The fact that Obama told his supporters to vote uncommitted, as we all admit, and that John Conyers did so also leads me to believe Obama got more not fewer uncommitted voters. But never mind even that.

Can we all agree Obama got at least some of the uncommitted vote? Any at all? How about 1,000 people? 10? 1?

The Hillary campaign claim that Obama got literally zero, zip, zilch, 0 votes in the entire state of Michigan is absurd. There's no other word for it. It's also the least reasonable position one can take. Hence it leads all rational people to believe they're not interested in compromise.

What else should one conclude? Apparently no one in Detroit voted for Barack. No one in Flint, Dearborn, Benton Harbor, or any other city in the entire state of Michigan. Not a person. Can anyone honestly believe that?

Has Hillary ever been to Michigan? Detroit at least? Ann Arbor's a college town, thought Obama got those voters, but no apparently not. Every singe, last solitary breathing soul at the University of Michigan voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ditto Michigan State and a dozen other schools I could name you in the state.

That's ridiculous and insulting. Not saying Obama's never had a ridiculous position, but this one really takes the cake. And Hillary, Lanny Davis and her entire campaign should be literally embarassed to even be holding it. No one in Michigan apparently, even in a Democratic primary, would vote for Barack Obama. We've crossed a new threshold in electoral politics.

Tactics like this can only lead me to believe she intends to take this to the Convention. Thankfully the Party seems to be onto her and calling her bluff. I'm sick and tired of being told to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. Anyone who could hold a position like this is not looking for sympathy. They're looking for their way or the highway. Grow up, she lost.

So the notion that the uncommitted don't count is even more of a half-truth. NONE of it counts. That's the whole point. They broke the rules.

The DNC, because it knows what compromise is and believes in the larger importance of getting all states (even ones who cheat and threaten to throw us into a system where each state progressively leap-frogs each other year until we're voting in the October before an election year) is what allows this conversation to continue.

Now as a compromise Hillary's campaign has been offered any number of things. Including a 72-56 split, with regards to Michigan. They seemed to be entertaining this, the Obama people tentatively said yes, and Clinton came back with a no. Again her counter-proposal. Not just a larger split. Nope 128-0.

This is not about compromise. It's not about the rules or the process. It's not even about Michigan and Florida. It's about dragging the process out as long as possible because, as Rachel Maddow and dozens of others have pointed out, the minute this issue is settled in anything even remotely rational (including the most realistic generous terms to the Clinton campaign, again no rational adult not in the Clinton campaign is honestly entertaining 128-0) this thing is over. She will then have nothing to complain, obfuscate or attempt to gain pity for. At that point Senator Clinton will merely have lost. It's coming soon. Get ready.

You make excellent points but you and I simply disagree here. No candidate has the right to drag a nomination to the convention where they have very little chance of actually winning that nomination in order to simply split the Party, make sure the actual nominee loses and hold out the chance for them to run again in 4 years.

One has a duty to their Party and their country, as well as themselves. The Democratic Party has done a great deal for the Clintons, including repeatedly pushing aside other candidates for them (most notably Paul Tsongas in 1992 when he had cancer and the Party told everyone to vote for Bill Clinton anyway in Tsongas' home state of California) and, yes, loyalty is a two-way street. The Clintons owe it to the Democratic Party to at least not rip it in two.

The same thing was equally true of both Ted Kennedy (in 1980) and Ronald Reagan (in 1976) when they both insisted on doing so. It was not their right, they were wrong to do so and their respective Party should have called them on it. Reagan only got away with it because the Republicans have an odd habit of re-nominating their losers. (It works sometimes.) The Democrats do not. Hence Clinton will almost definitely not be nominated again, unless she ceases these divisive tactics, stops this mad campaign when there are no longer any contests left after Tuesday and tries to get on Obama's ticket.

That way she might win the presidency. Or if she would stop after Tuesday, campaign her heart out for Obama, and he were to lose, then yes she might get the nomination in 2012. But the way Senator Clinton's going about it now, IMHO, is the worst possible way to ensure a substantial future with the Democratic Party.

"Furthermore, if Hillary doesn't ask for everything, they will give those delegates to Obaam. In any negotiation, you always ask for MORE than what you expect to get."

Again, I really do think you have good points. But that also strengthens Senator Obama's argument that he should offer her nothing. He should stand by the fact that Michigan and Florida broke the rules and therefore their votes do not count.

If she is going to take the most extremist view of her stance (i.e. nothing for him), Senator Obama by necessity must take the same stance (i.e. they broke the rules the DNC set up, they know what that means, they get nothing.)