Just like to sometimes keep things in perspective.

I'm a big believer that we can't win this election without Hillary Clinton's base, particularly older women (who have always been thankfully the bedrock of the Democratic Party and allowed them to win repeatedly in many cases where they should not.)

Just think people are a) misreading the electoral map a little, b) ignoring the Republican Party and Bush's abysmal standing, c) ignoring Obama's voters for a simple reason I'll tell you in a sec and d) not reading history.

Polls are often done using the pool of voters who voted LAST time. Obviously they are going to necessarily underestimate Senator Obama's support since they automatically preclude any young, new voters. Not purposefully that's just the way they work. How else can they? They have to go with the list of previous voters they have. This is why Obama constantly over-performs what the polls say going into the day of the election. It's why they often predict he will lose by HUGE margins when he doesn't (Indiana) or predicts losses where he actually wins (North Carolina and Wisconsin.)

Young voters (which generally means 18-29) made up 25% of North Carolina's TOTAL electorate. Not just Democratic, but total. How many of these do you think haven't voted before? That's how a state like that can look like it's narrowing or even a Clinton win. They're not polling at least a quarter of Obama's supporters.

It's just a TERRIBLE year to be a Republican. And no one knows it more than them. It IS hurting them. Two previously red districts have already went Democratic both as a result of Obama:

"At the polls, it has been a massacre. In recent weeks, Republicans have lost a Louisiana House seat they had held for more than two decades and an Illinois House seat they had held for more than three. Internal polls show that next week they could lose a Mississippi House seat that they have held for 13 years."

Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10238.html

The Illinois district is clearly a result of Obama. The Louisiana seat is the one area where the Republicans decided to try and run ads linking the Democratic candidate (who had endorsed Obama) to Reverend Wright. How'd that go? They managed to lose a seat they hadn't lost in 20 years. Since the post is long, I'll stop now, but go to the link, read the article, you'd be surprised how much trouble the Republicans are in. And it's largely a result of Obama's new candidacy. Why do you think Rush and the Republicans are pulling so hard against him?

May 20, Senator Obama will likely take the lead in all elected delegates. Knowing and understanding Senator Clinton would understandably be upset but of course not ready to quit, he mildly suggested this might be the day he celebrated. (Note he not only didn't celebrate last Tuesday but gave a speech entirely complimentary of her and went home to Illinois.)

Understanding that she might still not like that, he then moved the date to June 3. June 3 the last primaries will be held. Can we celebrate and return to unifying the Party then?

Would another 2 days do it, say June 5? How about June 15?

But I'm sorry dragging this thing on indefinitely, as Hillary is suggesting she's doing, especially given both her and Bill's (to be fair) track record of dirty politics, is simply unacceptable. (And he did offer her a compromise on Michigan, 69-59 in her favor. Do you know what her counter-proposal was? Not 79-49, nope 128-0. That's right she wants ALL of the 330,000 popular votes in Michigan and all of the delegates. Even the uncommitted. She thinks Senator Obama would have received absolutely 0 votes in the entire state of Michigan had the election been ran fairly. That's insane and frankly insulting.)

We only have 7 months until the general. She needs to pick a date to exit this thing. And it can't be July and it sure can't be at the convention come August. That's just not fair to the Party. So please pick a date sometime between now and June 5th, not because we're being picky or demanding but because we have a Republican Party to throw out of the White House and an election to win. Everything cannot be put aside for one person. It's just not fair or right to the country.

The truth is the Senate Majority Leader would have far more power over the healthcare agenda than the president. The president is basically held hostage to the Congress when it comes to major healthcare policy like this (ask Bill and Hillary Clinton from their own experience trying to pass this over an objecting Congress.)

Since it's clear Hillary isn't doing the sound thing and exiting, let me just re-iterate were she to accept defeat the sooner a platform like her healthcare package could be forced on Obama.

John and Elizabeth Edwards already favor Hillary's plan. (I disagree, but whatever.) The point is were Hillary to exit, this is precisely the type of issue pretty much everyone would force on Obama. Let her write the healthcare plan for the Convention's platform. Those are the types of compromises that are almost always made with reasonable candidates by the Party.

Unfortunately, if she keeps campaigning the way she is, the usual deals like this will quickly begin closing to her.