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.

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.

First, if you don't think Clinton has faced a hostile press, you haven't been watching the same news media I've been seeing (and remember, I'm an Obama supporter). The debate performances by Brian Williams and Tim Russert (for one example) have been nothing less than prosecutorial towards her. The reason those SNL skits were funny was (to quote Homer Simpson) because they were true.

Second, I've seen a lot of "If XXXXX gets the nomination I'm either a) staying home on election day; or b) voting for John McCain" comments recently. Both of these options are unbelieveably stupid for any Democrat considering the miniscule policy differences between Obama and Clinton.

To reiterate: a unity ticket, announced soon, is the only solution.

Putting the mathematical loser on the top of the ticket does little to nothing for party unity.

But alienating half the party will.

As for Michigan and Florida, they knew the ramifications of their respective decisions and moved up their primaries anyway, so I have very little sympathy for them.

That may be so, but it is still a potentially divisive problem that will have to be addressed one way or another.

That being said, given their importance in the general election, I'd expect they'll get a do-over of some kind. Fine, so be it. They still don't make Clinton mathematically viable at all. Please, look at the math before you begin suggesting we grant Sen. Clinton 4 years for running a terrible campaign.

I don't see how running a campaign that has remained this close against both an excellent candidate like Obama and a hostile press corps can be described as "terrible."

Look, it's natural that you want your candidate at the top of the ticket. I waited outside in the cold here in Houston until 11:30 pm before I could enter the building to caucus for Obama, so I don't make this suggestion as a Clinton partisan.

It's about finding a reasonable compromise that's best for the party in November from the top to the bottom of the ballot.

With all due respect, your solution sucks. Particularly given that Hillary has already mathematically lost the nomination.

Neither can achieve the number of delegates required. That's the problem. And there's also the issue of Florida and Michigan.

And of course, there's that little matter of party unity.

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 invites Obama to run as a Vice President. The party is united and the Florida/Michigan issue becomes moot. If elected, she makes history and can institute her reforms, yet shows her willingness to sacrifice her ambition (for two terms) for the good of her party and her country -- enhancing her popularity.

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

Any other scenario will either require a dark horse candidate like Gore or will split the party with disastrous electoral results.