Your response is to real criticism of your candidate is to dismiss it lightly as if Senator Clinton's Humphryesque behavior does not carry with it the possibility of electing John McCain the President of the United States, is very revealing.

It suggests that you have no real response, no explaination as to why the activities of Senator Clinton and her Surrogates does not carry with it the seeds of McCain's possible victory.

If you can show me how having a fellow candidate tear down the eventual nominee does not help the opposition party, I am happy to hear it.

But you'd likely rather crack wise, and dismiss criticism, since you know as well as I do that Senator Clinton's actions are detrimental to the Party.

As I've said, Senator Obama can still lose, even if Senator Clinton does the right thing and gracefully exits the race.

Senator Clinton will lose if she convinces the super delegates to undo the results of the primaries and caucuses.

The question before Senator Clinton now is, do you continue on the course you are on, even knowing that you will spilt the party against you, and give aid and comfort to the oposition? Or do you take a step back and ask what's best for the party and the nation.

Senator Clinton so far gives no indication of caring what is best for the party or the nation. Her only argument is that rank and file Democrats won't vote for Senator Obama (which is unlikely, since rank and file Democrats won't vote for McCain), and ignores the fact that the independents he has brought to the party likely won't vote for her, after her inexcusable behavior in this campaign.

Could Senator Obama lose? Of Course, popular opinion with regard to the war is already shifting back towards where Senator McCain would like it. That is irrelevant to the question before us however. Should Senator Clinton continue to fight dirty and fight hard for an election she can't win on popular vote, and if she does what is the cost to the party as a whole?

Give me your answer to that. I would love to hear it.

You know, I conceed the point that Obama has not won the necessary delegates to win the nomination outright.

And if Senator Clinton had run a respectful campaign highlighting her policy differences with Senator Obama, I doubt I would care if she left after Pennsylvania or Peurto Rico.

The problem isn't that Senator Clinton has opted to continue to run, it is that the way in which she has opted to run serves only John McCain.

Time and time again, Senator Clinton and her Surrogates have tried to drag this campaign into the mud, and leveled accusations against Senator Obama that will be brought back in the general election under the title "If members of his own party feel this way, how can we trust him?"

If Senator Clinton wants to run she needs run with a greed for all the party not just herself.

She can run on her record, and compare it to his, but that isn't what she has done to date. Instead she has tried to tear down a member of her own party and offered little about her own qualifications beyond his.

If Senator Obama had responded in kind, and made this election a scortched earth campaign for the both of them, then yes Senator Clinton would be excused for her equal treatment. But instead we have one candidate who is more concerened about Party cohesiveness than about his own nomination, and one who has taken the opposite tack.

And if Senator Clinton won Pennsylvania by 20 points it might give us pause...but that is fairly unlikely. If Senator Clinton does not win Pennsylvania by 20 points however, what do we do then? Just keep on hacking away at the nominee until the convention? Make this a superdelegate race of coffee filled back rooms (no smoking in Colorado) and giving one or even either candidate the look of usurping? Not to mention the wasting of campaign funds fighting amongst ourselves while John McCain the unquestioned "war hero" raises money and tries to look presidential.

It isn't a question of three or four states and we need a winner, but there comes a time when a candidate must decide what is best for the party, and put their own interests to the side. We are fast approaching that time for Ms. Clinton (and likely past it when she lost Texas), and she has shown no signs of interest in doing the right thing.

Yes, Party rules in Texas state that one only wins if they can show the on the ground organization to have people vote in the primary and the caucus.

The ground game of politics is such that one needs to be able to motivate and organize your supporters to vote when and where you need them to.

Senator Obama won Texas, because he is organized and professional, and makes intelegent choices in the people he sends out when he can't be everywhere at once.

That's why caucuses are as important as primaries in our nomination process, and why Senator Obama has won more of both than Senator Clinton.