent Clinton negative attacks. Many people feel the Rev. Wright "story" is getting too much attention and needs to be dealt with immediately and forcefully. Others argue that Obama should begin to bring up many negative things about Clinton and her past -- escalating the "tax returns" rhetoric into full-blown criticism of Bill's CGI fundraising. I would simply say that that would be the worst mistake of the campaign. One of Hillary's biggest strengths has been to deflect negative criticism by saying that since she has been "completely vetted" and "under attack for 15 years" and "not only survived but thrived," so therefore any criticism of her must be partisan and/or out-of-bounds by definition. The Clinton campaign is simply trying to bait Obama into making the nomination go to the lowest bidder -- a fight Obama will surely lose. The math is in his favor; he should do exactly what he has done throughout this campaign and he will ultimately win. If not, the cynics (I'm one of them) will be proven right and we'll see a Clinton/Obama ticket.

I'd saw Obama's still a 80% or more favorite to win the nomination. However, if Hillary does eek out the popular vote in TX but loses the delegate battle, the outcome tonight is the precise scenario in which Hillary gets to claim big media victories while simultaneously shining a spotlight on the flaws of the delegate allocation process. I saw Chuck Todd on MSNBC earlier explaining how the border counties have disproportionately fewer delegates than the urban counties and there was a palpable awkwardness as the ultimate implication -- even the primary (let alone the caucus!) is not one-person, one-vote -- finally seemed to dawn on the panelists.

What people aren't realizing is that Hillary knows full well she cannot win a majority of pledged delegates. Where does that leave her? She has to undermine the whole notion of using pledged delegates as the basis for superdelgate-persuasion or fundamentally, the nomination. If people catch on that a huge share of Obama's delegates came from caucuses and Hillary can point to *obvious* examples like Texas where even primaries seem to be undemocratic, (and especially if she wins the majority of the popular vote nationwide), she might actually have a chance at having a claim to the nomination at the convention! The "some states don't count" argument was just the test missle for the nuclear war about to follow.

On the one hand, Obama supporters like to tout the cold hard delegate math to try to get Hillary out of the race, but then they turn right around and make a (reasonable) complaint about the undemocratic nature of the superdelegates. But you can't have it both ways -- if Hillary wins a majority of the popular vote once all of the voting has ended, coupled with momentum from winning the last several big primaries, I think a big spotlight will be turned on all of those caucuses where Obama racked up his delegates and it becomes much less clear who the true "winner" is. In my opinion, one of the worst outcomes for Obama tomorrow would be for Hillary to win majorities in Ohio and Texas, but for Obama to actually win more delegates in Texas due to the allocation process. If this happens, I'd be careful about constantly pushing the delegate math, because the media is already primed for the argument that the whole process is flawed and a movement to seat FL and MI and other pro-Hillary developments could suddenly be deemed "necessary" for the party. Obviously this is a long-shot, but I can plausibly see a scenario where the spin is actually successful and the media makes it seem like it's unclear who actually won -- then the superdelegates will feel free to vote for whoever they want. That might be Hillary.

This is my first post and contribution to the site.  I am a Hillary supporter and you'll probably see me defending her in the future.  I just wanted to begin by saying that I don't think extending this primary campaign is bad for Obama specifically or the Democrats generally.  I agree that without several solid wins tomorrow, Hillary is all but out of it.  But I don't think Obama supporters should try to run her out of the race if it's some sort of split decision -- I think the primary has been exciting and (relatively) benign, and has provided tons of free media for the party due to the historic nature of both candidacies.

The other, more controversial point I'd like to make is that I don't think Hillary is going too far in her commander-in-chief criticisms of Obama.  Rightly or wrongly, this is what she believes is her strength and she's playing the card.  Yes, it's "fodder" for McCain in the general, but I actually think it helps Obama to test out his counterattacks against Hillary right now, seeing what is successful and what isn't.  I happen to believe that Hillary will be the best President, but I've never really subscribed to the notion that she's a superior electoral candidate than Obama.  And he has said so much in the past (http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/768042,obhill013008.article) -- following the logic, this would be very damaging to Hillary if she were the nominee.  I guess I think as a general principle, it's better to have these charges leveled out in the open then pretending they don't exist until McCain levels them over the summer.