It's the only explaination that makes actual sense. Obama's campaign people aren't idiots. They were well-oiled and discipline enough to stand up against an absolute powerhouse like Hillary (and it helped that Hillary's side made some major blunders, to boot).

They wouldn't do this, just to "turn the dagger".

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Gore, and others all appear at the announcement event in a huge show of democratic unity.

Us angry voters forgive and forget.

I'm over the hope I had that Hillary would be our next president, though if something were to change that, I'd be jumping for joy. What I am not over is what the Democratic Party has become. I don't recognize them anymore, and I sure don't trust them.

Obama the Delegator Picks When to Take Reins

This kind of behavior from Obama reminds me so much of Dubya's behavior over the past 8 years, it's almost uncanny.  

Also if Clinton was in on it, it's a bit disconcerting that her friends and bundlers were so blown away by Doyle's appointment.

All in all, I will say this is still a big f* you.  A terrible PR move.  Clinton loyalists will see this (and at the moment, rightfully so) as a slap to Clinton.  At this point for the Obama team, that should be all that matters.

He is to address a lunchtime meeting of the Black Caucus, facing both his supporters and one-time opponents.

Obama will likely be pressed on whether he plans to ask Clinton to be his running mate. Clinton has indicated she is interested in the so-called dream ticket. Yet some Obama backers don't want Clinton as the vice presidential nominee. Obama has not answered directly whether he will put her on the ticket, and he may be pressed on why he wouldn't want to pick the former first lady who attracted more than 18 million votes in the primary."

In any event, it makes little sense to alienate voters.  That's the part I don't get.  Don't politicians need voters to vote for them?  Why would anybody write off voters through gratuitously insulting them?  It's not like you're taking a principled stand, or anything.  You're just calling names.  How hard is it to refrain from doing that?  Why wouldn't you want to refrain from insulting people and calling names?  What does it cost?

"What can one say about that except to chuckle?"

You could disagree civilly - for example by making a reasoned argument - but you could also ignore it and stay quiet.

"from the inmates around here"

This is trolling.

Dr. Dean's prescription is "no Hillary Clinton nomination" from the floor.  Get out now, lady.

Every day the junior senator from New York stands pat, that much weaker the DNC hand will look.  It appears as if the new power brokers will figuratively poke her in the every few days.  She plays along with all of their schemes & [donch'a just love this!!!] behaves very graciously & ladylike----bwahhahahahah.

However, while that post you are responding to may have been a little over the top, it is a very fair assessment to look at the primaries and see what a weak general election candidate we could possibly have on our hands.  Hillary Clinton won almost all of the major states and major swing states by very substantial margins.

The fact of the matter is, the flaws of both candidates campaigns are inherent in how they ran them -- Clinton ran a General Election campaign, winning and solidifying her support where she needed to win in November.  Obama ran a Primary Election campaign, doing what he needed to do to win enough delegates to get the nomination.

"He is making fools of people like you"

Is that what makes you so happy?  That he is making fools of people that most would argue he needs in order to win in November?

How, exactly, does that work - you know, pointing and laughing and gloating - is that your formula for a general election win?  If so, I have to tell you that it's probably not going to work very well - the more names you call, the less likely we are to, you know, actually vote for your guy.

Were it not for Obama's early caucus wins - and I give him props for working that system to a fare-thee-well - he'd have been dead in the water after Texas and Ohio.  From that point on, Clinton racked up impressive wins in big states that Dems must have in November to win.  He outspent Clinton by impressive exponentials - and still lost - decisively.

He needed to prevent Florida and Michigan from re-voting, he needed the DNC to make a backroom deal for him, he needed the entire media fleet out there making his case, and even with all that, he came within an eyelash of losing.  But for the strong-arm tactics of party "leaders" and threats from people like Clyburn and Brazile, he'd never, ever, have made it to where he is today.

When it's that close, and you need the party to help drag you over the finish line, bragging about the "winning strategy" seems to show a complete lack of grasp of reality.

For months, the man with the winning strategy has used everything he could to get Hillary out of the race - he's not used to actually having an opponent, after all, and it was painfully obvious that he just wanted her to get out of the way and let him win.  But the woman refused to lose - kept winning, and the more she won the louder he called for her to get out.  He did everything but jump up and down and threaten to hold his breath and turn blue.

It remains to be seen what will happen between now and November - or now and August for that matter.  With the news on a minute-to-minute cycle, those 300+ electoral votes could vanish in the blink of an eye.  No one thought Kerry could possibly lose to Bush in 2004 - so I would be very careful about taunting people who have the power to change the outcome.

Now, who is this supposed to STOP from voting for Obama?  His most ardent supporters who keep threatening Clinton supporters with the supreme court picks?  Are they saying Obama's support with the latte crowd and the young voters is so WEAK that they couldn't suck it up and vote for him with Clinton on the ticket for the sake of the supreme court even though they keep telling Clinton supporters that we MUST or the whole country will be ruined?  Are they saying they would be willing to ruin the country if Clinton is the VP choice?

I had to think why?  Then I seen in the headlines this and Gore but I thought wow now all of this.

She is obviously qualified, and garnered a zillion votes.

Is he afraid of being in the shadows?

Is Michelle competitive with her?

I don't think Hillary Clinton would have had any problem running with Obama if the shoe had been on the other foot.

The more he waits, and the more crappy decisions he makes that must be distasteful to Clinton, the less the likelihood that she would accept.

Is this another example of Obama wanting tight control over everything and everyone, including his VP? Is he really that conscious of sharing power or being seen as getting over-powered by someone else that he won't even let them hire their own staff? I just don't understand this.

John Nance Garner, who became Franklin Roosevelt's VP after losing the nomination to him in 1932, famously described the office as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss."

leadership starts at the top. so far, sen. obama has displayed scant amounts. this is highly indicative of what an obama presidency would look like.