Divisiveness?

Every four years, for reasons I can't fathom, the New York Times turns its front page over to the idiotic musings of Ad Nag.

The Republican and Democratic presidential contests began diverging Tuesday, leaving the Democrats facing a long and potentially divisive nomination battle and the Republicans closer to an opportunity to put aside deep internal divisions and rally around a nominee.

The differing situations for the Republicans and Democrats have clear implications for both parties as they begin to move from the nomination battle toward the general election.

On the Democratic side, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama seem likely to continue their state-by-state struggle, after a night of tit-for-tat division of states and delegates, though Mrs. Clinton claimed the formidable prize of California.

But after months of disarray, Republicans seemed closer to coalescing around Senator John McCain of Arizona. As Mr. McCain logged victories in populous states, including California, and added more delegates to his count, he moved nearer his goal of wrapping up his competition with Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. A third Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, underlined Mr. Romney’s weakness by posting a series of victories, in a performance that highlighted the discomfort social conservatives have with the field.

Right, they're really coalescing around McCain.

Look, it's going to be an intensely competitive fight, at least for another two months, maybe all the way to the convention. There's going to be some bitterness, because it's, you know, a race. And yes, I worry that the loudest of the "Yes we can" chanting Obama supporters may be disappointed and possibly disillusioned should their candidate not win. But divisive? "Identity politics," as Ad Nag ventures later in this conventional wisdom mash-up? I guess he didn't hear the roar of approval at the lasat debate when Blitzer suggested they run as a team.

Democrats are sorry one has to lose.

Republicans are just sorry.