The real problem is that of the three factors Clinton thinks delegates should take into account, electability concerns are the first two factors.

Well, DUUUUUHHHHHHHH!!! GETTING THEIR CANDIDATE ELECTED IS THE PURPOSE OF A POLITICAL PARTY. The rest of is just window dressing. Soul has nothing to do with politics. The presidential campaign is basically a job interview. The candidates present their credentials and ideas to the voters and the voters decide who they want to hire. What the hell does "soul" have to do with that?? Not a damn thing.

Example here.  Money quote:

"But because of the history of some of the battles that have taken place back in the '90s, it is true that she tends to galvanise the other side."

Clinton making electability arguments is insulting.

Every argument is about Obama's electability, and "progressives'" positions on his healthcare plan, for instance, ARE positions that are based on [perceptions of] electability (Kerry:  mandates won't get through the Senate, etc.).  Never have I heard so much in my life from the 'Dem' side on how UHC is 'impossible.'  Bowers' two rules to me make no sense (especially when applied to certain Dem winners, like the economy).  

I don't really read him with enough regularity to know.

Some bloggers I've read claim that Clinton will shut down the netroots/grassroots movement if she is elected and they seem to have convinced themselves that Obama is a huge supporter of these movements.

I don't know how Clinton can put this genie back in the bottle and I am not convinced that Obama has any real emotional attachment to these constituencies.  I think his use of the people is more strategic than heart-felt.

What I find curious is why Obama has not showed up at dkos since 2005.  He doesn't have an internet coordinator that makes appearances like poor Peter Daou does.  He has been completely AWOL from the blogs except HuffPo and yet a lot of these people seem to think he loves them and supports their mission.

I would have to ask how stupid does Chris Bowers have to be to write the following:

"Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change. I'll work hard to help elect him, but I also don't intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President."

Talk about soul-less. He thinks because he is "intelligent" enough to realize that Obama is not going to persue any kind of progressive agenda - and may even persue a reactionary one, he can go ahead and work for his election with a clear conscience. That is not only stupid, but elitist.

In addition, Bowers also wrote "...I simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well."

What demographic groups is he referring to - and what does he mean by "cultural preference"? Bowers writes "That meant men, liberals, urban dwellers, the highly educated, etc. And together, that is what I meant by culture".

This is both astonishing and angering. To openly write that he is influenced in his choice by being part of the demographic of "men" is beyond stupid in my opinion. To combine these "demographics" he names to define any kind of "culture" is sickening.

1. Bill Clinton's administration is responsible for the financial mess the US is in right now. The Bushco tax cuts to the wealthy, outsourcing our government functions to private industry, and tripling the deficit instead of paying it off had nothing to do with it.
   
2. "Social Security is in crisis" and their Harry & Louise campaign against UHC was right; after all, they've been "the party of ideas" for the last 10-15 years.
   
3. We shouldn't rule out private militaries for our national security.
   
4. The Democratic president should emulate Reagan and Bush41 in foreign policy.
   
5. We should appoint Republican senators to important cabinet positions in Defense and Security, apprently because Democrats can't be trusted with responsibility on those issues.
   
6. Bloomberg would be a good Democratic VP, a man who left the Democratic Party when we needed him most and ran and was elected twice as a Republican.
   
7. Getting along with Republicans is much more important that making sure that Democratic values and ideals return our government to working for the common good.

as it stands, sen. obama is not electable in nov., too many freshly minted negatives, to be gleefully exploited by the republican/right-wingnut smear machines.

in fairness, sen. obama is not wholly without substance. it's just that most of his is derivative; he waits for sen. clinton, or anyone else, to propose something, and then he latches onto it, with perhaps a minor tweak here and there. technically, that's substance.

This was the party of smart people, who would change the course of our country in a positive and progressive way. Ant-war, pro-choice, universal health care, etc. But that's not what this party is now.

Currently, the Democratic Party is an embarrassment. Stripping FL and MI of all of their delegates. Pelosi throwing her passive aggresive superdelegate inuendos around, getting senior democratic officials into the mix, not by endorsing their candidate, but by trashing the candidate's opponent, etc, etc.

I kept writing in posts that the best thing to do would be to vote for Obama if Hillary lost the nomination. By losing the nomination, I meant that if she wasn't able to win the popular vote, or win by Super Delegates, Barrack should get the vote in the GE. (Since neither candidate will reach the delegate number they want, I think the popular vote is the best option).

Seriously, the Presidential race is a marathon, not a sprint, and right now, he's barely past the first mile.  If he's this fatigued in March, when he's got plenty of money, an adoring media, and tons of crowds, what's he going to be like in May? In July? In October? Is he going to be off on vacation while the media turns hostile (which they will)?  Is he going to be windsurfing while the Republicans define him on their own terms?  Is he going to blow another 20 point lead, like Dukakis?

For nearly every issue Hillary has proposed an idea, Barack has also proposed an idea. On his website and in his speeches, he has laid out specific ideas concerning the war, the economy, education and healthcare. And yet, we continue hearing this "without substance" smear - and from Democrats, no less. Et tu Brute.

The longer Obama stays in it the more we know of him and his numbers have at this point stagnated. So when his Obots goad Hillary to move out of the way sos he could get the nomination screams entitlement and arrogance that he's bored already; likens it to Bataan, the death march. His arrogance can't be ignored anymore. Does America need this guy?  The GenX and Yers tell you it does. But outside of cyberspace? I am not convinced there is enough support for Camelot circa 2008.

So, the new line is she can stay in as long as she likes, etc.

Seems it might be poll driven, not a recognition she does have a right to remain as long as there's a chance.