http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/clinton_democrats_must_back_no.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/3z6wj2

Obama has spoken for unity, and I'm sure he would support the nominee if it's someone other than him, but it's not as simple as you make it sound. The positions are not analagous.

It's different for Obama, as the frontrunner, with an unassailable delegate lead, to actively campaign at this point for his supporters to embrace Clinton if she is able to derail his candidacy. It would be like Nancy Kerrigan, if she knew Tonya Harding were plotting to break her legs, urging that Harding not be penalized if her plan were successful.

I see what you're saying, but I think what bothers Obama supporters about this line of thought is the implication that Obama and Clinton are in analogous positions in the race - that they're deadlocked and have both used fair tactics, and that their negatives and electibility have been weighted on the same scales. In fact Obama is ahead and Clinton is using Rovian tactics and Republican support to weaken his candidacy.

We're exhausted from years of defending the Clintons' flaws against Republican attacks - we just don't want to do it again. Obama is pledging unity, but enthusiasm is harder to muster.

Given the unique situation and the enormous distrust of Clinton among Democrats, if she does derail Obama's candidacy the Party should nominate a ticket without Clinton on it. Not sure who it should be, but I am truly afraid that a Clinton ticket would wreck the Party.

"I see what you're saying, but I think what bothers Obama supporters about this line of thought is the implication that Obama and Clinton are in analogous positions in the race - that they're deadlocked and have both used fair tactics, and that their negatives and electibility have been weighted on the same scales. In fact Obama is ahead and Clinton is using Rovian tactics and Republican support to weaken his candidacy"

And Obama supporters have been using Rovian tactics against Clinton -- as you do immediately above.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor: stop pretending that you know what a "huge" number of Democrats are fed up with, etc. You don't know, and to assert otherwise is a dishonest effort to make your voice seem louder than it can actually be. You don't, in short, speak for me, or for most of the Democrats -- and some Republicans -- I know.

At present, most I know will vote for ANY Democrat, though they would prefer Clinton because she does have experience Obama DOES NOT have. "Hope" is nice, but howw useful is that when you need a screwdriver? Or a hammer?

Last Friday Obama announced two long term plans to build the Democratic Party: a six month voter registration drive (funded by his campaign) and a deal with the DNC for joint fund raising (with the majority of the money going to the DNC.) He didn't say he would do these only if he got the nomination - he committed to building the Democratic Party no matter what. When the DNC asked Hillary to make the same fund raising commitment they got the cold shoulder. To me, committing with money with the express goal of building the Party over the next six months very loudly proclaims his party loyalty. What I saw read in your article was Clinton arguing on why African Americans should vote for her if she wins the nomination, not her making any commitment of loyalty herself to either the nominee or the Democratic Party.

Ergoquid: it doesn't matter what Obama supporters think, it matters what the undecided voters think;

LBJ's Brain: by making a gesture of party unity in states where the vote has already been decided (which just happen to be next to the states with primaries), Obama looks nobel, not just to Clinton supporters in those states but to the undecided in those states AND in the states with upcoming primaries. This isn't JUST about being nobel: this is about getting votes now and in the general election and healing the rift starting NOW, not 2-3 months from now.

JNagarya: If you're an Obama supporter, you want and expect Obama to win not just the nomination but the election. This would, I think, help do both. It targets moderates of both parties in the states it's aired in, and indirectly in the neighboring states that it isn't aired in where Deomcratic primaries are about to be held.

Jonze: Politically expedient while appearing nobel is a good thing, especially in a hotly contested election. Clinton was able to make a token gesture towards being nobel. Obama can afford a gesture that is far from token: reminding everyone that the Bush administration, including the Republican Congress (in a subtle guilt-by association game) has been a disaster and it is time for a Democrat (Barack Obama) to lead a new government out of the mess.

JackieinCA: you may be correct about Clinton's motives, and about Obama's motives, but it doesn't matter. What matters is what the rank-and-file moderates of both parties believe and *I* believe that if Obama conducts an ad campaign of this sort, it will have a very good effect on both his upcoming primaries AND on the election in November, and not just for Obama. Altruism without credit (like a "get out the vote" campaign) makes you feel good, but doesn't tell people that you are a good guy. An ad campaign that shows everyone you're a good guy does much better in that regard and that is what Obama needs: everyone thinking he is a good guy.

Just remember, thinking doesn't make it so, and good always trumpts evil.