I have just returned to MyDD after tuning out for a number of months.  I am very surprised to see that some people are still fighting about the primaries (I guess I really shouldn't be), so I would like to offer some sentiments which I hope may garner majority consensus.

During the primaries two relatively equal front runners emerged.  The supporters of each believed their candidate was a formidable political leader who could (or would) be successful in winning the presidency and in governing after the election.  Both sides were right.

Almost as strong of a sentiment that emerged among the camps was that the other candidate wouldn't (or couldn't) be a successful presidential nominee and/or president if elected.  Both sides were wrong.

The Democrats had the great fortune (and, to some degree, a sad misfortune) of having two terrific candidates emerge as front runners in the primary season. Too bad we couldn't have saved one of them for a future election (or had one of them in a past election) when we may not have had such strength of alternatives.  

There was a reason each of these individuals accumulated over 18 million votes, had roughly equally strong camps, and the contest continued for so long - they were both very good.  The biggest difference in that contest was that Obama's campaign and strategies matched his abilities as a candidate while Clinton's campaign and its strategies failed to match hers.  

Let's just suppose Obama loses to McCain in November. We would then have to look toward 2012 and imagine what we would do then.

This has been the most rancorous, divisive, and irrationally spiteful primary of my political existence (the first one I participated in was 1976 so I do have some political memory).  Never have I seen the Democratic party so divided 6 months before a general election.

I do not feel the candidates or their campaigns deserve the primary blame for this turn of events.  The hostilities and blows coming from the candidates have been rather unremarkable by historical standards.  The primary blame for this state of affairs falls on the supporters themselves - both in the general public and in the media.

I have stated on numerous occasions here that the divisions in this party were not created by these candidates.  More likely, these candidates were just particularly strong magnets for certain factions and particularly strong repellents for other factions.  The facts that both candidate had such strong numbers of supporters and this primary contest went on so long served to harden the resolve of each camp's members.  Particularly in the latter stage of the primary, we have seen how support for each seemed impervious to current events or the campaign efforts of the other candidate.  

As you know, I have been a strong Hillary supporter.  Right now, in the event of an Obama loss, my natural preferences should lead me to support Senator Clinton again if she decided to run in 2012.  But, then I start thinking.  Do I want to do this again?  Do I want to risk this same fractiousness again?  Would I be better off choosing someone who is less of a magnet or a lightening rod?

Many on the Obama side might say, "Well, OK, those feelings might apply to her but not to him."  To those who would say that, I will tell you that I believe you are wrong.  All of these Clinton voters are not just voting "FOR" Clinton.  He has generated substantial opposition along the way.  Some of you might think that this would disappear if she were gone.  Some of it would, but much of it would not.

In my lifetime, a general election loss has killed the future presidential prospects of a Democratic nominee.  The last exception was Adlai Stevenson, but he was running against an unbeatable Eisenhower in 1956 and perhaps relatively few strong Democrats were all that eager to be the sacrificial lamb.  I'm not sure this conventional rule would apply to Obama.  Based on what I have seen this primary season, I think he could still generate strong primary support and emerge as one of the front runners after the early contests even if he did lose the GE in 2008.  I also think the same might apply to Clinton after losing this nomination if Obama loses the 2008 GE.

Let's suppose that is the 2012 set-up and both of these candidates again seek the nomination.  Would you be committed to YOUR (Notice I said, YOUR) candidate again?  Or, would you prefer to take a serious look at another alternative that might not generate the kinds of feelings we have seen in 2008?  

I would like to read your thoughts.  But, first let me be emphatic about what I don't want to read and what I believe has no place in this diary:

1) Scorn or snark about the OTHER candidate

2) Remarks like "Well, Obama isn't going to lose in 2008, so this diary is pointless."  

Responding to this diary requires that you step outside the partisan, never-give-an-inch soldier persona that you may have adopted throughout this season.  If you can't do that, skip this one.

Obama is the nominee.  We realistic Clinton supporters knew that the final nail in the coffin was the night of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.  A number of Clinton supporters have written diaries saying this result doesn't reflect the will of the people.  I share their pain and feel the Obama nomination is wrongheaded but I must respectfully disagree with their view that it does not reflect the will of the people.

Now, I ask, in our dissapointment, who should we blame?

1) Well, first I believe that we cannot blame the superdelegates who have been moving to Obama at an accelerating rate. They have had to make a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea and I don't envy their position.  No matter which choice they make they will anger substantial numbers of Democrats.  We could all argue whose supporters are the more damaging to alienate and we could provide plausible arguments.  In the end, going with the person who amassed the most pledged delegates is at least the safe choice.  Both these candidates have been damaged and both have shown strengths.  Only the most fanatical supporters of each will argue that only one or the other offers potential risks or rewards.

2) I do blame the Democratic primary structure.  We have been given three opportunities (Washington, Texas, and Nebraska) to see that caucus results have differed markedly from primary results.  Typically, participation rates in caucuses ran one-sixth to one-third of the participation of primaries yet these caucuses were awarded full state delegate totals.  The caucus system may appeal to activists but they may produce a decision that is less representative of the overall feeling in a state than a primary.  General elections are won in the center where activists often do not reside.

There is no reason to keep primaries open.  Force participants to register at least 30 days before the primary.  Throughout this season we had continual debates about the motives of Republican interlopers. Why worry about such things?  If Independents want to vote in the Democratic primary, they should make the affirmative decision to commit to that party for at least the same 30 days. We have independents in Congress and they have to make a decision about which party they will join to caucus.  

3) Blame the Clinton campaign.  They made some key mistakes in operational strategy and message.  Failing to compete in too many smaller places effectively ceded those to Obama.  Attacking Obama earlier in the campaign on petty issues (like the words about Reagan) and not hammering more serious ones, had the effect of hurting her and helping him.  She also made the mistake of making her nomination too much about gender.  She didn't need to do that and it cheapened her candidacy.  Once this election became about identity politics, people felt free to look at one historical identity achievement or the other and take a pass on hers. The other operational errors have been well discussed so I see no point in rehashing them.

By contrast, give credit to the Obama campaign where credit is due.  Their operational strategies were superior for the rules of this game.  Personally, I don't think much of his message, but at least he didn't make too many mistakes in message.

4) Finally, blame the Democratic voters if you feel the result is wrong.  Ultimately, they are the ones responsible.  Sure, Hillary may have won Democrats overall (this might have been enough without the problems mentioned in #2), but not a high enough percentage of them.  My own view is that at least half the party has crossed the great river into La La Land, but voters are entitled to do that.  Obama's nomination does reflect the will of the voters.  I may wish that weren't true, but, like the 2004 general election, I have to accept what I consider to be a wrongheaded verdict.

...I have never done one before, so here is mine:

I just had my ability to read hidden comments reinstated.  I suppose I had received too many troll ratings in the past but my detention time expired.  May I just make a few suggestions?

1) Stop the fury and flury of troll and hide ratings.  We are all adults, or mostly adults.  If somebody pisses you off, let em have it.  Tell them where to get off.  Troll and hide ratings are lazy and cowardly ways of showing displeasure.  They are also indicative of a netroots developed mob mentality.  Besides, censorship is rarely a good thing and, on the netroots, it often reaches the point of Stalinism.  Stalinism and group think are very, very, very, very, very bad for the long-term prospects of a party.  

2) Stop telling people that they don't have the right to call themselves Democrats.  None of us are qualified for that and no one should be.  Democrats don't demand that Republicans take an oath of allegiance to the Democratic party in order to vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election.  Telling Democrats that they must relinquish their Democratic preference and vote Republican from now on and join Red State if they choose not to vote for a Democratic nominee is no less foolish.

3) The primary is effectively over and there isn't much more than can be done about it.  That is democracy.  I didn't like the result of the 2004 GE but I had to live with it.  That's what a true American does.  Eventually, that cloud did turn out to have a silver lining.  At this point, screaming that Obama did this or Clinton did that or this or that wasn't fair doesn't make much sense.  What's done is done and we can't go back and replay the game.

That doesn't mean we have to all joing hands, hug, and sing the praises of each other.  We can still be critical of these choices.  We can still be critical of party direction and we can still be critical of those who oppose the perceived party direction.  But, just try to be a little more subdued in the way you express it.  We all just need to take a little extra effort to suppress rage, contempt, condescension, etc. and, in the process, argue in a way that is less hateful and ad hominem and more productive and compelling in the long run.

The bottom line: tolerance (at least a modicum of it).  We don't have to agree.  We don't have to stop arguing.  We don't even have to swear allegiance.  But, in the long run, we all have to tolerate our mutual existence.    

Those of you familiar with my posts know that I have not been a Stuart Smalley type in my discussions with Obama supporters.  I will confess to being, as Michael Barone describes, one of those Jacksonian Democrats who is not interested in understanding his opponents as much as he is interested in fighting and defeating them.  In the course of displaying my natural temperment, I often have been insulting, dismissive, and hostile to many of you.

Last night I ventured over to TPM and Huffington (I at least had the good sense not to go to Kos) to read the reactions there.  I was reminded of why I am so hostile to Obama supporters.  However, in making a mental comparison of them to the Obama supporters at MyDD, I realized that many, if not most, of you on this site are quite different in your approaches and I was unfair and wrongheaded to paint so many of you with the same angry and bigoted brush.  I was also very impressed at the sympathetic tone most of you offered last night and how much that tone differed from what I was reading on those other sites.  Unfortunately, I am noticing that Clinton's likely defacto demise is bringing a few more of those unsavory supporters around here today.

So, my apologies and congratulations on your candidate's success and how well most of you have represented him.

I'm sure some of you regularly checked Jay Cost's RCP post-primary analysis of the various states throughout the primary season.  The dominate themes of these essays were that Obama has his coalition and Clinton has hers and that he wins venues where his coalition predominates and she wins where hers predominates.  Sure, there were variations of degree and there may have been some minor exceptions, but these coalitions held pretty steady througout the primaries.  The more striking conclusion that might be generated from this phenomena is that these coalitions were relatively impervious to campaigning and other contemporaneous events.

Throughout this campaign, Obama supporters have often jeered that Clinton supporters thought only certain states and voters matter.  Of course, that was a mistatement of our positions.  Our position could more appropriately be characterized as the belief that our coalition was more expandable outside of the Democratic party because our coalition came closer to resembling voters with lower allegiance to the Democratic party while Obama's was more heavily populated with those who never vote Republican.

Our belief may or may not be supported in November, but the conclusion is inescapable that our belief did not triumph in the nomination process.  In this nomination process, it was the Obama coalition that was the winner if the candidate played the game smartly and the Obama campaign played the game almost like they invented it.

The core of Obama's coalition consisted of very heavy support from three groups:

1) Youth

2. African Americans
   
3. The left-leaning and, at least somewhat angry, "anyone but Clinton" faction

Clinton never had a chance with these three groups.  They were determined to derail her candidacy.  For the first group, she was way too yesterday for most of them.  For the second group, she was in the way of the nomination of the first viable black candidate.  

For the last group, they were never going to forgive her and Bill's Republican enabling.  They'll never forgive her for the authorization vote (and a few other departures) and they'll never forgive Bill for such things as triangulation and the 1994 midterm losses (Oddly, both Truman and Eisenhower had losses in the same range but no one ever seems to remember them and they are invoked as good presidents across the political spectrum). This group was emboldened by the 2006 midterms and disenchantment with Bush to flex their muscle (apparently, all the rejections of them before that are conveniently forgotten).  Now was the time to throw off those DLC chains!   A couple of friends of mine who are strong Obama supporters (and surely belong in this group) pretty much admitted to me that "anyone but Clinton" was their entering paradigm and they didn't decide completely on Obama until it was clear to them that he was the viable Anti-Clinton.  Their emotional investment came naturally after their commitment decision.

The first of these groups (Youth), considering their strong Obama margins, was a formidable block everywhere.  Combine them with the second group (AAs), with their virtually monolithic support for Obama, and, in any state where African Americans were a significant minority, the odds against Clinton were virtually insurmountable.  The third group became particulary significant in caucus states (and in some very Red Republican states with a more homogenously liberal Democratic minority) where their participation and influence far exceeded their overall population numbers in very low turnout affairs.

The Obama campaigned maximized its strengths to deliver an impressive tactical electoral victory.  Obama's coalition did not widen as the campaign reached its final period.  In fact, it may have narrowed, but the coalition was stronger than expected and its strengths delivered what now appear to be crushing blows in February.

OK, now what?  The second and third groups have very little expansion potential outside of the Democratic party.  For the first group, hard to tell.  In the past, younger voters have often been a little more fickle than older ones.  Something we don't know yet is how large is the youth vote that has not participated in the Democratic primary and where will it go?  Are they a silent majority or a silent minority of the young?  I would presume they are more right leaning or more apathetic than those who partipated in the primary, but how much more of either of those?  I don't know.

Finally, there is the Clinton coalition.  Most of it will vote for Obama but what will be the size of the minority that doesn't?  That is a key question.

Either that or outright dishonesty

From the CNN Indiana exit poll

Did race matter?

Whites saying "NO"  Vote: Clinton 57%, Obama 43%

Blacks saying "NO"  Vote: Clinton 7%, Obama 93%

The virtually incontrovertible pattern of evidence as this primary season rolls on is that, for the overwhelming majority of black Democrats, nothing else is even remotely as important as race.  

OK, Obama supporters, I'm ready for your denunciations, denials, troll, and hide ratings.  

You have to hand it to Rev. Wright - he's no wimp and he sure is quotable.  Jerome links on the front page to his latest potentially damaging public remarks.  I don't think Obama should bear guilt by association for these but I'm confident he will be asked about them.

In one passage, he praises Farrakhan (who is supplying bodyguards for him).  Included in that passage was the line below that exemplifies what is so wrong with this man's thinking and the thinking of those who follow him:

"Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

Comments:

Uh...Reverend...you have not lived your life in chains or in slavery.  By all accounts, you have lead a successful (and somewhat lucrative life) of a free man with significantly more authority and power than the overwhelming majority of people in this country.  And you have managed to do this while publicly spitting in the face of the US government and jeering at white people and other non-African American groups.  Doesn't sound like a slave to me.

Even more striking is the last clause: "he didn't make me this color."  Of course, not.  Your parents did, perhaps as a conduit from God.  But, your words confuse me?  Are so saying the you were somehow cursed with blackness?  Gee, that's pretty self-hating.  Could this be the source of your anger?