You've got it all wrong. Obama didn't crawl to Edwards and apparently Edwards is miffed. Clinton apparently crawled, repeatedly. I think Edwards is disappointed but he waited too long for it to matter. OTOH, exactly how does Edwards reconcile a Clinton endorsement with his scathing attacks on her during the debates? Any ideas?

Stop blaming Obama supporters for the way that Edwards has conducted himself and how it is perceived. That's what happens when you sit on the fence for an extended period of time. I haven't heard of him in several weeks and I haven't cared. I have a deep suspicion that most people left to vote feel exactly the same way.

Oh, now I get it. You didn't read the article, right? Otherwise you wouldn't be wondering why I mentioned Clinton's behavior towards the Edwards camp. Everyone else who bothered to read the article understands why it's valid to dismiss Edwards because he appears to want more attention/recognition/butt-kissing from Obama than Obama is willing to give. I find that a very weak reason to withhold an endorsement or, worse, grant one. Have you even heard the accusations Edwards levelled against Clinton while he was in the race? He was scathing. I'm amazed he can even consider endorsing Clinton and I know some of his closest supporters are vehemently against it.

Your logic is flawed. You have decided that the fault must be Obama's since he appears to have an easier or smoother path to Edwards than Clinton. You fail to account for the motivations that john Edwards may have had in meeting with Obama. We know Obama wanted an endorsement. We know that.

What about Edwards? Did he want some kind of tacit agreement on a role in a possible Obama White House? Do we know if he wanted to be picked as veep? All we know is that they met and Edwards felt dissatisfied. So much so that he has withheld an endorsement. Well, take a look at the last presidential election. From that performance would YOU feel that Edwards was an absolute must-have guy on your side?

As for Edwards, I don't get him. He states that he wants to help the working poor and middle class in this country. And yet he hesitates to endorse a candidate that has spent a considerable portion of his adult life as a community organizer.

Funny, but sad and true too.

Thanks to those posters for passing along the information. I was wondering when this information would be released.

I also wonder if Salon will publish any articles or discussions of the report of the Ohio results, or the Clinton camp's low resevoir of funds for this primary season that is intended to last for three more months, or their decision to put off paying bills to their vendors so as to keep on ticking. Just wondering. It's certainly being discussed on TV and on other sites.

Unpaid Bills are a sign that Hillary's campaign has not been able to mobilize average voters on her behalf, certainly not the way Obama has. It's also a sign (to me anyway) that her campaign has been run in a remarkably ineffective fashion. That can't serve as an inspiration to the superdelegates and it might explain why some supers are no longer heeding the Bill Clinton call to "chill." If she's doing so well, why can't she raise more money?

As a side note, I'm hoping that Salon at some point addresses this issue of unpaid bills and juxtaposes that with the Clinton net worth as shown on their tax returns.

Be honest. Did you ever, ever believe that we would be having this type of discussion about Hillary's campaign a year ago or even six months ago? I know I didn't and I had every intention of voting for her (while holding my nose). This candidate came into the process way ahead in every conceivable measure: money, internal political support, name recognition.

How can one argue that Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate when she has, to put it bluntly, lost so much ground in such a short time? She's now WAAY behind in money and has lost the majority of contests to date. I won't argue that there's no way Clinton can win, because it's possible. What it isn't is probable and it doesn't even appear to make a lot of sense given her performance over the past four months.

You're missing the forest for the trees. The plain facts are that the most advantaged candidate by every possible measure has not only failed to fight well for her candidacy, she has fallen behind since the primaries began and has struggled to even stay in the game. This is the real story of the primary season.

Also, you mentioned not being shocked by Clinton's failure to dominate the primariy season despite her enormous advantages. I don't understand that logic and I frankly think you are attempting revisionist history to make Hillary's campaign appear more viable. Precisely who else was touted to be capable of giving Hillary a serious challenge before the primaries began? Certianly not Obama and Edwards had a major gap in funding. Who else then?

I think you are confusing Clinton's negatives among the general electorate with her negatives among Democrats. Those are two very different ballgames indeed. At least they were before December 2007. The big story since has been Obama's disciplined and effective campaign and Hillary's inability to regain her footing, which was at the TOP. This is precisely why superdelegates have left her campaign (despite signing on early for her) and why others have simply gone to Obama.

Personally, I think Michigan has virtually no RIGHT to ask for any seating of delegates but if anything can work, this may be it. Nice try and good luck Michigan.