Obama is doing none of that, as should be obvious when you see that his platform is almost identical to Hillary's. His outreach to independents and Republicans is not about adopting their policies, it is about not declaring them evil enemies, its about showing them some respect, trying to charm and disarm them to facilitate their acceptance of our ideas.

It is an outreach to Republican VOTERS as people who have the same kind of underlying concerns as anyone else, seeking their support, not to Republican IDEAS or POLS, as was the case with Bill.

Outside groups who spend money on behalf of democrats not named Obama are special interests interfering in an election.  Outside groups who support Obama are only doing what is good and right.

A couple years ago people used to call across the room, "Bob, you've got another call from Bill Clinton." That was actually funny. Like maybe he wanted to play a round of golf with me or go out clubbing.

MoveOn doesn't have to represent the opinions and interests of most registered Democrats. Supporting Obama, however, does represent two-thirds of its members.

The ground game that Obama has run - both online, and in the states - has been phenomenal, amazing.  Really, just incredible.

That GOTV - it's ESSENTIAL for the November contest, especially if it can be focused down-ticket as well.

The campaign he has run IS a people-powered campaign, IS the campaign that we as the internet left, have been hoping for.

Yes, we would prefer that it be more in OPPOSITION to the repubs - but opposition doesn't inspire.

How many times can they text deep'n'meaningful stuff like "Dude, I'm 3 rows behind U [at a screening of, say, Juno] and your laugh is totally recognizable."

My generation's version was the cellphone call: "You'll never guess where I'm calling from ... " for the umpteenth time of the freakin' day.

Which predates the jerk behind homeplate at ballgames waving at the camera for three hours or the tropic camera critters jumping behind the nightly newshound doing a standup at Some Event.

My argument isd about OBAMA's hypcrisy.

HE criticizes ALL outside expenditures, not just 527 expenditures.

He criticized union PAC spending in Iowa and Nevada and elsewhere.

As usual, the Obama rules apply.

That said, you are right that in this post I am combining 527's with PACS because they are both outside support groups, and I find it curious or noteworthy that Obama criticizes Hillary for an outside group supporting her while outside groups are supporting him.

Sheri Z, Respectfully, with regard to "winning anyone over", I didn't have you in mind.

You also misread, and mis-characterized, what I wrote. That is a classic Republican "meme" (to use your word). I DIDN'T CALL NEW VOTERS GOP SHILLS, NOR DID I EQUATE NEW VOTERS WITH SO-CALLED INDEPENDENTS.

When I wrote "GOP shills", I actually meant what I actually wrote: GOP shills. And when I wrote "so-called independents", I was referring to GOP partisans who are posing as independents.

As for your: "Question: If you want to close the primaries what would your criteria be for deciding who gets to participate?"

Here's my Answer: I would use the same criteria that the DNC already uses in states where the primaries are CLOSED: only registered Democrats are allowed to vote in Democratic primaries. The idea being that, in states with open primaries, Republicans are free to be shills - meaning that they can vote in the Democratic primary - for the candidate who they think will be the weakest opponent in the GE.

This has become an even bigger problem now that McCain has secured a lock on the GOP nomination. In other words, Republicans can now, freely, use their vote in a Democratic open primary to vote for the guy who'll be weaker against McCain.