[Guest post by DRJ]

Jonathan Chait at The National Review The New Republic thinks Hillary Clinton’s “path to the nomination is pretty repulsive” and that she won’t be “in a position to defeat Hitler’s dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.” Then it gets ugly.

Eleanor Clift writing at Newsweek focuses on the Democratic superdelegates who, in a “dastardly deed behind closed doors,” may boost Hillary Clinton to the nomination “even if she lags behind Barack Obama in the pledged delegate count.” Clift posits Al Gore as a compromise candidate who is the “only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party.”

Both Chait and Clift worry that Hillary will so bloody Obama that he will be unelectable in November.

Meanwhile, the debate over the Democratic delegations from Michigan and Florida continues. Hillary Clinton and her representatives prefer a winner-take-all scenario, probably because she was the only contestant and thus the undisputed winner, but they seem open to a do-over. State officials in Florida and Michigan aren’t receptive to new elections at state expense but don’t mind if the DNC or others pay. The DNC’s Howard Dean is not pleased.

Obama’s campaign manager “floated the idea of allocating the delegates from the two states 50-50, which would erase Mrs. Clinton’s hypothetical advantage and essentially make the two states meaningless in the competitive delegate count.” He’s had no takers so far.

Slate.com’s John Dickerson suggests that the campaigns are struggling to find the “right level of nasty” and compares the Democratic candidates’ campaign tactics to his children’s sibling rivalry:

“The Clinton team is setting the same trap for Obama my 4-year-old sets for her older brother. She hits him, knowing that he’ll get in trouble for hitting back. Right on cue, Clinton’s senior aide Ann Lewis set it up. “I didn’t realize their version of new politics was to recycle old Republican tactics,” she said. If voters put both campaigns in the corner for a timeout, it may hurt Obama more, because his claim to be a new kind of above-the-fray candidate means he’s held to a higher standard. If Obama pays no penalty for the fracas, the Clinton folks still take him for a roll in the dirt where he can’t offer his appealing message of hope, change, inspiration, and hope. Clinton, by contrast, reinforces her fighter image.

This is not a new dilemma for Obama. We’ve been talking about it for a year. What’s new is that he is under more pressure than ever to punch back. It’s not just that he can’t let Clinton’s attacks hang in the air. He has to show Democrats that he’s a fighter, too.”

Portraying Democrats as 4-year-olds who need a time-out should not be a formula for success for the next President, but who knows what resonates with Democratic voters?

At this point, Patterico is right. Pop some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show.

— DRJ