I'm burned out on the drama. I don't want to talk about it anymore so I've decided to take a break from posting about my dismay at how this primary is being waged and just let others do the talking. Hart Williams defends his home state and ponders on Pyrrhic victories. He tells me something I didn't know about Wyoming and puts his finger on what really bothers me about all the demographic analysis.
TSteel at TMV is done with all the nonsense. He's going back to voting third party and is wishing that Obama would run as an independent if he doesn't get the nod. That would certainly be an interesting twist if it came to that.
Seth Grahame-Smith says he has been a supporter of the Clintons for many years but he is through apologizing for them.
Meanwhile, Jon Chait doesn't like Hillary's proposed path to victory a bit and voices a big concern.
Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.The historical analogies are not reassuring to me either. This has been an election year that has defied the historical norms from the start. I think it's perilous to weigh the potential consequences on past outcomes.