I wonder why Hillary continues to beat the drum about how hard it is for her as a woman? Perhaps because the drum beat brings out her most virulent "it's time for a woman to lead" supporters.

The thing about Hillary's hostile press coverage is that it's the press pack's negative perception of her (or pundits' putative mind reading of her) that gets reported. When you look for the actual terrible things she's done, you generally don't find the crux of any particular offense.

People actually got worked-up because her refutation of the notion that Obama was a Muslim was "insufficiently strong." I saw the interview. She was unequivocal, yet some complained about her "pauses" and "inflection." Others thought the "Three AM" ad was the most viciously unfair political attack they'd ever seen. That was a kiss on the cheek compared to what the Republicans will be serving up for November.

I really think the worst thing that you can say about Hillary is that she's an old-style pol when compared to the transformational 21st-century politics of Obama.

Since neither Obama nor Clinton can achieve the number of delegates required to win the nomination outright; and the Michigan and Florida debacle looms as an unresolvable nightmare; and the longer this conflict continues the more divided the Democrats will be and the better McCain's chances become. Therefore:

Hillary agrees to a single term and Obama runs as Vice President. The party is united and the Florida/Michigan issue becomes moot. If elected, she makes history and can institute her policies, yet shows her willingness to sacrifice her ambition (for two terms) for the good of her party and her country -- enhancing her popularity (and possibly even assuaging the anxiety of the Hillary-haters).

For Obama it's a good move for similar reputation-enhancing reasons -- he sacrifices his immediate presidential ambition for the good of party and country. In four years, he (presumably) becomes president while still relatively young (their relative ages make this the only workable sequence).

Any compromise requires sacrifice from both parties and this is the only deal that I can see working. Any other scenario will result in prolonged and increasingly bitter intra-party slashings, and will either require a dark-horse candidate like Gore or will split the party with disastrous electoral results.

It's as simple as that. Either or.

And take these ruefully sad words from a former McGovernik: Ideological purity is no solace for defeat in the general election -- especially with the stakes as crucially important for our country as they are this year.

Also recall the Democratic Party schisms of 1968 and 1980, which put Republicans into the White House? Anyone care for a repeat?

Remember the immutable law of politics: Politics IS compromise.

A reasonable compromise now will be much better than four years of President John W. (Bomb-Bomb) McCain.

I think the numerous conficts cited by others -- including the "black/brown divide," prove the Clinton 1-Term/Obama VP solution I proposed is the best (and perhaps only) formula for victory in November.

The Clinton 1-Term/Obama VP compromise is a Win-Win-Win solution. I don't think anyone can deny the following points:

1. Hillary at the top of the ticket -- even for one term -- should satisfy Clinton supporters (considering point no. 3). Win #1.

2. Obama as VP will assure the Democratic Party's nomination in 2012. That combined with his influence as VP should satisfy Obama supporters (considering point no. 3). Win #2.

3. This ticket, from a united Democratic Party, will beat the Republicans in November -- which is the reason for the whole process. Win #3

Remember, one has to give-up something for there to be a compromise. Let's save the partisan daggers for the Republicans. We'll need them.

With all due respect, this won't satisfy anyone. It's an insult to suggest that Obama should be VP when he's ahead by nearly 10% in the pledged delegate count and he's ahead in number of states won. He's all but closed the super delegate gap and there are contradicting counts of if he is or is not actually ahead in the popular vote. He's run a remarkable campaign and inspired millions of new and independent voters. He's defied conventional wisdom and he's beating Hillary who was all but designated heir apparent 6 months ago.

With all due respect, that's not a conclusion, it's a premise.

I'm assuming we get to the convention deadlocked -- Obama leading in delegates, Clinton leading in popular vote, with neither having enough delegates to win.

I guess I'm not understanding why even with all the variables in your scenario, Hillary should be at the top of the ticket and Obama should be the VP.

For a compromise, there must be mutual sacrifice. If Obama were at the top of the ticket, what would he be sacrificing? If Hillary took the VP, she's be too old for the top job after two Obama terms.

If Hillary publicly announced she'd only serve one term, Obama would move-up after only four years -- still a young man.

And more important, we'd have party unity and victory in November, 2008.