If Clinton were willing to play "second fiddle" to Obama I would respect her more....if she loses this campaign, a lot of the blame will be Bill's. I have the feeling many Americans may be happier to see Bill as her "co-vice president" than "co-president." It is unfair that she was/is his greatest asset while he has been, to put it mildly, a mixed blessing.

If Clinton "swiftboats" Obama--and somehow snatches the win from him by strongarming superdelegates or counting Michigan and Florida without a do-over--I'm not sure if she will be able to win the ticket against McCain. Or, if Obama wins only on the "luck" of having Michigan and Florida disbarred....since those are states where she does tend to do better...there also may be negative rippling effects.

I would like to see them work together. But I agree with you that it might seem like too much of a "come down" for Hillary. And the other way around...I just keep seeing Bill in the way. I think that "change" is what the American people want and they can't get that from a straight-up return to the Clinton White House.

Yes, I'm not sure if Salon is a microcosm either...but here at least we do have some jerks on both sides, but also some really solid and smart supporters on both sides who are also passionately committed to their candidate of choice. If Democrats could see the kind of turnout that we've been seeing in the primaries, I think that we--the whole party could blow the Republicans away.

And I love the idea of defying conventional wisdom about "balancing" a ticket with a white male so there isn't too much diversity in one place....would that mean there isn't a chance of winning a southern state? I used to live in the south a long time ago. I would love the idea of a white woman and a black man winning a southern state together. Even just one. That would sure make the old style racist/sexists spin in their graves....

that's really good to hear! What if Clinton were on the ticket with second billing....at least it would prove that she's committed to the party...and willing to led the "new politics" lead the way.

Frankly I think that Clinton hasn't been much of a populist in the past. But I kind of like her populist appeal right now. I can imagine her becoming more of a populist, if she thought that it was what her constituents wanted.

Maybe I'm dreaming. It's just that I'd like this to work out for the Democrats. More than "like." Yesterday I heard the nobel prize winner Joseph stiglitz speak about the three trillion dollar war. I felt heartsick. All of this carping about personality and color and women. We have a war to end. For real. I don't believe a Republican will end the war. I would like to think that either of the Democrats would.

By the way, if I'm wrong...if either Clinton or Obama becomes president and does not end the war. I will become extremely angry/embittered. Maybe enough to consider drumming up support for the narcissist Nader.

Top down politics is ruining this country. If ordinary people know we need to get out of Iraq now, why don't our leaders know it?

Black people in Florida (among others) were told not to vote because their vote wouldn't count....so they didn't. The people who did vote in Florida either were prescient enough to predict that the Democratic Party would give in and change its mind (as some here seem to be claiming), or many were voting on a property bill proposition and voted for president while they were already at the polls.

For those voters who were told not to vote and didn't vote--and weren't at the polls already to vote on a property bill--counting Florida's delegates without a do-over amounts to disenfranchising them.

I have been thinking the same thing about many of the items you mention except that "swiftboating" only counts if you lose. Obama hasn't lost yet. Let's keep watching. I don't think he "lost" in Texas or Ohio or Rhode Island because those voters had been polling high for Clinton right up until election day. He actually did better than he was supposed to by early estimates. People can say that the negative campaigning worked (and some will say this) but whatever it gave her...the polls were fairly accurate in predicting what happened.

If the polls continue to generally predict the outcome, he will do in Pennsylvania maybe about the way he did in Ohio...but he may win and win by large or significant margins in nearly every other contest left. Which means that delegate wise I don't think that he can lose. Well, he can. I don't mean to be overly confident. This contest has been full of twists and turns..

But if he wins the nomination despite the negative campaigning it could genuinely make him stronger. The Republicans will raise the same issues, and Democrats can say he's "Teflon coated"...he's been vetted...People can stand in a room and yell Rezko at the tops of their lungs or whisper it in dark corners...we're still going to vote for him in the national election.

Just some thoughts. Maybe I'll change my mind by tomorrow....I agree with you that the Democratic Party has shifted to far to the right. I hope that voters can push it back leftwards a little bit...left of either of the main candidates. I feel sad when I hear old time Democrats saying that no real leftie can ever win. I don't think either Clinton or Obama is a true leftie. But the American people after Bush have shifted left as the neocons have shifted right. This is why we need bottom-up politics instead of top-down politics. No more corporocracy. Let's end the war and give more rights to workers.