Carter, of course, is the Party's resident expert on healing wounds after a protracted primary struggle, having done such an excellent job of bringing Ted Kennedy's supporters back on side in 1980.

Gerry Ferraro just talked on tv about the Obama campaign's behavior.  They tried to get her fired from her law firm.

"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

I still don't think she should take the VP slot.

Want a unity ticket?

Have Al Gore, who has stayed above the fray, take it to the Convention and flip a freaking coin, like man y ties are resolved. Winner is P, Loser is VP.

That would be the only circumstance in which I'd vote for Obama, as either P or VP.

I pray that this attitude is not prevalent on the Obama team, or the outreach to Hillary's supporters will backfire.

-The war sucks but the Democrats now control Congress. It is cynical, but I would say, on balance, the war has been a huge boon for the Democrats. In fact, to be extra-disgusting cynical, it is not past me believing that all of the go-along-to-get-along votes that Obama and friends did, in funding the war, were designed to keep the war alive as an issue in this election cycle.

- I don't know about you, but I don't vote in a vice-presidential primary, it only says president on the ballot.

When I delved deeper into their dislike of Hillary, it was often something they couldn't seem to verbalize well, perhaps because sexism is hard to recognize in yourself, but many of them referred back to how they felt at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency.  There's still a lot of anger and a sense of betrayal and many people blame Bill for ushering in the Bush dynasty.

We know that many voters base their decisions on feelings rather than intellectual talking points.  Obama has been called an empty suit on this blog, but perhaps that's an advantage for low information voters who have feelings-based distrust of the Clintons, vs. easily disputed talking points they've been fed about Obama.  

A primary vote is not a vote for president. It's a mistake to think of it that way. In this instance, both sides gathered votes that were negative votes against the competition, votes for a intermediate preference, or votes for name recognition, whatever. Even counting the overwhelming support both candidates gained, an Obama/Clinton ticket loses those who voted against women AND against black people.

In addition, I agree with Hilary Rosen's piece in Huff Po today and offer this paragraph from TPM that I think synthesizes the position in which Clinton has placed herself:

Let's be clear about what Hillary is doing here. By signaling that she'll take the VP slot if offered -- and insinuating that a joint ticket is necessary to heal the party(!) -- she is foregoing the normal diplomatic niceties in order to screw Obama. It sticks him with the choice between looking like the bad guy (for not offering) and doing something he really doesn't want to do (putting her on the ticket). Either way, he loses. And either way, she wins: she gets on the ticket or else she engenders a lot of bitterness in her supporters, hurting Obama's chances in November (and thereby increasing her chances for a 2012 run).

What this paragraph doesn't mention is that Obama is nearly forced to say no to Clinton because of the manner in which she's acting.  As Rosen said

She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation .......And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due.

Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry, and party leaders trashing her.

I'm not sure her supporters felt empty as Clinton's remarks were tailored for her supporters, but Clinton did miss a golden opportunity.  Anne Cornbluth from the Washington Post said today that Clinton is still living in the alternate universe of her campaign and that when reality strikes, Clinton will do the right thing. I hope so.