In the end, the superdelegates dragged Barack Obama over the finish line. It seems almost funny, in retrospect, to consider all of the teeth gnashing in March that superdelegates would push Hillary Clinton over the finish line over the popular choice, Obama. Sometimes life is funny. Party bosses came to the aid of a dynamic candidate who lost the popular vote but mastered a somewhat broken system of delegate allocation, and here we are.

In no way do I mean to diminish what Obama accomplished, and it is no small thing. Congratulations are in order. For tonight, I stand aside and salute the devoted Obama exponents that I jousted with over the last year and a half. Tonight is your night. Enjoy. Be merry- you've earned that.

There exists a deep divide in the Democratic party. It has been writ large in this primary campaign, but I tend to think that it is deeper than Clinton v. Obama. I don't think that it is particularly racial in nature- those overtones were unfortunate but probably inevitable. The "race card" was played, in fairness, too easily by proponents of both sides. I don't, in fact, think that either candidate ever really was guilty of huge transgressions in this area.

I think of the divide in these terms: DLC vs. blogosphere. Wesley Clark vs. Howard Dean, if we can remember back to 2004. These groups are anathema to one another, and frankly, millions of people align closely with one group or another without even really knowning that they are a part of it. There are "DLC" Democrats who have no idea what the acronym stands for, and there are "blogosphere" Dems who don't own a computer.

DLC Democrats tend to be pragmatists who believe that governing toward, if not in the center, wins you elections. You stand up for principles, but negotiate in the name of pragmatism. It is worth noting that the two Democrats elected president in the last thirty two years have both been DLC-style leaders (though Carter evolved). Reagan democrats, when they drift toward a candidate like we saw en masse with Hillary, come here.

Blogosphere Democrats, if you will, are intellectual purists. To these people, Clinton's vote to authorize the war in 2002 was heresy. You are with us or against us. A vote for welfare reform or the occasional Bush judge means that you are practically a Bush Republican. Not everyone in the blogosphere is a part of this group. The orange site whose name I speak with some disdain is certainly a driving force here.

That's the divide in my view, and that is the strongest argument for an Obama/Clinton ticket. There is a little something for everyone to like. I think that the potential exists for the party to be united not just beyond the Clinton / Obama drama, but also maybe more united than we have ever been before.

I have wavered. I am not a blogosphere purist, and I probably won't ever be. But I admit that both groups bring something to the party. Over the past several days, I have done some soul searching. (I am being honest and would appreciate not being attacked.) I don't love Obama. I didn't like his primary campaign for a number of reasons that aren't relevant to this diary. (They're not a secret; check out my user history if you're curious.) I would never vote for John McCain- that would be intellectually dishonest. But I have actively considered writing-in Hillary as my choice for President. It would be an affirmative vote for a Democrat and a progressive. Hillary on the ticket might very well put me in Obama's corner. I have a lot of more thinking to do- I will not take this decision lightly. By the way, before you assault me for being a Republican troll, it might interest you to know that I organized a large-for-Arkansas county for Gore in 2000, which we won by 212 votes, I organized for Kerry to a lesser extent in 2004 and have repeatedly volunteered and donated more money and time than I could afford of either during my ten years as a voter. You don't want to lose a whole lot of voters like me.

Close, gut-checking elections can really change people. My mother is a 55 year old moderate Republican. We have argued and tussled for years over candidates and issues. She is not particularly a feminist, but is marginally pro-choice. She is a woman of strong opinions, as for as long as we have been talking politics, her strongest opinions have been of hate and antipathy for Hillary Clinton. No term was too strong with which to reference her, no insult off limits. To my never-ending amazement, over the course of this campaign, my mom (while always prefacing any statement with "I don't agree with her on anything, but...) became angry at the way that Hillary was being treated. She noted some subtle sexism that I, as a male, did not notice. She was seething over the treatment of Ferraro, and believe me, she was no Ferraro fan. "Fair is fair- and this isn't," she said. She was furious about the DNC decision on Saturday.

Early this evening, I called her. This person whose dislike (hatred, really) of Hillary Clinton spanned thirty years answered the phone with a voice quivering with anger and tears. Amazing.

The point of this too long story (which I swear on piles of Bibles is true) is this:

Dreams were realized with Obama's nomination. Dreams were also dashed today. For millions of women, Hillary Clinton is an American hero. For millions of men, too. I'm living proof.

But, yes- Congratulations to Barack Obama. Quite an acheivement for you and your supporters. I salute your accomplishment. I truly do.

And I thank God for Hillary Clinton and her leadership. Whether as Vice-President or Senator, I feel safer and more confident with her leadership as part of our government. And, no, I still haven't given up the dream of one day calling her "Madame President."

Today's outcome at the Rules and Bylaws meeting was completely predicatable, but outrageous nonetheless.

Democracy used to mean something in this country. Counting votes fairly, having results that were fair representations of the votes cast, making sure that an election process was unimpeachable used to be foundations of our republic. Those precepts were cast off at the RBC meeting today.

The committee could have counted the votes from Michigan and Florida. They could have rejected them. Either of these options would have been legitimate, even if one was less preferable than the other. I have a problem with half seating of delegations, but that was by far the lesser of the errors that came out of this sham of a meeting today.

Assigning delegates to someone who received no votes (of his own volition) is an assault of every basic tenet of democracy as we know it in this country. It is a violation of the rights of voters. It diminishes the already too-complicated process into a free-for-all. It has all the appearance of the DNC working (further) to assure their desired outcome. It is in no way the way that politics should work in this nation. I am appalled, outraged, and disgusted in a way that I have not been in a long time.

Would Obama have won if Michigan and Florida had counted the first time? We'll never know. Momentum is a strange and coveted thing in politics. The facts are the facts. But the process still matters. This makes a mockery of the entire deal. This "resolution" forever places an asterik next to Obama's nomination. The DNC intervention on his behalf is a nefarious enterprise which I reject. I will continue to support Democrats, but not the DNC. Not with my money, not with input, not in any way- ever. I am voting with my feet, and my feet are walking away.

I will never again carry water for these people with my conservative friends and family.  

To me, this caps off an the entire nominating process nicely. It has been an edifying experience. I thought that the "party boss" mentality has kind of gone away sometime post-1940. But they still lurk. The smoke-filled room still exists- smoking is banned indoors now- but it is still there.

What happened today is not Barack Obama's fault. I don't fault him. But I refuse to acknowledge any argument that these delegates from Michigan rightfully belong to him in any way. He chose to get zero votes in Michigan. For him to get even one delegate is totally illegitimate. If some of the uncommitted delegates drifted his way, fine. But to have a governing body officially allocate delegates to him even after he removed his name from the ballot in that state is both theoretically and practically illegitimate.  

The only silver lining is that it cements Clinton's status as the popular vote winner. But that is small consolation. But, alas, this is about more than Clinton v. Obama for me, anyway. Today is the day that I totally lost confidence in the Democratic National Committee, and their leadership of this once-great party.

Being the almost presumptive nominee of the party must be a lonely place for Barack Obama. He has won the majority of pledged delegates (pre-Saturday showdown), and got not a lot of media mileage out of it. He has been the frontrunner ever since it became clear that the Clinton campaign didn't have a competent caucus strategy in late-February, and he still isn't officially the nominee. And now he is looking toward a weekend when the DNC will probably delay his ascendency by raising the number of delegates required for nomination. He probably will be nominated in the end, but will do so after having probably received fewer votes than his opponent, which- if everyone is being honest- is not a position of strength.

Being Hillary Clinton must be even harder. For over a year, she was touted as the inevitable nominee only to realize too late that her campaign had failed her. The "we'll-maybe-win-in-Iowa-and-definately- win-New-Hampshire-and-then-everything-wi ll-be-roses" strategy looks profoundly dumb in retrospect. She is left with cards that are not that great, even after having outperformed Obama down the stretch.

I am a dyed in the wool Clinton supporter, but the above is not snarky. I imagine that running for President is not an easy thing to do. I legitimately feel sorry for both Obama and Clinton: they have both inspired unprecendented levels of support and it is June and no one has won yet.

Obama will, to a 95% degree of liklihood, be the nominee in the end. I don't like it, and I am still deciding whether to vote for Obama or write in Clinton in November. But I respect Obama (if not all of his supporters). My potential protest vote has more to do with the process that got him here than him personally.

I do have some concerns about Obama and his campaign at this juncture. Before I experience the snarky comments that are inevitable from Obama's supporters, let me throw you a little bone. The below are big problems for Obama. Clinton's problem is larger: she probably lost.

Here are my thoughts:

The FL / MI Showdown

I have no idea what the Rules and Bylaws committee will ultimately decide. My own personal view is that doing what the Republicans did (1/2 vote) would probably be appropriate. I also believe that awarding Obama delegates from MI or splitting the delegates 50/50 is a silly enterprise- making up delegate allocations based not based on votes is undemocratic and flies in the face of the one person, one vote theory. Alas, that's another diary.

It sounds like it is equally unlikely that either candidate will truly get their way. Not seating the delegations at all (Obama) seems as unlikely as seating them fully based on their January primaries (Clinton). I have been reading for the past several days that some sort of Solomonic solution is in the works. I hope that it is something that we can all accept, even if not cheer about.

What does, for example, giving the FL/MI delegates each one-half of a vote do to the numbers?

Well, it would raise the number of delegates needed for nomination from 2025 to 2130.5. (link: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/ fl-mi-by-numbers_21.html    see scenario #4). At this moment, that would leave Obama 96 delegates away from the nomination, and Clinton 246. In other words, Clinton gets no real-world benefit, but does gain a few delegates on Obama.

Let's play with the math a little bit. Let's give Obama 25 delegates from PR (seems generous) and 16 from MT and SD (realistic). That puts him, under this scenario, 55 delegates away. Let's give Clinton 30 delegates from PR (low-balling) and 14 from Montana and SD. That puts her 202 delegates away. Would Obama win? Almost certainly.

(The above scenario does not give Obama Michigan's uncommitted delegates. I think that this idea is a miscarraige of justice and in no way a "fair" solution. But again, another diary. If the decision does go that way, then that would put Obama about 35, rather than 55, delegates away.)

But here's my question: I would have thought that the Obama people would have absolutely moved heaven and earth to get to 2025 before Saturday, so that he could be declared the presumptive nominee. It still may happen, but 45 superdelegates in two days exceeds anything that we have seen in the campaign. Being the presumptive nominee and then having it taken away from you by bar-raising by the Rules and Bylaws Committee would have been a really powerful argument to the American people and the non-establishment Democratic party: "see the hoops they're putting me through," etc. etc. It hasn't happened. Why not?

The Electoral Map

Gallup released an interesting set of numbers profiling a small but notable Clinton edge against McCain. (link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillar y-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx) This data indicates that Clinton performs better in the states that she won in the general than Obama does in his- where he and Clinton run roughly equally. Further, since Clinton won states that comprise roughly 60% of the national electorate, that parlays into a real world advantage, argues Gallup.

Poblano, who is an amateur analyst, apparently professional statistician, and Obama supporter who has gained a lot of notoriety in the blogosphere this primary season for his/her analysis, which was spot-on on Super Tuesday. After exhibiting data on his/her new website for months showing Obama with a general election advantage, in recent weeks, Clinton has demonstrated real strength and now exceeds Obama's win percentage by a healthy margin. (61.8% to 51.8%). If you haven't checked out Poblano's site, do. It's chock full of wonderful charts and graphs and delicious statistical analysis that I don't pretend to understand. (link: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ )

Just today, Survey USA released a poll showing Obama losing Michigan. It looks to me like the general consensus of polling and commentary that I have seen shows that Clinton has the potential of winning a lot of states that Obama doesn't. Arkansas, West Virginia, and Florida come to mind. Clinton even currently leads McCain in Kentucky and North Carolina. In other words, a coalition that almost certainly would win the White House.

Obama seems to win Colorado, head to another close election in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and maybe bring Virginia to the table. (I have read that those in the know think that an Obama win in Virginia is unlikely, though I am more interested in evidence through credible polling which indicates that he certainly has a good shot.) In other words, a tossup.

My question, and the one that I imagine makes the Obama people uneasy: seeing whereas no one has won yet, and the primaries have been basically a tie- does this not matter?

I think it probably won't in the end- but it certainly should, in my opinion. Since February, the media juggernaut has been preaching that the only "fair" outcome is an Obama nomination, which seems exceedingly likely.

The Popular Vote

So far, Clinton's claims of leading in the popular vote have been catcalled by Obama's supporters because the claims inevitably include Florida and Michigan. Those were not DNC-santioned contests, we are told, so we shouldn't count the votes of the millions of people who voted there, either. As of Saturday, the likely will be DNC-sanctioned contests, which almost guarantees Clinton a popular vote lead. That and a quarter will get Clinton a newspaper. But it's something to brag about and is a huge consolation prize, to be sure.

Running for President is hard work. These two have inspired beyond anyone's expectations. The end is near, apparently. I look forward to the DNC's decision and to Puerto Rico this weekend. We will learn a lot in the next 96 hours: how far away is Obama from the nomination? Will Clinton win by enough in Puerto Rico to earn bragging rights by winning the popular vote, even including caucus estimates? In the end, I hope that the right thing will happen.

Bob Beckel, Walter Mondale's campaign manager and barely-concealed Obama supporter, made an interesting point in an online column last Friday for RCP. (link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam .html)

All Hillary Clinton really has to do in order to be the VP nominee is say that she wants to be. Most people don't realize it, but the ultimate decision for VP is made by the convention delegates. We have, in recent history, become used to process of a nominee picking a running mate and that person being endorsed without a lot of questions by the convention. But it is the convention that makes the decision, not the nominee. As long as the person they choose is constituionally qualified, they are the VP pick whether the nominee likes it or not. No vetting process is required.

Surely, Hillary has earned this. After over three months of being told daily that Hillary has no chance, we forget that this election, now almost over, is agonizingly close. One candidate leads in delegates, but one candidate seems almost certain now to be the recipient of more votes. It is basically a 51-49 election (or closer.) It is worth noting, that even after most of us had accepted that HRC had an outside chance at best, she kept winning primaries. She has a strong intensity of support. She could unify the party. I can't imagine a scenario I would vote for Obama in November, except this one.

Here's how it could work:

1. Clinton suspends her campaign after Montana / South Dakota. She must not release her delegates, though it wouldn't matter much in the end.

2. She waits a bit and then says "you know, I think I would like to be VP. I am going to ask my people to gather committments for that honor."

3. Her delegates are only committed to vote for her at the convention for President, but most of them are strong Clinton loyalists and would almost certainly vote for Clinton for VP if she asked. A great many of her current superdelegates would probably jump on board, since they have already stuck with her through the closing bells of the campaign.

4. Again, superdelegates get to make the call. It wouldn't take many. Whatever the number required to nominate is at the convention (we'll know soon enough) would be the magic number. As Beckel points out, Obama's winning margin of 150 or so pledged delegates would be all she would need. In the name of party unity and nominating a ticket that would almost certainly be favored in the fall, I bet Hillary could easily get that many.

If I am the nominee of a party and I want to make sure that I get to name my own VP, I need to win enough pledged delegates to get the nomination outright, so that I truly control the convention. Obama didn't do that. As a consequence, he might have to live with a downticket running mate not of his own choosing.

It would certainly unite the party and be an attractive ticket. It would continue the civics lesson we have all gotten this year about how this sausage making process actually works. It would be a stark reminder to Barack Obama that about half of the party voted for someone else. It would bring we wayward Democrats that are considering voting for Nader or writing in Hillary home to the nominated ticket.

Do I think Hillary would do this? Not likely. Should she? I think so. It would cement her status as a party and leader. She probably will not be nominated for President, but she has earned at least this. Scoff if you will- it's hers for the asking.

Besides, it would have the benefit of allowing all of us to watch Nancy Pelosi driven to apoplexy. Add her to the list of people that I respected before this competition whose behavior has made me very unsure of my status in this party.

Today, the majority of the mainstream media has been shrill about President Bush's smear of Obama. Was Bush's comment worthy of scorn? Absolutely. Did Obama's troubling comments in CNN's YouTube debate deserve the level of vitriol that the President's Knesset speech exhibited? No.

It's amusing, though, to watch the media jump so monolithically and quickly to Obama's defense. Not that it's new.

I made the mistake of watching Anderson Cooper last night for a time. Ten minutes into his incessant belittling of Clinton, I decided to change the channel. To me- the most revolting development in this campaign has been the extreme bias of the media. There are oodles of studies by reputable media watchdog groups that verify the extreme bias in the primary battle, which unquestionably benefitted Obama.

My answer:

To the mainstream media:

To Chris Matthews: Your professions of tingles when Obama speaks was almost as uncomfortable to watch as the numerous moments when your misogynistic prattling got you in trouble.

To Katie Couric: The report from December in South Carolina in which you interviewed many Obama supporters and only one Clinton supporter was unbalanced enough. Really, what purpose did it serve to have the one Clinton supporter you interviewed share with us that he would never vote for a "colored?" What were you trying to convey?

To Keith Olbermann: Your suggestion that Hillary Clinton be silenced in a room in which "only he comes out" was a really moving moment in the annals of broadcast history. Were you wanting Hillary to be murdered or merely beaten senseless in that room? You belong in jail.

To Tim Russert: Your constant fawning over Obama makes me squirm. In fact, you make me squirm. Of all the media figures who led the Obama band this season, you are the biggest loser. You used to be viewed as the most objective and serious political commentator on television. Now, you look ordinary- you really are just another hack.

Barack Obama got a lot of mileage of the media this primary season. I imagine that they will remain firmly in his camp for the general. The above- the superest of super delegates, if you will- played a large role in delivering the nomination to Obama.

It's disgusting. I used to roll my eyes at my Republican friends and family who complained bitterly of media bias. No longer. This is not right. The mass media really should take a look at returning to objectivity. The American people aren't particularly impressionable, but the constant framing of issues and political races in one way or another is an influence that cannot be denied. There's no alternative. If they hate your candidate, you are in real trouble.

Hillary Clinton's campaign made a lot of mistakes- not having a competent caucus strategy being the most costly- but she was at a greater disadvantage from the beginning than any of us realized. The media doomed her.

So, Hillary Clinton has only an infinitesimal chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Fine. Barack Obama is going to be the nominee. Fine.

Since the "ground moved" on Tuesday (with two strong candidates performing well among demographics with which they have always performed well), there have been conciliatory diaries posted by Obama supporters, some of which were compelling and, in one case, touching.

There have also been a fair numbers of "deal with it" diaries.

The Obama nomination has been railroaded through- without a satisfactory resolution of the MI / FL question, without a full accounting of the votes, with the benefit of a system that is somewhat silly and somewhat corrupt- by party bosses and a fawning news media.

We get it- he won, sort of. He will be the one giving the acceptance speech in August. There is nothing that anyone can do to change it at this jucture. And a lot of us will get on board.

What the "deal with it" diarists forget is that not only do a lot of us not like Barack Obama: it is not just sour grapes. There are legitimate, policy-implicated reasons that many of us find troubling about him. Health care is an example.

I don't know if Obama will win in the fall or not. McCain seems unwilling to go negative- which says more about John McCain's integrity than Barack Obama's strength. What you diarists are forgetting is that Hillary Clinton and her supporters are the ultimate swing voters in determining whether or not Obama will be President. 50% of Clinton supporters in Indiana and North Carolina said that they will not vote for Obama in the fall. These are red state Democrats, but they are voters. A lot of them will ultimately vote for Obama. The conduct of the Obama campaign in these closing days will determine whether or not it is "most" or "almost all" that ultimately vote for him. It is in that divide that this election could be decided.

So, be nice. If you don't have anything nice to say, it might be better to not say anything at this moment.

We are dealing with bruised feelings, to be sure. Many of us are left with the feeling that the Democratic party has made a very bad choice.

I will get over it, or not, on my own sweet time.

Let's face it- even we Clinton supporters know that Obama is virtually certain to be the nominee. It's an unbelievably unwise choice, in my estimation, but it's there. Obama exceeded expectations in North Carolina and Clinton was about four points below expectations in Indiana.

Not much changed in terms of the predicament that we find ourselves in, which was bad news for Hillary. But, what did change was the overwhelming media narrative for Clinton to get out by Obama's enthusiasts in the national media and nervous party bosses who are worried about Clinton harming Obama's electability in the fall (and he certainly doesn't need any help in that department.)

Why is Clinton vowing to stay in?

A few ideas:

1. She wants to see if Obama implodes.

2. Force a floor fight re: Florida and Michigan. (I think that this is the likely reason.) Donna Brazile showed her cards last night. Tom Daschle was incredibly smug when asked about the delegations from Florida and Michigan. The chances of the delegations being seated based on the primaries at the meeting on 5/31 are close to nil. She might want to make the point- loud and clear- that if these contests counted she would either be the nominee or be close to the nomination. Her floor fight wouldn't be successful, but it would certainly make a clear point.

3. With her delegate strength (a runner-up with nearly 48% of the delegates and a certain fondness from a lot of Obama delegates), she might try to force her way onto the ticket. She would almost certainly be successful. While I think that it would be funny to watch, I hope this isn't the reason. I don't want her to be on a ticket with Obama.

After all,

*Obama had the support of almost the entirety of the national media.

*The DNC took the bait of the GOP Florida legislature and muted out an important state primary (probably a momentum builder).

*Obama steamrolled the process to have Florida and Michigan count and make this a fair fight back in March.

*The most powerful Democrat in the country, Nancy Pelosi, led a daily chorus opaquely chiding Clinton for remaining in the race.

*The blogosphere has been pounding it into everyone's heads that there was no chance for Clinton to win for over three months.

And he still only will have won by a miniscule amount.

Keep up the fight until the end of the primary season in a month. Get every delegate and vote that you can. Then, let him have it. If he loses the election, there's always four years from now. Maybe a fairer and more democratic process can be designed and implemented before then.

I am getting excited to see the results of tomorrow's balloting. I hope Hillary Clinton wins Indiana. Though I'm not convinced Hillary has IN in the bag, it certainly seems that one would rather be in her shoes in that state tonight than Obama's.

I am much more cautious about North Carolina. I think that if there were no early voting, or if Hillary had had another week, or if Jeremiah Wright's little media tour had been a few days later...well, what might have been. There is reason to be enthusiastic about the returns from North Carolina, but we'll see. It seems like Clinton has too steep a mountain to climb in too short a time. I think Obama will win by mid-to-high single digits. But- hey- I'm also an eternal pessimist and often wrong!

But, I am more interested in probabilities tonight. Here's where I see things. This is my own sort of stream of consciousness. Let me know what you think.

Results in 24 Hours

Three Possible Outcomes (and I am assuming that the Oba-media does not give Clinton extra credit for a stronger than expected showing in NC, if it materializes.):

1. Obama Wins Both - Probably the ballgame for Clinton. I won't qualify that any further, but more will be said about the process that got us here below.

2. Clinton Wins Both - I know what the delegate math says, but there would be something earthshatteringly important about Clinton winning NC. Imagine Obama had won Ohio and Pennsylvania- about the same. A Clinton win there will prove that Jeremiah Wright has further hurt Obama with white voters. If he can't win the single most favorable state left to him in the remaining contests, I assume that it won't be pretty, but Clinton will be the nominee. (Probably on a Unity ticket.)

3. A Split - status quo. Daily trickles of superdelegates as we slouch toward June. I still think that a Clinton win in Indiana is a big, big deal. Obama was ahead 15 points in March and has not weathered well. It was a dead even contest on the night of the PA primary. I remember a CNN commentator (not sure which, maybe Borger) saying "Obama really, really needs to win Indiana." Regardless, a split is not a game changer.

Michigan and Florida Revisited

Let me be clear: I started this primary a process a Clinton supporter with warm feelings for Biden, Dodd, and Edwards. Obama was never on my short list, but I would have enthusiastically voted for him, were it not for this Michigan and Florida fiasco.

If Obama is nominated, but Clinton would have won more delegates had Michigan and Florida counted, I will write in Hillary Clinton as my presidential choice in November.

My rationale is this: Most superdelegate endorsements for Obama right now are based on the fact that he is ahead in delegates. I think that the disqualification of MI / FL is the silliest thing that I have ever heard of. The rules were arbitrary to start with (usually the worst kind of rules) and were selectively applies.

A fact: Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan. Most people know this, but still call it an illegitimate election.

A fact: Had Obama not vetoed it, there could have been re-votes in FL / MI.

A fact: Michigan and Florida are still without a voice at the convention solely because of the Obama campaign's intransigence on the issue.

A fact: Obama's proposal to just split the delegates based on the doctrine of "fairness," without even a nod or acknowledgent of the two million votes cast in those states is where he really lost me in this battle.

It is an opportunity for Clinton, however. If she stays in the race to the end, she will be able to say to the DNC that they could include the delegates from MI / FL (which would likely make her the nominee) or they can truly not seat the delegates. If she doesn't stay in until the end, the delegates will be seated, but they will be "rally round the flag" delegations for Obama.

Obama's intransigence on this question sets up an ugly scenario, for which he is responsible (if this goes on long enough): He can either lose as the result the DNC Credentials committee seating the delegates or, the DNC will have to follow through on their decision not to seat, which would be a disaster. All along, he fought solutions to the question. Checkmate by Hillary. If Hillary wins Indiana, I assume she will stay in the race to the end. Turns out Gloria Borger was right: "Obama really, really needs to win Indiana."

That we are even in this mess makes me almost unable to refer to our party as the "Democratic" party with a straight face.

I cannot, and will not, endorse with my vote a nomination won by an arbitrary disqualification of votes.

I cannot, and will not, endorse with my vote a nomination won by a candidate who actively worked to disqualify those votes.

I cannot, and will not, endorse with my vote a party that is willing to sacrifice the voices of millions of Americans in order to acheive a desired outcome.

The critical upcoming day on this question is May 31st, when the Rules and Bylaws committee will be reconsidering the Florida and Michigan question.

Electability

That old canard, right? Well, it turns out to be incredibly important. One doesn't have to climb very high on the fabled cherry tree to pick the polling narrative that demonstrates that one candidate is more likely to win than another.

PA, OH, FL are three important states in which Hillary Clinton is more competitive than Barack Obama. CO, VA, and WI are states where Obama looks better. But let's put aside too early polls for a moment. Put aside what we think we know that will happen in voting booths across the country six months from now.

I am more interested in positioning.

Let me ask an honest question, seeking honest responses: Of the three remaining candidates for President (Clinton, Obama, McCain), who do you think is seen to be ideologically in the middle?

This primary process has been very, very good for our party if in fact Clinton is the nominee. People I know who essentially spat out her name a year ago now take her seriously. She is no longer regarded solely as a radical feminist, with a predeliction toward socialism. She is viewed, in the main, as a thoughtful, tenacious, and pragmatic moderate.

I have no problem with radical feminism, or socialism for that matter. But most Americans do.

I would submit: Of the three remaining candidates for President, Hillary Clinton is the best positioned to win swing voters across the country.

She is viewed as a moderate on Iraq, unlike McCain.
She is viewed as strong on the economy, unlike McCain.
She is viewed as having the experience to do the job, unlike Obama.
She is viewed as a friend to the working class, unlike Obama.
She is articulate about tax policy and the impact that has on every day workers, unlike both McCain and Obama.

I know that a lot of people in the netroots don't like DLC-type moderates- they want purists. But, let me ask: who wins? I personally think that the unlikely nomination of McCain demands that we nominate someone from near the center.

Add into the mix that we now know that:

a> Obama can take a hit, but.......
b> it's like watching a trainwreck when he is on the defensive, and
c> the Republicans probably noticed that.

You get the picture. I think that whether we can win with Obama- now that the euphoria of February has yielded to a hard look in May- is a legitimate and extremely timely question.

The Unity Ticket

Ignoring, for a moment, the daily punditry that comes from the one-woman junta that Nancy Pelosi is emulating, I have this final thought:

My feelings about Michigan and Florida could be assuaged if there were a unity ticket. There are a lot of us who are Clinton supporters who have been watching Obama and this nomination process are are less than enamored with both. There are a lot of us who might look somewhere else for someone to vote for. Likewise, if Clinton wins, there are, I acknowledge, a lot of Obama people who will, rightly or wrongly, feel that they are being robbed of something.

I certainly have a preference about the order of the names on the unity ticket, but I think that about the only way to truly unite the party is to put both on the ticket in whatever order and move on. They clearly appeal to different constituencies- and they are all groups that we need to win. I think that this would, in whichever order, hedge our bets a bit, and probably successfully.

They don't like each other? Tough. Neither did Kennedy / Johnson. Neither did Nixon / Agnew. Neither did Reagan / Bush, initially. Neither did Clinton / Gore, at the end. But they were all grown ups who did what it took to win.

Just a few thoughts on what could happen, and what should happen. Happy Primary Day to all!