As for Obama himself, I believe he is coming to the belated realization that he needs HRC's voters after all.

Whether he will actually begin reaching out to us in some meaningful way at this point, well...I guess we'll see.

I'm genuinely sorry BTD for your sake, (but not for Obama's, and certainly not the Party's sake), I wish I could make the effort.

Over-hauling the all-primary system for the future might be a nice idea, but its too late for this year.  It was still a back-room Party deal, and any system can be gamed by back-room Party deals.

I used to think Hillary was too loyal to ever take it to the Convention, but now I think its the best idea for it to be thrashed out once and for all.
I would like to see the power-struggle play out by ALL the rules, including the one that says the Convention is the place to resolve conflict.

This should have been a whole progressive in your face FDR (like Clinton on O'lielly) progressive Dem election...why did he run that bipartisan schtick?

Second, the nominee (see above) helps select a group of financial people that represent both the on-going funding of the DNC & the developing funding for the candidate's campaign.

Third, the nominee (above) works with the 50 state Democratic Party Chairs to coordinate the nat'l, state & local operations.

Fourth, all of the above meet with the grandees, poobahs & factotums of the Senate & Congressional campaign committees to coordinate activities.

As you can quickly see, Sen. Obama will have some difficulties making any of this function smoothly because approximately 50 percent of those folks may "have issues."  Nice touch, hunh?

Oh yeah and about my jacks and ball - yes I'm taking them home.

Damn right I am.

Barack is still a Gawd-awful candidate....so I'm not voting for him.

I don't kiss and make-up with abusers.  

Unless something drastic happens, the narrative of this primary is and always will be that the Democratic primary voters rejected the flagrant race-baiting of Bill and Hillary Clinton, aside from a few sad states in Appalachia.

The unity thing does nothing for me.  Unity to me is two or more groups coming together, not one group trying to beat the hell out of the other with reprehensible words and tactics and then trying to hold their hands afterwards.

I was trying to imagine what Obama could do make me relent and vote for him in the GE.  And there's nothing.  It's too late.  I'm not able to trust what he says.  He doesn't have a strong enough record to back up what he says he'll do.  Words alone, even had be been perfectly consistent throughout the campaign, are not enough, given his actions (or rather lack of action) in failing to rein in his hate-filled, misogynist supporters who disdain just about everything I am (female, working class background, Clinton supporter).

The armageddon scenario also does nothing for me, not anymore.  I won't vote for McCain and won't rejoice if he wins.  But I've voted Democrat in 6 elections and I keep waiting for the DNC to give two bits about my concerns.  I do understand the argument for coming together, and in fact made it many times to Nader supporters in 2000.  But there comes a time when you have to ask yourself, can I really lend myself to this bad choice, just because the other choice is worse?  By supporting Obama I would just be supporting all the things I hate, and have spent a lot of my life working against.

The most obvious is that gender-baiting can help you win an election.  I just can't go there.  But the less obvious is the way the country in general has slid down and away from reason and intelligence into superficial, sound-bite, American-Idol voting slickness.  No equal time, no analysis, no reasoned argument, just shouting, shouting shouting that I'm right and you're wrong.

So all the talk of unity, and trying to scare us with Roe v Wade (because of course all of Hillary's supporters are old women), is their all-thumbs attempt to bring us into the fold.