Three candidates walk into a bar. One starts an unprovoked fight with one of the others, insulting and attacking. The third just buys a drink and talks about the good old days? All other things being equal, which would you vote for?

Of course all other things are not equal. Obama is the likely Democratic nominee, as we all know, for his judgement on the war, for his eloquence, for his aspirations, and for his ability to bring people together in common cause. Yet, Senator Clinton questions his ability to lead us in a national emergency, suggesting that she and McCain are both ready while Obama is not. Obviously, this will effect his campaign should he become the nominee. So also will her constant attacks on his reliability, experience, and substantiality. Will the Democrats blame her if Obama loses by a small margin in the general election? Should they blame her now, knowing this may be the result? Will Senator Clinton do more harm to the Democratic Party than the Nader campaign? And most importantly, are leaders in the party asking themselves these sorts of questions?

Both Clinton and Obama will influence the strength of one another’s campaigns. They will influence the level of inspiration and party support for each other and the shape of the coalition which supports them. In turn, the campaigns will significantly impact the level of support for the Democratic Party. They will impact support amongst newly voting Millenials, independents, the green left, and swing voting Republicans. These groups, in turn, will impact the shape and size of the Democratic coalition as well as the campaigns of every Democratic candidate for years to come. Will they watch a fight, long for the good old days, or aspire to something more profound?

While each of these groups has demonstrated a greater willingness to vote for Obama than Clinton, the Clinton campaign has waged a brutal campaign against an Obama that is now losing support. By ridiculing the support for the candidate as empty, the Clinton campaign has made many supporters of Obama uncomfortable in expressing their enthusiasm. It reminds me of the Nader 2000 campaign in this way. But the Nader campaign had depth and dealt with very real and serious issues. The Clinton campaign has thrust aside any serious analysis of issues. Not only will her campaign effect whether a Democrat gets elected in the general election, but it will effect how the party is viewed by groups which may or may not switch to it.

Senator Clinton has divided her country, divided her party, and created one of the most fractious Presidential campaigns in recent memory. So, how might we expect her to fair in building coalitions to pass legislation? Why isn’t she as despised as Nader is within the party? Why would a superdelegate give her their support, given her likely effect on the party? And why finally, if this is the sort of behavior that is supported by so many leaders of the Democratic party, should a progressive feel bad about voting for Nader or the Green Party?