I have some sympathy for Obama here. He has campaigned in a way that denigrates the Clinton presidency, which was an appealing tactic to broad numbers of voters and independents. It was not principled, it was pragmatic. He didn't/doesn't differ from her in many policy-related ways, so this  ("she's a Clinton, Clintons are bad, I am change") is how he campaigned.

Now, of course, that it (hypothetically) comes time to pick a VP nominee, the pragmatic thing to do is ... pick the person he's spent so much time and energy bashing. Some of his supporters will clearly be enraged if he does, even if many (not all) of HRC's supporters will see it a good move.

As to despising Clinton supporters--hey, imagine for a moment being a person who for 20 or 30 or 60 years has had 'democrat' as part of her identity.      Plus I, at least, have a gay family member who is very edgy about McCain.

But principles must be upheld by at least a few people, and the party will not be fixed by nominating and electing an unqualified person to the highest office.  I see too much likeness to Bush 2, and a scary and totally repelling similarity to a number of demagogues and con merchants I have observed.

She said it.  She speaks for the DNC.  NOT one MEMBER of the DNC came out and refutted those comments.

Two of the most important constituent groups in the Democratic party are supporting history making nominees and unfortunately, only one will win and the other's backers will be disappointed. Neither group has the "right" to the nomination, they competed under the same rules.

Only one way of winning is fair and that's by obtaining the most delegates since that is the method that the nomination is awarded.

Once 2,026 delegates are won (and we have to go by that number since the holder of that number of delegates will be in control of the credentials committee and be able to apportion the delegations of the penalized states of MI & FL) it is over. That's the process that is in place for this year. If you want to change it to Popular Vote or Electoral Vote or All Caucus or All Primaries or All Super Delegates, you can...next election cycle. Anything else is just an attempt to sabotage the existing nomination process and obtain the nomination by coup.

If you are interested in electing a Democrat, in stopping 4 more years of Bush and interested in preventing more right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court, the loser and their backers must to accept that this was close but they lost.

This applies equally to both the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

1. Bill Clinton must heal the party. WTF???
   
2. Everything is Hillary's fault.

What I cannot live with is despising myself for voting for someone I not only dislike, but loathe. I cannot in all good conscience vote for someone that I find divisive, dishonest, shallow, arrogant, misogynistic, and guilty of calling people racist simply because we don't want to vote for him. There are more reasons but that's a good start.

Others may not see Obama in the same light that I do. That is their right. I am simply saying how "I" see him and his campaign. I am well aware that he is not responsible for all the ugliness that Obama supporters have committed. But he sets the tone. And the tone has been ugly.

I don't remember those on the left willing to give GWB a pass on the ugliness committed on John McCain by Bush surrogates and supporters. I find such double standards offensive.

I will not vote for Obama. I will not vote for McCain. It is my right to cast my vote as best suits my conscience. If that is despicable, so be it.

Why not "envision" what has already happened:  Clinton has gotten a lot of white working class voters on board again.  And you want to say, no, let's start over, I didn't blog about that, whine whine whine?

Hillary has maintained her hold on the Democratic base.  Barack Obama's support is a mix of blacks, ultra liberals, college students, and faux Democrats made up of Independents and Republicans, who may or may not support him in the general election.  I question the depth of his true support.  

As for if Barack can win without Clinton supporters, no way.  He is a vacuous, and narcissistic individual that thrives on adoration, but is rather lazy when it comes to the nuts and bolts of policy. This sounds like the Democratic version of George Bush to me.

The Heraclitan Fire blog has an excellent post entitled "Not now, not ever - A repudiation of Obama and the New Bolsheviks and an Interesting Possibility" from 5/18/08.  It is an excellent read.

I believe you have said you are 45 years old.

I have been a good and faithful Democrat, election after election, for just about as long as you have been on this planet.

The only way I believe I could possibly vote for Obama, as I have said, is if it became crystal clear that McCain would make preemptive war against another nation.

You think this was not an excruciating decision.
The problem for me is that I see this as a moral imperative and no one, including you, has the right to judge me or my reasons for reaching that decision.

Questioning my judgment or moral justification is somewhat akin to saying that the reason I voted for Clinton is because I am a racist.  I will proudly write in Hillary Clinton and vote for every Democrat down ballot, if she should not get the nomination.

Obama has some very serious baggage and most Democrats -- I'm guessing even Super Delegates don't know it's there.

I asked Ezra months ago about the truth & importance of one of those issues and Ezra's answer is that no one cares about it.  The trouble person isn't Obama, it's someone he knows.  Oh really?

Look, I know we're not to talk about this stuff here or just about anywhere else.  

But, I think that unless Obama figures out how he's going to deal with it in the GE, he's got a lot more problems than Clinton Democrats.

Can some one list for me the the things that the Clintons did that  were so terrible that Obama  equates them  to the same level as the Bush administration?

He was a two term Democrat president
He left the highest financial surplus ever.
He left with I think was a 65 approval rating.

Why would Obama say all this is bad.  What am I missing here?

Could it be that Obama deep down inside is saying

Senior officials on Obama's campaign believe Bill Clinton has the unique status and political gifts to reunite the party after such gaffes [by HRC]. They expressed confidence that the former president would rise above the perceived slights and grudges of a hard-fought campaign and work flat out for an Obama victory in November's presidential election.

"If anybody can put their arms around the party and say we need to be together, it is Bill Clinton," a senior Obama aide said.

"He's brilliant, he has got heart and he cares deeply about the country. It's tricky because of his position as Hillary's spouse, but his involvement is very important to us.

"Bill Clinton will give permission to Hillary supporters to come into our camp and become one party. He is critical to this effort."

One, I don't agree that the division is Hillary's fault so I'm already angry.

Two, we want Bill, but not Hillary?  WWTBQ becomes WWTBG(et)L(ost).

Three, what "one party" are we supposed to become?  Go into "our camp" and become "one party"?  I'm not sure I'm going to like their party.

It is a delicate matter to bring Bill Clinton on board. The former president believes that Obama should offer his wife the vice-presidential slot as a mark of respect after she proved her electoral strength in the big must-win states for Democrats, but her latest error is widely perceived to have squandered what little chance she had.

"It would be hard to take the country in a new direction with the Clintons in the White House," a source in the Obama campaign said. "They bring controversy."

From this, it's clear to me that the only reason to bring Bill on board is to marginalize both him and Hillary.

NO!

I am not surprised that someone who spent 20 years with Rev Right would think this way..  No accident there.

Quit frankly I think BO and GWB are quit similar.. Two divisive people who are being packaged as "uniters", change agents. Two people who are immature, incapable of facing strong opposition directly, blame their failings on others, (white, working class voters don't like me because they are racist).  

Neither of these men had achieved anything significant before they were forced on us  as a reasonable choice to be president of the country.. In fact, BO's resume is thinner than GWB's was...  He is a better package than GWB but the immaturity and arrogance are very similar

1. the rules say going to the convention is Ok and has been done many times before....

2. Obama is clearly the least experienced and least knowledgeable as proven by his many gafts....

3. Hillary is now in the electoral polls clearly the stronger candidate...

However, what you have now is the Clinton's bringing scorn upon themselves.  Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary, RFK's assasination, 3am phone call, praising John McCain..the list goes on.

That is why many Democrats are turning on the Clinton's.

As to naming Hillary the V.P...the VP is the 2nd in command.  Many previous candidates have selected a VP based on electoral considerations.  In reality, the VP should be someone that the Presidential candidate feels comfortable with as a 2nd in command that they feel that they can work with.  Bush specifically chose Cheney for those reasons.