Obama needs to stand strong and not concede to have Hillary Clinton as his VP when she talks to him, because she would be manipulative and try to control like Dick Cheney at every chance; and CHANGE would be on the back burner in all the turmoil. Obama wants change. The people want change. Hillary is OK with the status quo.

I like your point about Clinton's principle of 'staying the course' (tho it sounds very Bush-esque 2 my personal liking).

Her detractors have been calling her to stop after every single primary, three-quarters of the race onwards. And also, kept saying: "Look, you should've stopped after [insert name of primary here]. NOW you've lost my respect!"

It's a sad, sad world for democracy if people start giving up after three-quarters of the race. It's also sad if people demonise others for 'not giving up'.

Personally, I think the US President is someone who shouldn't give up when the chips are down. By that, I don't mean it makes Clinton per se the best candidate, but just to stress the point that people should appreciate political leaders who hold firm to what they believe in.

Another point: People criticise Clinton for destroying party unity for not backing down earlier. And the same people criticise her for being similarly selfish by trying to pitch the VP deal subtly to Obama - it's a moot point, yes, but isn't a joint ticket, more probable than not, good for party unity? In short, even when Clinton is trying to unify the party, she's criticised for being purely political.

The amount of criticism and hypocrisy against Clinton amazes me. Anything she does, people zero on her 'supposed hidden agenda'

I don't think that you have to look any further than this blog to imagine the behavior of Obama supporters during the Caucuses, which calls into question the "democracy" of a process where a Clinton supporter had to PUBLICLY display her or his choice amid the same jeers that he or she met with during that process, jeers which you still find in so many of the comments here on this blog.

So a "journalist" who sees the Iowa results some sort of Democratic truth is lacking in analysis. The facts have been reviewed recently. Obama and Edwards came in first and second and -- coincidentally -- had taken their names off the ballot in Michigan. That gesture did not go unnoticed by Iowa voters. And Obama and Edwards reaped the benefits.

But can any journalist call into question the validity of the request of Michigan: that it should not be the same state which begins the process every time we have a presidential primary? And can anyone fault Clinton for respecting the voters in that state?

So I think that I would seriously question the caucus results and emphasize the political opportunism of Obama.

Surely, today I am embarassed to be an American. According to the Associated Press and Yahoo! Here it is in a snippet: "Barack Obama and John McCain start their showdown for the White House as a pair of vulnerable candidates, including real doubts about how each would right a struggling economy, according to exit polls of voters in this year's primaries. The crucial question: Whose weaknesses will cost him the election?" and "The two candidates' problems start with the economy, which members of both parties agreed is the country's top issue. Neither man got even half the votes of his party's voters who worried most about the economy." from POLLS SHOW VOTER DOUBTS...

What is wrong with my nation? Why is this election a choice between two men's weaknesses and nobody's strengths? Is this the best the two parties have to offer for nominees? To be sure, one of them, Barack Obama, hasn't even really clinched the nomination as his general delegate tally is only 120 ahead of Hillary Clinton!

There is little doubt in my mind that this election is ripe for third and fourth party intervention, if they can put it together and campaign hard with enough funds, a third party may very well rise up from the forest floor to take part in the canopy overhead. I certainly hope so, because my fellow Americans have put forth two of the poorest choices in candidates in several decades. You know what the Bible says...a nation gets the leader they deserve. (for better or most obviously worse)

Hillary has already put her future on the line as of last night's speech. She could have shown class. She could have shown decorum. Instead she chose to take the low road again, failing the electorate and the country as a whole.

I liked her a lot before the Primaries began, but now I have no respect for her whatsoever. There is no excuse for her behavior, other than sheer selfishness or denial.

One commenter stated yesterday on CNN, 'do we really want three Presidents in the White House?'

Obama not only does not 'need' Hillary Clinton, many believe that her presence on the ticket will bring out the GOP base who might otherwise stay home in November, since McCain is not presently generating too much excitement in that quarter.
Moreover, the party leadership quietly wants to distance itself from Bill's baggage which has been rearing it's ugly head much too often of late, from temper tantrums to persistent rumors of serial philandering.
The Clinton's need to get over themselves and get with the program really soon.
John McCain is a very weak candidate, as evidenced by his brutally pathetic speech last night. Yet, the Clinton's ambitions are playing right into the hands of the GOP.
I suggest that Obama offer them an ambassadorial post as far from Washington as possible.

I'm with David B. - for me Hillary already burnt too many bridges during this campaign. I actually think it would work against Obama to have her as his veep.

It's attitudes like yours and your ilk that really hurt the candidacy for Obama. Even if I didn't see through his smokescreen to recognize the hateful racist, bigot and anti-American that Obama is, I still wouldn't vote for him because of his supporters. You people try to pretend you are open minded, but this whole time all you can see is one half of Obama's heritage. For shame, you left-wing morons.

I am an "older white woman" who lives in Washington state. Our state decided to utilize a caucus as a means of designating delegates for this state. Whether I like it or not, as a voter of this state and a citizen of this country I got myself out of bed and walked to the caucus. The Obama voters at the caucus were respectful, kind, helpful and professional unlike what Kathy describes in her post. The Clinton folks, however, were very angry, confrontative and even took down and replaced some of the Obama posters with Clinton posters. I am a tax paying citizen of this country. My vote counts whether you think it should or not. I did not sit at my kitchen table and fill in the dot of a ballot, I actually participated in person with my community. If Clinton truly believes all votes should count, why is she ignoring those of caucus states? Get over it and let's move on. I am proud of Barack Obama and proud to be a part of this American history. He deserves to shine!

The white man voted for Obama over a woman that reminded them of their EX, a real ball breaker. Gender trumps race. Don't you every forget that sister. The white man knows that a black man knows how to treat a woman right. Let's face it, it is a man's world. The Democratic Party may say things to the woeman, but it is just to get their vote. Look at Dean, the leader of the party, he is a man. Sister Hilliary had her man behind her all the time, taking care of his "little woman" he stood by him.

I agree that Hillary is a lightning rod and won't be an asset for the Obama ticket. Besides which, you can't very well run on the notion of change and then have a Clinton on the ticket. And by the way, it was George Bernard Shaw (not the bible) who said: "Democracy is a system ensuring that the people are governed no better than they deserve."

The way Hillary has not conceded these past few weeks, when all seem gloom and doom, when the wiser political strategy would be to cut losses by conceding and leaving to fight another day with a 'noble, dignified' exit...

...shows that she's willing to fight for her principles to the very last.

It's easier to concede, than to carry on. Most people would take the easy route, and perhaps out of self-righteousneous, feel that she should do the same.

The truth is, I think most people dislike her for not giving up, just because we ourselves would have.

I'm not saying that not conceding is THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT THING to do. But at least, respect her for doing what she thinks its for the best, and not demomise every single thing she does.

Party unity? I doubt conceding few days from now would actually lead to an exodus of millions of Americans to the Republican's camp. This 'party unity' argument is over-stretched, IMHO.

Last night John McCain deliverd a major speech. The concept was to steal Barack Obama's thunder on the night he clinched the nomination. It was intended as a powerful open salvo to the general election. What we got instead was a decrpit, canadverous old man, grinning creepily and awkwardly reading from a teleprompter. He didn't come across as inspired, vital or particulary in-touch with the realities of the nation. Shortly aft, Barack Obama spoke. The difference could not have been more staggering.

The focus in now sharply focused on Obama vs McCain. The distinctions could not be sharper. Hillary Clinton's "army" will melt away. The only ones who will still cling to her will be the weird Taylor Marsh cultists. People know what is at stake in this election, and they know this election is not about Hillary Clinton. Clinton could have used last night to graciously end her primary run. All she did was demand more ego-driven puplicity. Her mawkish appeal to supporters to log on to her site and tell her what they'd like her to do was cringe-inducing. She only has a few days to milk the "will sh or won't she conceed" drama. By week's end her shelf life is up. Her supporters will become engaged in the general election. She can still take the high road, but her time is short.

What is needed in America is a paradigm shift i.e. change the very foundation of our system of beliefs

Neither party offers or understands this needed paradigm shift

The decline will continue until the majority of Americans see this need for a paradigm shift. It will take decades for this to occur

Almost always this paradigm shift must come from those outside the existing paradigm

Whether demo or repub wins in nov little will change within this existing American paradigm

It will have the appearance of change but this change will occur within the existing paradigm, which is the very system of beliefs that got us into this decline.

If we do not know that we do not know problems arise: negative ignorance

and

If we think we know but do not know major problems arise: positive ignorance

We Americans suffer from both negative and positive ignorance but lean more towards positive ignorance the hardest to overcome.

We continue to dance with who brought us to the dance while we decline morally and economically. This is a common human and societal phenomena not just suited to Americans.

End result: bye bye middle class. corp and media and gov fascism cannot be stopped by those within the existing paradigm.

Susan, you are a shining example of a citizen participating in the electoral system instead of whining about the process because "it takes too much time" and I commend you.
We need more citizens like you to create the "paradigm shift" (as researcher refers to)in order to create change.

You are a freak. I just watched your tirade on MSNBC and..sweetheart..you are one big sexist pig. You Clinton bashing is so over the top even for that closet case Chrissy Matthews.
I don't know what Mother Jones is but it must be a magazine for idiots.

Get off the TV.....What a [deleted] you are.

Those of you who say you won't vote for Obama deserve McSame and his do-nothing policies. Along with Bush's third term, you'll guarantee us higher gas prices, no health care, and plenty of war with Iran & North Korea. As for the economy... McSame admitted he don't know diddly squat about the economy. What's that tell you?

Actually, George Bernard Shaw was simply intelligent and analytical. In reading about Saul and how he was chosen versus how God had chosen David, the lesson is obvious...a people choose with their eyes and not based on the heart of the chosen. Back to modern politics...

researcher, that was informative. Thank you for your contribution.

Duncan Bruce, researcher's premise shows how delusional you are being if you think the current political offerings will make any significant changes...consider petroleum. It is traded as a commodity. As any commodity, speculation can and will inflate or dramatically deflate value. Even that is unfair of me to say, because everything has value based on both individual and collective expectations.

If you think Barack Obama will make significant changes, all you need to do is look at his unremarkable tenures as state or federal senator to be cleared of those illusions. He speaks a good game, but Americans would rather buy into good speak than good substance...at least for now. Maybe $7.999 a gallon will finally cause enough civil unrest to effect change to corporate charters, energy supplies and demand, and removal of apathy and "feel good" politics. While I didn't expect Hillary Clinton to be much different, I did notice that when pushed, she shoved back with a sort of wanton abandon which I thought would be valuable in affecting real change outside the current parameters of politics. It could have been disastrous, but the fascist corporatist path we are on will ultimately lead to unrest and violence as people feel more and more oppressed and helpless. I'd rather deal with a generally satiated mass than one (or two in our case) economic classes teeping like a tea kettle. I assure you, those guns Barack Obama said Appalachia clings to, they are real. They are also meant to protect individual interest against mass corporations...as was the intent of the forefathers who also dealt with deadly multinationals...the behemoth fathers of modern corporations: the trading companies and financier banks.

As a redneck with leftist tendencies ... a former spear chucker for empire in VietNam w/ a friendly fire leg wound and a head full of frustration, I here with second the bit about revolution above.

This country let me down, and it continues to do so, because there really is no choice other than the corporate-driven left. Recall that when Mussolini coined the term fascist, he was talking about what we have in the good old US. What we really need, and so does the world is at least 50 highly contentious, disunited states bickering over every damned thing we can think of.

We desperately need a deep and vicious depression to right all of the economic wrongs, and a bloody revolution to get rid of about 50% of the world's population. And that, dear ones, is how I see it.

Faddy MacMough, doncha know ...

I think it's time that all Democrats should unite behind Obama now. We need to show strength in numbers to the Republicans to keep them out of office in the following four years and after. We do no justice to ourselves by arguing and bickering.

Let Mr. Obama pick his VP running mate. Someone who he can get along with but not necessarily a "yes" man/woman.
Let us not forget that Obama and Clinton were not idiologically so far from each other.

It's time for Hillary to give Obama his due and get behind him as should everyone else. But Mr.Obama should expect that she will want some concessions for her loss. By that I mean he should take into consideration some of her platform ideas (i.e. healthcare) and incorporate it into his own. I think that would be a better compromise than to make her a running mate.

If we really want change in this country, then we should have it. Bring on new people with new ideas. Take some from the Obama camp and well as the Clinton camp. It would be nice to have Hillary in some post once he is in office, but not VP.

Suggestion- Harry Reid resigns as Senate Majority Leader and Hillary takes the position.

Obama = George MCGovern.
And please do not blame it on Hilary. The left wing's bizarre hatred for the Clintons' will not be forgotten..."whore" "monster"...words that were used to describe HC. Amazing. Get ready for four more years of idiocy.

Good governance is all about check and balance. Change is good, but too much of anything is bad.

Obama + Hillary = Good check and balance

We all want change, yes. But as McCain warned us, and rightfully so, there's the right and wrong change.

Maybe it's just me. I, for one, didn't find Obama's 'change' message very convincing. 'Change' is a neutral word, most people forget. Whether Obama can attach a positive adjective to the word, that remains to be seen.

IMHO, the fact that Hillary isn't as liberal as Obama is a good reason why they should go along on a joint ticket. If you want a VP who agrees with everything you believe in, no room for dissension, then just do without a VP.

Try as I might, when I think of Hillary now, I cannot get out of my head the last images of Margaret Hamilton in _Wizard of Oz_ -- "Look what you've done, you little brat! I'm melting!"

I wouldn't go about expecting change of the kinds you refer to in this country. People have had it for too good for too long. I say that, as someone who has traveled to third world countries. It would take a catastrophic event to effect change in the US.

To Mark in Rural Pennsylvania: If you have any interest in fairness and open-mindedness I suggest you go to dailykos.com and search for the entry of 2/20/08 by grassroots mom "I refuse to buy into the Obama hype" (she changed her mind). The author of this particular entry did some incredible research on both Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's achievements in the senate by going to the Library of Congress website and actually listing all their proposals, votes, etc. It seems, though, that you have a particular mindset that may not be conducive to openness regarding especially Obama. That's your loss. I truly believe he is an extraordinary man who will make an extraordinary president. He is most certainly not "unremarkable." Quite the contrary. I will vote for him just as I would have voted for Clinton, because McCain will continue the dragging down of this country to the gutter and below and take us back to the middle ages with his particular stances on war, a woman's right to choose, Supreme Court nominees, and the separation (or non thereof) of church and state. It will be interesting to see which way the country goes in November. For me, I've had way more than enough of the last eight, very sickening and disgusting years with Bush and Co. at the helm.

For a real change, vote for Ralph Nader. Vote Green, be Green.

The Democratic Party has their left of left candidate for whom about 18 million Americans voted. To get him elected in the general election, it will require that around another 50 million Americans vote for him. Good luck with that!

Some thoughts.

I was/am a HRC supporter and am very disappointed that it does not look like she will be the Dem candidate. I would like to see a poll of a three way race with H Clinton, Obama and Mc cain, and I would bet that Clinton would win.
She has more votes than Obama does. I do not think she should pursue this as an independent though. Neither do I think she should take second place to Obama as a vice president. She can be a great Senator, perhaps some other cabinet posts like Secretary of State/Health, or even a Supreme Court Justice. Re the latter, Supreme Court, she is more of an in the public / limelight person so may be too high visability personality for this.

Maybe Obama should try and lure Gore as VP, as that might bring the race home. Doubt Gore would go for it since he should have been the president too.

For those who tried to shut Hillary out before all states had a chance to vote - you were wrong. She did the right thing to let everyone have their say and more people voted for her than Obama.

I do not support Obama and don't think he has the appropriate experience to be the president. His associations seriously bother me and I am not convinced that he also may not be indited in the NY case underway. Next to Obama, McCain looks tired, old and lifeless. I like a good bit about McCain, but I don't want him as president either.

What choices do we have that we want then. I am going to look at other candidates , knowing they have no chance of winning. Don't know if I will like them either.

Maybe I will change my mind about Obama but he is too far left for my preference, in addition to the other concerns I have about him.

I am so disappointed that Hillary is no longer going to be a candidate. I think she would make an excellent president.

On hindisght, I think a great side-effect of HIllary not pulling out earlier is that it gives Obama a stark, but real picture of the uphill task ahead.

The primaries throughout has clearly shown that Obama lacks support in certain demographical groups. Sure, one may argue that those groups which voted for Hillary would automatically vote for Obama come November, but I still think it's a fair warning to Obama that he has lotsa work to do to convince the rest of the groups that he's the real deal.

It's sad that politics is about demographics. And strategising around that. People accuse Hillary of playing politics too much, but Obama is also guilty of that (like giving up totally on certain states).

Like it or not, Obama now knows it's a demographical political game that looms in November. Getting Hillary on his side would woo more supporters to his side rather than alienate them, and if he's serious about winning the elections, he has to include Hillary in his campaign plans - somehow.

I would like someone to write a piece on why Hillary is not good as Obama's veep. One way to fight McCain is to make Republican stay home. Having Hillary on the ticket is definitely a sure way of bringing out the Rep. base in trove. To be skeptical, JFK's death could be orchestrated by LBJ who was so ready on day one to be the President??

Obama not only won the nomination...he earned it. He didn't ride on someone's coattails, he didn't brag about this is what he had been pointing his whole life towards, and he didn't pander for contributions and make backroom deals with lobbyists (at least to the best of my knowledge).

If I recall the timeline correctly too, he announced his candidacy for the presidentcy 4 days before Mrs. Clinton did. He had better organization, better commitment from his volunteers, and better understanding of the entire process. I would rather see someone like that answering the phone at 3:00 AM, than someone that thinks they were "owed" the position because their husband once had the job, or because they were a woman. Which seemed to be the whole basis for/of the Clinton candidacy.

To David Corn: Hillary's clock has not run out. She is a formidable figure in the Democratic Party. eighteen million votes in a primary season isn't chopped liver.

If she isn't treated with the deference and respect she has won at the polls, the Democratic Party will bleed to death.

I'm waiting to see what role Clinton plays at the convention, whether her delegates can put her name in nomination and get to vote for her on the first ballot.

If I'm unahppy with the convention I will absolutely not vote for Obama in November.

The press, the party bigwigs and Obama's savage supporters will be welcome to what's left of his candidacy.

Nancy Pelosi telegraphed her desire to see Obama win at the gitgo by having her closest California colleague announce for Obama very early. I still wonder if it was ineptitude or partisanship that made Howard Dean punish Florida and Michigan so severely when three other states violated party rules and didn't lose any delegated at all. Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina all defied the designated calendar and suffered no electoral consequences. The only "punishment" suffered by South Carolina was that Rep. Jim Clyburn would have to remain neutral until the end of the season. What a joke! Clyburn showed his strong support for Obama before South Carolinians went to the polls.

My attitude today - the Hell with the Democratic Party!

In the latter part of the debates, Hillary became ms. expediency with reckless remarks that only had to be an embarrassment for her and her campaign. Furthermore, she AND Barack Obama got their substantive ideas from former Senator John Edwards. INVESTIGATE THE RECORDS