(ps, it means It's OK if you're an Obama supporter)

The orange blog has a current front-page post which basically says

Clinton "Clinton Open to Being Obama's Veep.  I'm Open to Being the Detroit Tigers' Second Baseman."

Senator Hillary Clinton has run a superb campaign and has proven to be a hard worker while gaining the support of many key constituencies that will be essential for Democratic success in November.

It is now time to close ranks and time for all remaining delegates to put their support behind the presumptive nominee, Senator Obama. Senator Obama has run an effective campaign and has overcome many obstacles to create an energy that has brought many new Democrats into the party. Together, both of these candidates have generated an unprecedented involvement in Democratic Party politics. This is something that all Democrats can be proud of.

Both CNN and RCP have Texas at 99-94, whereas the caucus results (which are not yet final) were 37-30, and so the final results are: 98-95 (a net difference of 2 delegates).  

Delegates for Iowa and some other places are not finalized, and as we know Michigan delegates were stolen (to the tune of 55+8 half delegates or 27.5+4 in final numbers).

This has been the most shameful episode of media choosing an empty suit and forcing him down the throat of a whole nation.

HRC:
OH
TX
RI
PA
IN
WV
KY
PR
SD

BO:
VT
WY
MISS
NC
OR
MT

All this technology around us, and on many of the most important matters, we have gone backwards.

A country with any real ability to think, and not be told, would not have re-elected Bush in 2004.

A great argument can be made that 2008 will be an example of how things are getting even worse.

Obama is better than McCain.  But look at how we have gotten Obama, or almost Clinton.

CNN is also now trashing Hillary clinton terribly. I just heard an Obama supporter and GOPer talking about her and Bill and it made me sick.

She only was in the race because she was Bill's wife...Bill is a terrible hot head...Obama is Bobby Kennedy...

Fer cryin' out loud.

Hillary go get them all and teach them some ethics and some manners.

This makes BTD's thread about how to handle it a moot point.

Straight for the throat.

Stunning arrogance and timing too.

Like this:

"Today, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) endorsed Barack Obama for President. Waters switched her endorsement from Clinton to Obama citing his ability to unite the country and leadership on issues such as the housing crisis and war in Iraq."

Yet, the Obama campaign and most of his supporters are saying that it is all up to Hillary to unite the country.

What I don't understand is why would superdels for Hillary jump ship today? Is it really necessary?

And watch as Hillary's is pushed into the ditch as they place the crown on the other one.

I don't see why she has to make the decision to suspend her campaign tonight, or even tomorrow or even this week, nor do I think she should be pressured to do so.

Driving home tonight, I was entertaining the thought of whether there would be anything that could change the outcome - what exactly would it take for the delegates to be convinced that Hillary is the better candidate when nothing has done that so far?  

Will there even be any more polling?  I suppose that if Obama does not seem to be able to pull convincingly ahead of McCain, I can see the media doing that thing where they pretend they weren't instrumental in creating this match-up, and asking things like, "Did the Democratic superdelegates act too soon?"  "What happens if the Democrats decide they made a mistake and actually consider changing their votes and nominating Clinton at the convention?"

I am half-expecting the media to get the bright idea that they could cash in big-time if they can engineer a convention floor fight - there is nothing they love more than ratings and attention, and I don't see them being content to just let anything alone.

I'm sorry this is OT but comments closed before I could post.

I wish there were more of you, I might have been able to get behind Obama.

But I think Obama and the DNC had already disregarded your sentiments but running the last SD endorsements this afternoon, timed just before the end of the business day.  I can't find any sensitivity in that, not at all.  If they thought the'd win SD and MT, then celebrate tonight and run the endorsements tomorrow.  If they thought Clinton would win, well then be gracious and let her celebrate just once.  It's the pettiness and ungraciousness that ices the cake for me.

This party is really fractured - and the deep wounds are not easily dismissed.  I am tired of hate speech from Obama supporters.  I am not a racist.  I just want a candidate who knows what she is doing. Obama can't even figure out how to leave a hateful church.

    As rumors circulate that Clinton would be open to the VP slot (see here), I feel compelled to make the case for why Obama should select her as VP.

The argument:
(1) Clinton should be Obama's VP
(2) But it must be handled correctly

Why Clinton should be VP:
She is the best choice available
2008 is a Democratic year. It is a change election. Obama is Mr. change. Electing Obama as President of the United States will represent the cleanest possible break from and repudiation of the abysmal years of George W. Bush. Having the Clintons in the wings will not water down that brand. The biggest threat that we face in this election is a divided party. If our party is fully united, our coalition will be larger than McCain's and we will roll in November. Clinton as VP absolutely eradicates the threat of a divided party. No other candidate can promise a united party (not even Al Gore, who will not be VP in any event).

In short:
*    Clinton will bring the women
*    Both Clintons will help with the Latino vote
*    She guarantees a unified party
*    Our coalition with an Obama/Clinton ticket will be bigger than McCain's and we will demolish the GOP in November.

How it can be done right:
Define her role early:
Clinton's role should be defined - she could be the VP that acts as a health care czar. This gives her a defined role in the administration that is confined but important. If Clinton's role is defined from the outset, Obama will avoid the "what's her role?" question and the idea of some sort of "co-presidency". Defining her role early may also dampen the notion that Obama was "forced" to pick Clinton. Also, from Clinton's point of view, she will be able to define her legacy as the woman who fixed the American healthcare system.

Obama as Lincoln: The Great Unifier
Importantly, by bringing the Clintons into his tent and putting them in their proper place, Obama will validate his reputation as the great unifier. He will be the man who beat the biggest brand in Democratic politics and then brought them into his camp and put them in their proper place. Talk about power.  

The issue of Bill:
He has been a lose cannon and a liability for Hilary during the democratic primary. But the general election campaign against McCain will be less of a kid glove affair. If Bill says something rising to the Jesse Jackson comment regarding McCain, it would not create a similar hailstorm. Democratic on Republican action is more rough and tumble and in this sense Bill will be more of an asset than a liability.

It's the Economy stupid
The Obama campaign has rightly indicated that they are going to make the general election about the economy (cue McCain clip about not understanding how the economy works). Can you think of a better reminder of the good economic times of the `90's than Bill Clinton? Again, the Clintons are an asset here.

Dealing with the counterarguments:
Clinton as VP will dampen excitement among Obama's base
    I really don't see how this is possible and have not seen any evidence that it would be the case. Obama is on top of the ticket and having Clinton as VP does nothing to change that. Obama is on the path to become the first African American president in our history. Obama represents the clearest possible change from Bush.  Nothing will dampen the excitement of that prospect.   

Clinton will drum up the GOP base
    (1) The hardcore GOP donors will be giving the maximum amount of money to defeat Obama regardless of whom he chooses as his VP. (2) Assuming for the sake of argument that Clinton as VP somehow drums up the GOP fundraising machine: so what! An Obama/Clinton ticket will raise so much more money than McCain it will be a joke. A very funny joke.

Obama should pick Richardson, Webb, Sebelius, Edwards, ect...
    The thrust of my argument has been that the greatest risk to the democrats in November is a divided party. Clinton as VP is the only candidate that absolutely guarantees a unified party.
Someone could argue to me that Sebelius would bring the Clinton women back on board. I just don't necessarily believe them.
Richardson may bring the Latino vote and may even help deliver NM since it has been so close. Also, Richardson has foreign policy bonafides for days (put a week on it). But Richardson doesn't necessarily bring the women, and part of me (okay, a big part of me) worries about not having a white face on the ticket. But that's just my perception of reality.
    Jim Webb is the man. But Jim Webb has been married three times and recently took Obama's clinging to guns and religion statement to a higher level. He is very much a live wire. Also, I don't want him to give up that newly blue senate seat, and he doesn't guarantee Virginia.
    Edwards doesn't ensure a unified party, he doesn't bring North Carolina, and he won't bring working class whites.
    Al Gore would be crazy to take the VP slot again. Al Gore is not crazy.

Matthews just can't help himself, can he?....re Clinton as VP, asks his guest...but will she obey?

Then later, after describing her career as a strong independent woman, asks....but can she be subservient?
Of course I know there is a dynamic worth discussing here, but can't he discuss it without reverting to this biblical context? I'm sorry. Daily Howler is so right about this clown...been an altar boy too long.

Segment on VP possibilities ends with Keith and Tweety asking, yes, but will it be 1A?

If she labors the point of no nominee like Jeralyn is doing, her list of friends is quickly going to shrink.

We know this wouldnt be the waqy if the situation was reversed.

We know this, how?  Not only would I expect Clinton to claim victory if the situation was reversed, I'd be extremely disappointed if she didn't.  

As of today, the voting will be over.  He will have enough delegates.  Barring some major upheaval, nothing can or will possibly change that until the convention in August (and, let's face it, it's extremely unlikely that it will change then).  

For the front-runner and presumed nominee to say "Now wait.. I'm not going to start my general election campaign until the end of the summer," would be madness.

I, personally, reject the claim that he and Charlie Gibson used the PA Debate as an opportunity to rough him up.

My thinking is that if Clinton does not carry this to the convention on a platform for democratic reform of the Democratic party, then the party will fracture momentarily. Hoping that Obama supporters online or Obama superdelegates will recognize the inappropriateness of their undemocratic and authoritarian behavior is not a feasible program for reform. The generation that came of age in the past 10 years has witnessed nothing but ridiculous political behavior by both parties and the media. The A-listers of the blogosphere now support undemocratic process over democratic reform. To quote Anglachel to say, "the kids are not alright." These individuals, like Donna Brazile, have taken a different lesson from the 1990s than any of us ever imagined. They have no democratic leaders. The Rebublican model is their model now - Obama was always the "establishment" candidate for this cadre of party officials and activists. Further entrenchment of establishment power is their next step.

Does generation Y or the millenium generation know what a functioning model of democracy looks like? We have not had one in 10 years, so I think perhaps not. Thus, if Clinton does not make democratic reform an issue for the Democratic party by staying in the race, there will be disillusioned drop outs and movements to third parties or advocacy groups to reform the process.  It will be a nasty battle because the leaders of the Democratic party and the non-feminist progressive blogosphere are incapable of acknowledging the undemocratic and misogynistic nature of their actions in the 2008 Democratic primary.

Our wing of the progressive blogosphere that trembles (Iphie at Corrente) in the face of blatant exercises of undemocratic political power now needs new leaders - both politically and intellectually. Our wing shares in common now the visceral reaction we had to the 1990s to Clinton's impeachment and the Bush v. Gore ruling in 2000 (and if you are old enough, the Clarence Thomas hearings). We will differ from the current Democratic party and former blogosphere in the recognition that Hillary Clinton must now be added to that list of Democrats who suffered an undemocratic fate in an increasingly undemocratic America. And, our wing will know that other Democrats postured to seize power undemocratically from other Democrats.