Karenn22's posts have inspired me to add a few more cold, hard facts that some Clinton supporters would prefer to ignore or are simply not aware of. Most of the other anti-Obama posters here are just agitators, so they will get the response they deserve- none.

If he 'wins' the nomination by the same or fewer number of delegates than he was awarded by the committee, then Hillary should take it to the convention.

Fact: Even after Puerto Rico today, Obama's pledged delegate lead is 117 according to CNN. There was no scenario under which Clinton would have erased Obama's pledged delegate lead yesterday.

You seem to forget that officials from those states also wanted their delegations seated.

Fact: The adopted plan which gave Hillary 69 delegates instead of 73 was proposed by the Michigan democrats, not "Donna Brazile Nut". It was what the state representatives at the hearing asked for. Obama was asking for a 50-50 split of the Michigan delegates.

And that election was not a sham. It was certified by the Michigan Secretary of State, and the DNC has no power to nullify it.

Fact: The DNC is under NO OBLIGATION to accept the results of any primary. The state of Michigan knowingly violated the DNC rules in setting the primary at that date. "Sham" is subjective. What is objective is that the Michigan primary was not valid in the determination of the Democratic nominee. The DNC had every right to disregard the results of that election. The government of Washington state established a state presidential primary, hoping to move the parties away from caucuses. The Washington Democratic Party decided that they preferred the benefits of the caucus system and voted to consider the results of the state-run primary non-binding. The Washington state delegation was chosen at the caucuses that were held by the state democratic party, not by the primary that was certified by the Washington Secretary of State. The DNC is a private organization and can choose its nominee in any way that it sees fit. That is why the lawsuits keep getting thrown out of court.

So Hillary has said today that even if Obama clearly wins tonight and has the delegates, she will not officially drop out or concede defeat. Then she lets out that she would be open to the VP slot "for the good of the party". I am not sure whether this is delusion or the world's lamest attampt at extortion ever.

Obama would be a fool to put her on the ticket. He would lose credibility if he did. He can't offer a "new kind of politics" and put someone who tried to swiftboat a fellow Democrat on the ticket. He would lose more supporters than he would pick up by putting her on the ticket.

The Vanity Fair article that is attracting so much attention right now is a good example of the baggage that she would bring to his ticket. For Obama to succeed, he needs a compatible Vice Presidential candidate. Hillary is not that candidate. Govs. Sebelius and Richardson are both much closer to Obama philosophically and would do just as much good demographically. He doesn't even need the demographic help to win. He just needs a VP that won't drag him down.

Picking Clinton as his VP would be about as wise as Al Gore's decision to distance himself from Bill Clinton by selecting Joe Leiberman.