An article on HuffPost says that Hillary supporters are grieving and asks Obama do do something to win their support.

Let's stipulate that some Hillary supporters who are women are grieving..

What are the 5 stages of grief, according to Kubler-Ross?  Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

For Clinton's original and later-coming supporters, the denial phase began after it became clear that the delegate math simply did not support a Clinton win after a certain point, without major tinkering with the reality as presented. Anger emerged as primary during the last phase of the campaign as denial began to give away and continued after the last primary was run. It is still running strong among some but has merged into bargaining, which is what I think is being expressed when we hear talk of what Obama has to do to win their votes and allegiance. The depression phase emerges in the dark view of the future: We will not see her like again in my/our lifetimes; this was the opportunity, now it is gone.

I hope and pray that the acceptance phase begins soon, both for those with these awful feelings, and for the rest of us for whom an Obama presidency presents a tremendous opportunity to begin the long, frustrating, and difficult process of shifting the direction of our nation with the involvement of the many, many people who have become engaged in this effort.

Maureen Down in the Times today asks the right question:

While McCain’s experience was heroic, did it create a worldview incapable of anticipating the limits to U.S. military power in Iraq? Did he fail to absorb the lessons of Vietnam, so that he is doomed to always want to refight it? Did his captivity inform a search-and-destroy, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, “We are all Georgians,” mentality?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24dowd.html?ref=opinion

War hero, savior of the Nation U.S. Grant was a shoo-in for President.  His term was a disastrous mess. 

Just because you were a war hero doesn't give you the judgment and temperament for the presidency, eh? And Grant was elected in 1872, just a few years after the end of the Civil War. 

Can the Democratic ad-makers do something with that?  Would they? 

The ticket is now balanced: cool/warm; youth (relative)/experience.  Ties to PA won't hurt but not essential.

Re strategy, I think there are a couple of good ways to go.  Biden's experience really does trump McCain's.  Subject, verb, POW; plus Biden is a lot smarter than McCain.  Also, compare Biden as VP to Cheney; Biden will be a good Cheney: Someone with deep knowledge of the political system and with a view of the US in the world that is far different from Cheney's.

Unfortunately, the campaign deal with the Republican's attack on character and strength (read: manhood) directly and without qualm.  McCain's abilities, values, and political connections must be questioned, but also his character and/or state of being; it is necessary in this political climate. 

One way may be to focus on what has happened since he was savaged in 2000 by Bush, when he complained that they know no depths, to now, when he is using the same approach.  Suggests personal ambition to be president -- which he has said in a book, I believe -- willingness to sell out to achieve it, and a false sense of entitlement to that post. 

The New Nixon won election.  The New McCain should not.

Now this is more like it.  Brilliant bit of news-managing theater and the press is gobbling it up.  Who will it be? When will we know? Have the e-mails gone out yet? Two-three days of this breathless waiting, all generated by the media, while the campaign says nothing, the candidate drops a couple of hints, and gets mountains of free publicity.

This kind of thing seems more in line with the campaign's strengths and strategy.  Like the "bitch-slapping" (quoting Josh! quoting Josh!) approach of the Republicans, this also works.

Now, let's do some slapping of our own.

Why is McCain so bellicose?  He has PTSD.  Pass it on.

I take the Paris Hilton tack very seriously.  The McCain campain is now being run by Bush reelection team members; the switch of campaign manager/strategist a few weeks ago was the clue.

We Democrats like our politics rational.  We tend to be crusaders, policy wonks and bread and butter folks.  The Republicans don't.  They like their politics irrational, gut level, reptilian.  They use sophisticated devices to attack on that level. We call it going negative but it is more than that.  It is a nonverbal, subconscious language.

We need to reply in kind.  I think our gut message is, we can take whatever you dish out and dish it back, stronger, and still stand for something greater than you. 

One fear=based theme might be abandonment (with opportunism, careerism).  McCain abandoned his ailing first wife when her returned to US after release (when he was a celebrity, wasn't he?). He has abandoned his maverick stance to embrace Bush and the Religious Right. What does he really stand for? Can we count on him not to abandon uswhen the chips are down?

Another: Feebleness.  John McCain seems to be slowing down. He seems to have trouble remember basic, like that Czechoslovakia is not a country any more or that Iraq doesn't have a border with Pakistan.  Maybe memory is the reason behind his frequent changes of position .  His plane is  running out of gas. (Image: sputtering engine). Do we want to entrust our futureetc?

So while going with the brilliant promise of an Obama presidency, transcending old lines and old politics, gatering a real majority for change, we should be answering McCain shot for shot.  We can give as good as we get AND we have the better arguments AND we have the far better candidate.

I'm still for Barbara Mikulski of MD (only partly tongue in cheek).  Short, female, tough, blue-collar, white, probably Lesbian, what' s not to like?

But there was a letter in the SF Chron today suggesting that Dean broker a deal with Clinton heading the ticket in 2008, then they switch in 2012. 

Well.

That certainly worked well for Gordon Brown with Tony Blair, didn't it?

There are other items saying that Clinton money people are suggesting they might get stingy if she is not on the ticket.  Team of Rivals and all that sort of thing.

Well, well.

Although the Clinton camp says any talk of angling for the VP slot is untrue, who can believe anything they say?

Maybe Clinton is figuring she can be the "good" Cheney.

The unspoken -- until today -- additional item here is that Clinton will be in place if, uh, something should happen to Obama.  Suddenly, the increased likelihood of an Obama assassination has come back into consciousness.  It was there at the beginning, you know it was, but I for one haven't thought about it for a while. Maybe you have.  There is no doubt in my mind that the Clintons have.  They think of and about everything.  This will also give the paranoidistas (not me, not me) a chance to talk of dark Clintonian plots.  Gives me a bad feeling, let me tell you.

Int his post-Bittergate era, Obama has but one choice for VP: Sen Barbara Mukulski of MD.  Short, tough, blue collar, female, old-line-Democrat, she's the perfect counter weight to tall, Marxist, elitist, male, Obama. 

I love Dodd for VP.

But if he wants to pick a woman, why not Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)? She's a "moderate" (conservative) Democrat with lots of experience, including a pretty successful stint as SF mayor, taking over after the Moscone assassination. She did well in a very liberal city that before she ascended, didn't like her much, to put it mildly. She's somewhat compromised on Iraq and other issues, but is smart, organized, diligent, and knows government.

Her rich husband and his deals might be a problem. Left liberals don't like her much, but that would be okay, wouldn't it? And. If she had to become president, she could do the job, in my opinion, well enough.

Okay, so Bush back's Ukraine's membership in NATO.

Huh? Is it just me or does this seem nuts?  The Ukraine was at the heart of the Soviet Union and it's loss was particularly painful.  Does this move not seem like a provocation to Russia and an escalation of the business of defensive missiles against Iran. Oh, and by the way, Ukraine has nuclear weapons, does it not?

Where is the media, the experts, and commentators, the bloggers?  Where's Joe Biden, for heaven's sake. The president is making what could be momentous foreign policy in an off-handed fashion and without examination by, well, anybody.

Or is it just me?

Michelle Obama said that for the first time in her adult life she was proud, and/or really proud, of her country.  Let's stipulate that this was a kind of graceless thing to say and leaves out some basics.  But let's look at this issue.

She is not talking about loving her country, as Cindy McCain countered.  Pride suggests a feeling about action taken by the country as a whole -- meaning, I guess, primarily by the government but also through cultural trends, for want of a better word. 

Michelle Obama was born in January 1964. When does adult life start?  At 18 when we can vote? At 21 when we can, well, drink etc?  At 25 when some say the brain is finished maturing.  At the very latest, her adult life began in 1989; at the earliest, in 1982.  This means that she is definitely talking about the Bush-Clinton-Bush years, and probably also the Reagan years.

So she really has stuck a finger in the eye of the Clintons, hasn't she?

Most of us can probably agree that we are not proud of Reagan administration actions or of the money-centered, greed is good good capitalism of the '80s, among many other things.

So that leaves, say, 1989 through 2006.  I was pretty proud of the election of 2006, so I'm leaving it out.  What WE proud of during that period, if anything.

That's the Bushes and Clinton.  So I ask myself, do I agree?  Is there anything I'm proud of during that period?

The first thing that comes to mind is the intervention in Kosovo, both that it happened at all and the way that it was managed.  I realize there's a lot to criticize about it, but we didn't go into a ground war, and another genocidal disaster was averted.  This came, by the way, following the very un-prideful record in Ruwanda and in the early years of the Yugoslav war. Clinton led the nation in doing something worthwhile and, in my view, good.

I'm also proud that we elected Clinton in the first place, albeit with the help of odd Ross Perot. But at least we didn't have another Bush term. Triangulation? Not so much.

Other things I'm proud of: The American With Disabilities Act and the Family Leave Act.  These were advances in inclusion and fairness for the whole society.  I guess I'm proud that he wasn't removed from office, and that the main reason was probably the people didn't want him to be.

Not much more that I can think of. The continuing erosion of a social safety net and the expanding disparity between haves and have nots (and have-mores, in Bush 43's telling phrase) is nothing to brag about.

Maybe where she went wrong was, first, being too honest, and second, not giving a nod to the basics that make this a unique and enviable country despite all.  And for not also nodding to the quiet and noisy advances in race, gender, and sexual orientation that continue despite Washington.

I am glad Bill Clinton was president; I was a big fan.  I liked his presence, and that he wasn't Those Guys.  I also am sometimes surprisingly proud of Americans In General.  But as far as national or societal movements or actions, there's not a lot, is there?

I'm so used to being on the losing side, I've gotten used to it.  It's pretty comfortable, when you think about it.  You can be bitter, sarcastic, yet trenchantly critical.  But I'm scared now. It's beginning to look that I am on the winning side in the Democratic nomination.  Well, I have to push through my fear, own it and realize that the fear is the other side of excitement, as we say in 1970s style therapy, still good stuff.  We need to start looking ahead to actually winning and then to the possibility of actually winning the election.  And that is going to mean expanding to include the Clinton wing and their obvious strengths, especially when dealing with the Republican noise machine.

It would be also be nice if the Clintons and their supporters would think a bit before trying to tear Obama's face off in order to win.  That union fella in Ohio, for example, is not, to put it mildly, helping the Democrats win in November. 

Also, if the Democrats do win, a new Senate majority leader will be needed.  Any nominees?

Remember 1988?  Looks like Wolfson does.  Let's try the plagiarism thing on Obama; it worked on Biden, eh, Mr. Wolfson?  Wolfson's plan is to imply that Obama is a phony.  This is good practice, I suppose, for the fall campaign for Obama; Clinton doesn't need any practice, obviously.  If this works, the Democratic nominee will be damaged.  Already, the Clinton side has provided quite a bit of ammunition to the Republicans to use against Obama if he is the nominee. 

I have supported Obama for about six months, timidly at first, less so now.  I listened to him and get the sense that he has it -- the right stuff -- that certain something that makes a leader.

But here are my problems with Clinton:
--1/3 of the country hates her.  There's no getting away from the fact that rightly or wrongly, a lot of people start chewing the carpet when her name is mentioned.
--Bill seems uncontrollable. 
--I really don't know why she wants to be president, putting aside for the moment the bromides about doing for the American People and For The Children.
--Her demonstrated strengths of diligence, intelligence, attention to detail, knowledge of and interest in policy, are better suited to the legislative than executive.  She has said that she wants to "control the bureaucracy."  Uh-oh.  Suggests desire to micromanage.  What very smart, hard working Democratic president tried that?
--37 percent of the nation hates her.  Did I say that already.  Maybe it just went up.

I don't think she can beat McCain in a general election.  If he takes Huckabee as his VP, I might change my view.  But in any event, I can't see anything better than a squeeker with post-90s score-settling continuing until...well, forever, I guess.

HRC for Senate majority leader!  Obama for president.  She can toughen up his health care proposals when they hit the Senate.