It seems that many of us who are skeptical of both candidates have reiterated that we will vote for the nominee. But the request that voters do so hasn't come from the Obama camp.

However, Clinton has made several different salvos into this idea that party members should rally around the nominee instead of voting for McCain.

I was struck by the fact that she voiced this at the event down in New Orleans as well as other places.

Points two and four are easy.  He's as much as done this already.  Point one isn't going to happen.  It's become part of the battle for the nomination, and both sides played and are playing to win.  Point three is a tougher call.  As I've said before, he may have no choice in the matter if he wants to keep the Clinton voters in the fold.

I just read another article in the Miami Herald about Dean continuing his side-stepping about seating/not seating our FL delegates and I immediately got angry at Obama, as well, not only at Dean.

I believe he should move to settle the MI/FL dispute, preferably by revotes. He can not wait until he has reached the non-FL/MI 2025 number to do this. He should do it when the nomination is, at least ostensibly, still in doubt. This is essential to a sense of fairness for Clinton supporters AND to providing Michiganders and Floridians inclusion in the nomination process.

I believe that if he was truly a strong front-running candidate, he would have made a move for revotes or accepting the delegations long ago.

What scares me about his reluctance to do this is that it can only mean that he believes it will have a negative impact on his campaign.

I've been very active in Michigan politics and a lifelong Democrat, but man alive, I hate hearing all of this sudden "concern" for Michigan's Primary, but not nearly enough for us voters.

It's worse when I see out of stater's telling us to effectively stone our Democrats here for doing this, when they're the only ones attempting to keep this state halfway sane in terms of policy.

But it'll be very difficult for me to vote in the Presidential should Obama win without Michigan representation.  Sounds petty, sounds bitter, but then again, not electing to vote absentee is such an easy thing to do.

• that it ain't over until the fat lady sings and this presupposition of yours that Obama needs to start considering this is entirely premature.

• that a considerable number of Hillary supporters have already tuned Obama out and there's probably little Obama himself can do or say to bring them back in. I'll not go through the demographics of this but it's a real problem.

• that his nomination apparently will require a beatdown of both Florida and Michigan, thereby insulting to Democrats in those states.

• Obama has shown little connection to the mainstream core Democrats or their issues and it's not as if he suddenly becomes interested in the LGBT community, women's reproductive rights, lowering taxes for the poor, etc., that he gets them back. He's so determined to find the middle that he makes Nader a very reasonable option. Your notion that he should 'acknowledge and embrace the fact that his is a Democratic agenda' is an admission that he has utterly failed to make that point. The reality of his attitude is that if he is the nominee, then the Democratic agenda is his agenda because he is the nominee which means that there will be too many uninspired, uninvolved and ultimately, left behind.

We should allow the process to play out, and respect the rights of people in the remaining states to express their true preference about who will make a better president. We should not pressure them to cast a vote for the good of the party, rather than one according to their own conscience. We should also respect the rights of the superdelegates to make their independent choice.

Meteor Blades tells us that it doesn't really matter who the nominee is as long as the democrats win. If that is the case, then why not be willing to respect that Clinton could win under the rules of the process through the vote of the superdelegates? If this election is so important fo a democrat to win, then the entire premise that the argument is based upon- that Clinton cannot win without tearing the party apart is a contradiction. If that was true then Obama supporters should not allow the fact that they don't like the way the nomination process is set up to sway them to not vote for the democrats in November.

I think BTD's suggestions are a lot more constructive. Anything the loser does to unify the party gets treated with suspicion as a ploy for support for themselves, especially if that person is named Clinton.

Obama needs to be the uniter. For the love of god, that is his whole reason for being in the race. Asking the person he has called 'polarizing' for the last year to do his uniting for him would be the height of hypocricy.  (Not that that would stop a politician)

His campaign knew he could get the black vote by crying racism, and using preacher cadence, hope, unity, etc.

And he could grab the far left with the "No" on the Iraq war, tho' never had to vote on it in the beginning.

His health care and economic plans are Republican lite, I ever hear him saying anything about unifying the party, tha he will be behind Hillary if she is the nominee.

Of course!

First -- let's get those REPUBLICANS "MODERATES" appointed to the WH Cabinet.  Let's give them DEFENSE and the TREASURY -- eh?

And stay tuned, DanGerStein -- you may have a future in politics yet!!!

Second, Obama can pretend that Al Gore would also accept some subflunkie role in his on-the-job-learning administration.

Third, two words:  JOE LIEBERMAN (appointed to replace Howard Dean).

It is the job of the candidates to earn someone's vote, not the responsibility of the voter to give their vote to a person or a party.  

This is what I wrote to the DNC today...

"Dear Democrats,

I am a female Pennsylvania Democrat, and I am angry.

Florida and Michigan have to either be re-done or accounted for as they currently stand. Hillary should be awarded the delegates she earned.

Obama will have NO legitimacy whatsoever, in my view, until all the votes are counted. How can he argue that he won by the will of the people?

If the Democratic party won't count all the votes, then it isn't very democratic, is it?

My candidate will be Hillary, whether she is nominated or not.

BTW, you are all so afraid of losing the black vote if Obama doesn't get the nod. You need to be worried about the women's vote if Hillary doesn't get the nod. We are the backbone of this party. I personally think the party has taken women for granted for too long.

If you have really viewed the misogynistic and vicious treatment that Hillary Clinton has received unacceptable and unworthy of the progressive wing of the democratic party as you state, then why are you still posting on the blog that has exhibited some of the most virulent aspects of that which you claim to deplore? Why have you not written and spoken out consistently against the malign acceptance of sexism from progressives - as has BTD for example? Did you push back publicly against the unbelievable trash from Kos about the darkening of Obama's picture by the Clinton campaign? Have you called out Keith Olbermman? Randi Rhodes? Half of the posters and most of the commenters on Daily Kos?

Whether I shall have any further service to the government besides praying for it, I do not know.

The facts are simple enough and have been hashed enough on TalkLeft that:

• Obama chose to take his name off the ballot in MI
  
• Apparently you find it easy to disregard the fact that 2.3 million Democrats voted in FL and MI (record numbers)
  
• If Obama is capable of reaching across the aisle for consensus, why is it so difficult for him to reach consensus with another Democrat on a strategy to re-vote in FL and MI?
  
• It makes absolutely no sense for Obama or the Democratic party to risk alienating FL and MI voters by tossing their votes out simply because they had the temerity of holding their votes early...but I suppose it's your party too...I'm sorry that we embrace too many who are so willing to stand on rules that they will risk losing in November. Rules can be changed but principles do not change (i.e. Votes count and we count votes).

He is one of the few people in the blogosphere that I really respect....He has been right on so many issues over the years....His activism has been for many unpopular causes and people....the nobodys

So let's be honest... You are a troll spouting the same tired lies and lines.  

But why would I work for him? My two issues are Social Security and Universal Health Care. Obama dogwhistled on the first, won't deliver on the second, and his (more youthful) base won't push him on those issues, because they don't need them (yet).

Makes more sense to me to support Congressional Democrats, who aren't Blue Dogs, that want to do the right thing on my issues (and, of course, no money at all do Dean).

Also, delegates can switch at the caucuses in WA state because I was there yesterday when it happened.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was that Sen. Clinton said delegates could switch candidates and that was wrong somehow. Technically, yes, they can and do switch sides. That's one reason whips are assigned to ride herd over their candidates' delegates at caucuses and conventions.

I also remember watching a convention from way back that showed a delegate poached from the opposition being surrounded by his newest BFFs. I can't recall which convention it was because I was a kid, but it was in black and white and rowdy as all get out. I thought it was great.

I think if he's nominated there will still be posturing and power moves and humiliation to be served. I think he will go through some of the motions as any good politician would. I don't think he would let MI/FL happen until it's too late to make any difference. I think he would consider asking Clinton for VP only because it would be humiliating to her, but I don't think he would for fear she might accept.

I actually think some of these underlying power plays aren't even about winning the presidency in '08, and some of the people behind the scene's would be fine if Obama looses, as long as Clinton and others are pushed out.

I suspect if he gets the nomination Clinton will indeed go through the motions of trying to unify as the post referenced suggests. I think she will be thinking of her senate career and a possibility against McCain in '12. But mostly about immediate political survival. But she won't be the fall guy for a dem loss in '08 and she'll position herself to insure that.

All of that being said - there is literally nothing that Clinton can say or do that will get me to vote for a bigot. I'm a Democrat because I want to see people, regardless of race or gender or class, treated fairly. Obama clearly has huge issues with women, and I don't believe we will fair any worse under a McCain presidency than under an Obama one. I don't think McCain is one iota more likely to overturn Roe v Wade than Obama or less liikely to pull us out of Iraq. Obama looks like a status quo kinda guy to me and I think he's gonna come in and validate a lot of George Bush's predations upon our Constitution. Look how far right he's tilted the party already. No universal health care if he wins, and 60k troops in Iraq until 2010. Forget that brigade or two a month. Oh, and social security? We need to do something according to Obama and George Bush.

Rather, I'm writing to ask you - to plead with you - to admit to yourself what is clear to nearly everyone who is closely following this contest: Your chances of getting the nomination are slim. Your chances of getting the nomination in a way that can heal the party for the unified run we need to win in November are nil.

And:

That isn't how things are, however. You've fought hard. But you've lost. Acknowledging that, accepting it, and acting graciously and selflessly on it right now would mean the Democrats - your supporters and the supporters of other candidates who have already left the contest - could unite behind Barack Obama without further delay. It would mean we could get on with the process of regaining the White House and dealing with the problems this nation has avoided for decades.

And:

Right now you can have an instantaneously positive impact on the coming general election that will never again be as powerful. You can seize the moment, today, tomorrow, early next week, and give the Democratic nominee an edge in November. Or you can hang in there and hamstring us.

1. An Obama/Clinton ticket will not work. It just won't. I'm surprised you don't realize this. No positives, all negatives.

2. Michigan/FL revotes are dead. Obama should just seat the delegates, much easier and simpler. I doubt this will happen.

and I stopped going to DK since BarbMD and the rest of the pack kept calling for Hillary to step down, they don't strike me as a fair bunch, as much as they want to seem 'progressive'.

Hillary is in the true spirit and tradition a Democrat.I don't feel that way with the Obama fans.

They want this to be some kind of coronation as Hillary mentioned in her speech yesterday.