Or, if you prefer, they care more about taking control of the democratic party than they care about the success of the democratic party.  You've said it all along BTD, for some of the Obama folks (certainly not all or even most) it's about destroying the Clinton wing of the party.   Which will reduce the Democrats to minority status even if they keep control of Congress.  But that's okay because it will be their party, even if it's a party that can't get anything done.

Reagan Democrats  . . .  will probably never come back to the Democratic fold in the sorts of numbers that will swing an election to our Party in the years ahead.  That is because their instinctive focus on divisive social issues, their racial resentments . . .  their inherent distrust for government and its efficacy, and their disbelief in the power to effectuate real change through partisan means are directly contrary to the message of the post-racial, structurally focused and fundamentally optimistic Millennials that the Democratic Party should and must adopt going forward.  Reagan Democrats are not the present or future of the Party: new immigrants (especially Hispanics) and Millennials are.

Short version: old Democrats are small-thinking racist bigots who don't grasp the possibility of real change.  Millennials are smart, optimistic post-racial young gods whose inherent goodness makes it unnecessary to win elections.

There's another school of thought that says, screw that, I want to win.  I respect both schools.

Setting that issue aside, of course it's okay to think about a candidate's chances of winning, or we'd all be Kucinich supporters.  (Okay, not all of us.)  In fact, the argument that it's wrong to think about electability is generally a tell that says "my candidate is less electable."

But look, I don't kid myself into thinking I know for certain who can win and who can't.  I have my concerns about Obama, because he does have certain similarities to failed candidates of the past, but we've clearly never run a candidate with his overall combination of traits before.  So no one really knows.  I only have two simple things I ask of Obama and his supporters:

1. If we nominate you, please, please don't lose.

2. If you do lose, you sure as h*ll better not try to blame it on Hillary.

"If McCain and the Republican Party win the Presidency in 2008 despite losing Millennials for the 3rd straight election, it will by a Pyrrhic and short-lived victory."

Um, no. It will be 4 more years of what we have now.  It took Bush moments to push this country into its downward spiral. How long does this person think it will take McSame?

Maybe. I think it'll probably only realign the parties, with the recently-re-won Reagan Dems who helped the party take back Congress in 06 going right back to the Republicans. But maybe there are more college-educated white liberals in this country than I thought, the Adlai Stevenson wing of American society is growing, and it will be worth it to the DNC to appeal to it.

Who knows.

They could have.
They should have.
They didn't.

Yelling now that if Obama doesn't win (or some variation of SCOTUS fearmongering) is another version of, eg, waving Roe v. Wade every 4 years before going back to the business of usual of not giving a damn.

BTD, I know you're sincere in your concern from your past work in your fine work blogging about SCOTUS.

However, Dems and the misogynistic, anti "special" interest fauxgressive blogger-boiz be f*cking damned for their efforts to blow up prescient, hard working, out in front activists and their hard work on this front.

Reproductive rights (and the full human rights umbrella), eco-issues, franchise and free speech, constitutional integrity: worthy liberal causes all, were marginalized, dumped on, trashed and shredded even at "liberal" sites like dKos.

I. Wouldn't. Care. Anyway. And neither should you.

But I must say there is really something wrong with the argument that" if my favorite Democratic candidate should not be the nominee "that I should not care that, for just one example, John Paul Stevens has just turned 88. I can not fathom how any progressive could write" that. I really can't.

This will work against the Republicans because they can't attract young voters.

Think of the number of people who have said: "My kids (grandkids) are begging me to support Obama... that's never happened before."

The article discusses issues with the PA primary, but it will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out in the General Election.

The weakness in Barack Obama's support among older white voters appears to have trickled down to younger ones, at least in Pennsylvania, according to exit polls from the state's primary this week.

While Barack Obama carried voters under 30 years old on Tuesday by 20 points -- 60 percent to Hillary Clinton's 40 percent--he narrowly lost whites in the same age group by four points, 48 percent compared to Clinton's 52 percent.

Young whites were the only white demographic that Obama carried in close primaries leading up to Pennsylvania's, as he did in the Clinton stronghold of New York, and in states with racially polarized voting among older voters, such as South Carolina.

 You say you can't fathom why, but if you had read beyond your snippet--and since you can't fathom why he said it I can only assume you didn't--you would have a clear idea why.

And if you really cared to engage in something more than belittling and smear, you would have engaged the Millennial argument.