"Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win."

Kos incites mischief. But how can he be so sure Mitt is good for Democrats? I'd come to think he would be the strongest choice for Republicans. Kos's theory:

If we can help push Mitt over the line, not only do we help keep their field fragmented, but we also pollute Romney's victory. How "legitimate" will the Mittster's victory look if liberals provide the margin of victory? Think of the hilarity that will ensue. We'll simply be adding fuel to their civil war, never a bad thing from our vantage point.

Because it's all a big game, right? A big funny game.

"Politics isn't a game. It's about people..."

Oh, that's Hillary. You want Hillary, or hilarity? Or maybe both.

Anyway, Kos's theory seems not to be that Mitt is the weakest Republican candidate, but that a fragmented field is bad. But look at last night's debate. All the serious candidates — i.e., everyone but Ron Paul — looked good and made each other interesting. I think if one candidate had a lock on the nomination, we'd focus on him and get tired of him. And the other party would know whom they needed to attack and they'd frame their own choices accordingly. And that guy would receive all the attacks. Really, Kos, are you at all thinking straight?