enough to take on Karl Rove.

The huge, huge problem with HRC is that, in a primary, she's now focusing on personalities and race rather than on issues, credentials and proposals. I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday. If I were voting in a primary tomorrow, I'd vote for him again.

But, on the other hand, if people in this thread are expecting her to bow out, not just run a better campaign: I think it's not all that reasonable to expect HRC just to give up and slink away when she's still pretty close to Obama in the delegate count.

Sure, I would do that. But I would probably have bowed out in January 2007, if the other candidates had glared at me in a really mean way. Fortunately, HRC and Obama are both a lot tougher than I am.

Unfortunately, HRC seems more apt to compensate for weak communications skills with dog whistle racism.

Certainly, HRC ought to be focusing on issues, credentials and proposals.

But HRC still could be running a harsh, scorched earth campaign even if she were running a cleaner campaign.

She's responsible for the foolish, divisive things she and her supporters have been saying, but the people who designed the primary are the ones who are responsible for the race dragging on and on and on.

Example: just why is that we're still having primaries? Why doesn't the party make sure that all the primaries occur within, say, a month?

If close races are problem, is it possible that there's some way to set up the primaries to reduce the likelihood that races will stay close?

To avoid overly divisive campaigning: is there a way to build rules into the primary system that permit party leaders to disqualify candidates who engage in or benefit from racist, sexist or otherwise inappropriate attacks on rivals?