It seems to me, however, that no Democrat can win next year without uniting the Democratic base.  First, there are more people who identify as Democrats than Republicans.  So a united Democratic base gives an advantage going in.  Second, independents and Republicans can be a fickle bunch, especially after what is sure to be a very brutal, negative general campaign.  A lot of independents preferred Kerry for the nomination, too, but then abandoned him in the GE.

This  is  DEEPLY  offensive.  And  ARROGANT.  

And Barak  himself  has  said  he could  easily  get  Hillary's  votes,  but  he's  not  sure  Hillary  could  get  his.

They're  not  interested in   "unity."  

They're  interested  in  THEMSELVES.  

Wonder how they plan to heal the divisions they are creating in the Democratic Party...much less in the country and (heh) with Republicans?

1.  I agree with Krugman, you know, Krugman, the voice of reason who is now being fed to the wolves.  Obama has thrown my most important issue (universal healthcare -- HUGE, HUGE!) under the bus for the sake of winning an election.  I firmly believe a D wouldn't do that.

2.  Watering down nuclear legislation and then lying about passing even the watered down version. The man is a proven liar about issues people care about. Now tell me that's not worse than lying about a blow job.

3.  The extraordinary petulance.  All he'd need is the big floppy ears and I'd think he was Bush.

4.  The *Unity*(tm).  They have in no way shown that they want to even unite the D's.  Maybe they actually want to destroy them?

5. And I'll say it: He doesn't scream "competence".  An incompetent D erases any gains Bill Clinton's competency might have brought.  The media won't be as kind to a D as they were to Bush.

And the fact is....the majority of the so-called "Net Roots" candidates have turned out to be Bluedogs.  I honestly don't believe that's a coincidence anymore.

And the whole notion of an "evangelical candidate" really brings the bile up in the back of my throat, makes me truly wary.  A God does no wrong.

I saw someone refer to the "Mainstream Blogosphere" as the "Jonestown Blogosphere".  I wonder how many of the Obamamaniacs understand that reference....

MICHELLE OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

ROBERTS: That's not a given?

MICHELLE OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. and, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.  
www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith

The two party system is a recipe for polarization and frustrating levels of compromise. For example, everyone seems convinced that Hillary is some sort of "fighting dem" when she and her husband actually have a long record of craven capitulation (caved on health care, caved on gays in the military, caved on Lani Guenier, ended of welfare, ended "big govt,"  and let's not forget the defense of marriage act).  In fact, the only real battle they ever fought was to protect themselves from perjury and impeachment.

The capitulation (or triangulation, whatever) is a result of a flawed and polarizing system that doesn't allow different parties to form a consensus around mutually advatageous issues.  

Look at the fragmentation of the Republican party.  Wouldn't everyone be better off if we had a "social Conservative Party" a "Libertatian Party" a "Fiscal Conservative Party" a "Green Party" a "Liberal Party" etc.  If parties have to work together to get anything done, if candidates have to form a multi-party consensus to get elected, there's a far greater chance of issues crossing parties.  As it stands now, Republicans don't believe in global warming because it's a democrative party platform.  But what if you can attract social conservatives with the idea that we need to protect god's creation, etc?

Of course, HRC getting emotional when a mentor, who knew her back in 1972 at the Yale Child Study Center, chokes up while stating he's so proud of her is already all over the place...

I am so angry about the way the Obamas have been playing dirty trick about dirty trick that I seriously could care less is McCain wins.

We got over Reagan, we'll get over bush and McCain if Obama is the nominee.

1. I'm an Edwards supporter and not an apologist for anyone.
   
2. This video was put up by someone who set up their user account at YouTube today so we have no background on who this is.
   
3. The video is clipped to omit what Mrs. Obama said in full:

"Everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think we're all working for the same thing. Our goal is to make sure the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe Barack is the only person who can really do that."

That's unacceptable for someone in her position, who is actively campaigning for her husband across the country, giving speeches and appearing with endorsers. It was explicit disapproval of Hillary -- the "tone" part gives it away. Also, Obama and Hillary's agendas and policy positions are so similar.

Yesterday she appeared with Maria Shriver, Caroline Kennedy and Oprah. She's not a passive spouse in this election.

They both owe it to the Democratic party to actively support the nominee whoever it is. There is no acceptable "I'd have to think about that"

Obama is wrong and his wife is wrong, but this was an example of the Clinton's being too smart by half.

Maybe Bill forgot Edwards or thought Jesse Jackson was white. Maybe like the Alito-Scalia-Roberts Court, Bill Clinton is colorblind.

The Obama's did not think so and his wife is angry. The Clinton's reap what they sow so infrequently that progressives, and I am one, give them 1001 breaks and chances.

Michelle Obama is not ready for American politics because she is still a human and not a Focus-Group approved Brand.

P.S. I am not an Obamanaut. I resent the way people assume if you are tired of the Clinton's, you are not progressive (remember Welfare "Reform" and Iraq Vote? I DO). And I am tired of the new model that if Hilary's careful timid centrism makes you puke, you are a member of Spanky's Wimmin' Haters Club.

I am campaigning for Obama in the VA. primaries. If Clinton wins the nomination, I will vote for her, but I haven't thought about whether I will  campaign on her behalf.  

Comments made about Obama supporters has alot to do with it. If we are a cult, what are Clinton supporters. The beauty of all of this is, people in this country can choose who they prefer.  

The fact that MO said she will vote for Clinton, should be enough.  Whether she wants to campaign for her is a big to do about nothing. Her words were taken out of context by those looking for something to "b" about. Sounds just like kids in a play ground argument. (imo)

There are voters that want vote for Hilary if Obama looses. Same can be said about Hilary supporters. Some of them want vote for Obama. Thats a fact.

It   was  classless,  graceless,  and  tacky.  

If  Barak  can't  control   his  wife's  poor   manners,   he  can't  control  the  country.

Or  so Michelle  said,  about  Bill.  

It's getting really hard to keep translating all of these linguistic switches, these turns of phrase.