Uh, I think that's a factual statement. Just because I support Obama doesn't mean I have to support the hysterical Obamanite reaction to Hillary's efforts to seat Florida and Michigan delegations. There's going to be a compromise, the delegates will be seated, and Obama will still win. Obama doesn't need those states to win, so why antagonize all those Democratic voters in Florida?

Since Hillary is reminding me more and more every day of Dubya, I wonder how you can say that it should be Obama's diplomatic skills that are in question here. Hillary is the one who started out with an unbelievable lead in advantages: Name recognition, money, a popular ex-presidential spouse, and plenty of old-Washington insiders to help her along. She managed her campaign terribly, squandered her money and advantages by making stupid mistakes out of arrogance and pure bad judgement.

Obama doesn't owe her anything! She owes the party big time! She can either step up to the plate and honestly encourage her followers to support Obama or she can lose the last vestiges of crediblity that she has left (of which there is precious little).

She could have done all this after super Tuesday and she would be a respected and revered party elite. She is nothing more than a shrill, lying, whiney victim at this moment; it is up to her to turn it around. It is not Obama's job to resurect her image.

He has to play it easy so he won't infuriate her supporters; he has never insulted them as Hillary has insulted Obama supporters (and everyone else who understands math). That is not the same as kissing her ass. He seems to realize this. I hope he does.

CVille Dem: Well, I hope Obama doesn't take the attitude you did when you said

Obama doesn't owe her anything!

I'll rephrase that.

It's about the DNC and the inner politics of the DLC.

What is being done to slowly purge the DLC from the Democratic Party. Send them the way of the WHIGs

It's about the DNC and the inner politics of the DLC.

What is being done to slowly purge the DLC from the Democratic Party. Send them the way of the WHIGs

"I'm referring to the often stated point that there a few states (New Hampshire jumping ahead of Nevada) that moved their primary dates without authorization, in contravention of party rules, but those states weren't punished."

But the DNC chose not to punish those states. Good, bad or otherwise - that was the call the DNC made and those were the rules. If you have an example of Obama being selective in following rules (as you state above) then support it. But don't accuse him of being selective because he isn't following the the rules someone thinks should have been set.

Regardless, the time to have complained about those choices was before the contest began -- and certainly before names were signed on an agreement.

As for the "ass-kissing" -- that is exactly the kind of behavior I do NOT want to see in my President.

It was a contest. Hillary lost. She is owed nothing. If she isn't willing to do what she can to get Obama elected then she certainly doesn't have the dedication to the party that warrants her being the nominee.

Here's a smart piece on this subject from the Huffington Post:

So, how does the Democratic Party get a nominee before the convention? Seems to me there's two things that need to happen. One small, one big.

First, Obama's campaign should stop believing what most of the press says, and start believing what Clinton says -- she isn't budging. If they don't mind the prospect of a divided convention, then fine -- if they do mind that prospect, they'll have to fight for their desired outcome. Clinton is now arguing that taking the fight to the convention is OK for the Democrats -- even noble. This argument won't be defeated if it is ignored -- Obama's camp will have to rebut.

Second, if the Democrats are to avoid a divided convention, the Florida and Michigan dispute will have to be taken off the table -- settled in a way that avoids the risk of a rules dispute that stretches the nominating contest out through the convention. I can think of only one way to do that, but there may be others.

Here's my way: based on my read of NBC's delegate math, I think if the Clinton campaign won 100% of what they wanted on the Florida and Michigan dispute, Obama could still clinch the nomination -- even according to the most pro-Clinton math -- if 90 of the remaining 210-or-so undeclared superdelegates declared for Obama.

If they so declared before May 31st, the Rules and Bylaws committee would have no reason to take up the Florida and Michigan dispute because it would be a moot point -- Obama's camp could concede every Clinton demand on the subject and still win the nomination.

Otherwise? I'll be the twitchy one on radio row at the divided Democratic convention in Denver... spooked by the ghosts of 1968, 1972, 1980...

Rachel Maddow is always smart. But in this case I think she is wrong.

First, I think Hillary's superdelegates will defect if she tries it. There is no stomach in the Party for repeating '68.

Second, I think the media is capable of saying "outcome not in doubt," so that we effectively have a nominee, even if Hillary appeals MI/FL.

Third, on June 4 I think Nancy, Harry, and Howard will take the junior senator from NY to the woodshed and tell her that she's never getting a committee chairmanship again if she tries it.

We need to seat some delegates. But don't need to seat the results of both illegitimate elections, as-is.

Funny that all those "feverish attack"-ers on that Aravosis link are the liberal blogosphere's finest. Atrios, Kos, Josh are people I highly respect. They all put up shop just to defend the Clintons from the smear machine and the corporate media. They discussed the taboo subjects throughout the Bush years, and they did so with honesty, courage, and the benefit of their extensive education. Now you refer to them as hysterical Obamites. Sigh.

I appreciate the rather pragmatic tone of this post. I would also like to remind some of the Obama supporters who seem to forget it - that about HALF of the DEMOCRATIC primary voters voted for Clinton.
You may really, really, really dislike her for all kinds of reasons, but you can't really ignore that she has the support of about half the party's primary voters.
Even if you don't think Clinton is "owed" anything, surely these voters are "owed" some acknowledgement. Believe me, they are watching how this plays out.

We're ahead clearly! The math does not lie, according to my predictions, the states that we didn't win do not count because they're full of atheist-commie-lib'ral-latte-elitists and do not represent the glorious white workers of this christian nation, so if you look at it correctly, We're winning by 100% FULL SPEED AHEAD TO THE WHITEHOUSE!

I have yet to find any statement by Clinton or any of her supporters that explains why, if it is so important to hear the voters in Michigan and Florida, her campaign agreed to shut them down last year. The more worked up she gets about comparing the DNC to the thugs in Zimbabwe (who are actually murdering people) the more hypocritical she and her supporters sound.

As to the negotiations, I think that Clinton has put Obama in a situation where he cannot accept her and Bill on the ticket (make no mistake, if you put her on you get him too) without looking incredibly weak, if she had truly ceased fire she might of had a chance of being on the ticket. Some pretty influential Obama supporters were signaling that Obama might have to accept her. I can't help but think she decided to burn up the party rather than take second. Fine, there is no law to stop her but I hope that if we get 4 years of Bush/McCain, every Democrat remembers this behavior in 2012.

BTW how is it brilliant for a campaign to neglect to plan for running beyond Super Tuesday? Sounds like "we'll be greeted as liberators to me.

If Obama supporters are so confident, they should enjoy the slow approach of inevitable victory for the primary.

As for the general election, he will definitely not be able to get all the Clinton votes.

Not all Clinton votes are from registered Democrats. Not all the Obama are either for that matter. Loyalty to a party will speak less to those unregistered voters who voted Clinton for feminist reasons. Particularly, since there is a minor party female candidate named McKinney who eclipses Obama in terms of outspokeness against the War in Iraq and in terms of Civil Rights activities.

This desire for a "female" candidate goes far beyond the person of Hillary Clinton. Some voters may adopt the strategy of "punishing" the guy who got in the way of the first president of the female MAJORITY. They may prepare the candidacy in 2012 of a stateswoman who is someone other than Clinton. This stateswoman may be taking notes on the Roves and the Axelrods of 2008 in order to make sure that those "boys" don't run her campaign into the ground with some well-marketed "sweetie"-pie.