The Clintons aren't giving this up. They're just not. So remain respectful of Senator Clinton, but remain wary (especially with respect to Florida and Michigan) of any moves they might make.

Don't let anyone fool you. The public's awareness and diligence on this has had an effect. The deal to pay off Senator Clinton's debts fell through, almost exclusively because Obama supporters raised a fuss as they should have on the internet about doing this.

You just have to be wary. Obama offered to compromise with her on Michigan 69-59 to her advantage. Do you know what her counter-proposal was? She gets ALL of the votes in Michigan. Even the uncommitted. She wants the scoredcard to read 128-0 for her in terms of delegates and literally 330,000 to 0 in terms of Michigan's popular vote. That's beyond ridiculous it's insulting and she knows untrue.

Continue to praise her (as she deserves on this front) for running a tough campaign. But don't fall for the "it's all over" strategy. It's over whenever (and again no one's trying to push her) Senator Clinton, like every other candidate on the earth has had to do at some point, finally concedes.

...blindingly obvious, and it's roughly the opposite of what the Rules Committee is said secretly to prefer.

Seat the Florida and Michigan superdelegates and give them all the convention votes the elected delegates would have controlled. Penalize them by not allowing them additional votes as superdelegates.

The supers are elected officials accountable to the voters. The electorate in future out-of-order primary states will understand that their states will not be denied their weighted voice by the party, but that their own elected officials will be accruing power to themselves if they choose to jump the DNC calendar.

By the way, it is the perfect right of state legislatures to set their primary dates whenever they want. The legislators represent the people; DNC committee members are mere party apparatchiks. Legislatures may be controlled by the other party, which has an equal right to have its primary order respected. They may set rules about crossover voting which do no justice to the preferences of true Dems. With so much potential for abuse and misdirection, Dems should abandon primaries and caucuses altogether and go to an audited mail-in system to select their future standard-bearers, counting the votes of registered party members as corporations count the votes of shareholders.

...but when Walter Shapiro says it's over, and he's talking about Hillary Clinton, then it really is over.

I agree with Libertyson that we all should continue to respect the cunning and determination of Ms. Clinton and her track record of incredible gambits for pulling herself out of the icy waters. She will likely continue til the last cow is in the barn, the door is closed and the barn set afire.

It is not a pretty thing to watch, but it is, at this point, more inevitable than a Clinton nomination was just four months ago. All raving lunatics arguing against the obvious duly noted, there is no probable way this can end with Clinton as the nominee. I only hope -- quite sincerely -- that she can find a way to allow herself some dignified exit plan. The timing will be up to her, and I'm not certain Shapiro's notion of throwing in the towel after a win in West Virginia would be so much dignified as a slap in the face of her supporters, her foot soldiers who have gone there and endured tremendous hardship on her behalf. That's if she actually wins there. West Virginia is poorly understood by people living in about 42 of the contiguous states anyway, and absolutely anything could happen there tomorrow.

Still, there needs to be some sort of entourage dispatched now to help her figure out how to extricate herself before she winds up in a position where history may make the first female candidate's heroic run look something less than heroic. I don't want to see that, I'm sure she doesn't (if she's even considered the possibility) and it's for damn sure her opponents won't want to wind up with that for their legacy. They deserve better. The Clinton family deserves better. But the person who can prevent it is the candidate herself, and I'm no longer sure she can see through the mist of self-absorption anymore, if she ever could.

For the sake of a relatively happy ending to all this, I hope Ms. Clinton can at least be persuaded to do this in a way that will allow her a place of honor and respect in history's view, rather than Glen Close's character in "Fatal Attraction." She's starting to look like a rabbit boiler right about now.

Depriving the supers of FL and MI of their votes at the convention seems like a sensible solution to a thorny problem. It punishes the people in charge of breaking the party rules without disenfranchising the popular vote.

There remains the problem of how you divvy up the pledged delegates fairly but some deal like the %69/59 split (probably more compromise needed in terms of numbers there) could work.

And since I missed the Veep Stakes discussion by a couple of days - and it is still relevant here- I'm really loving the idea of Obama running with Kathleen Sebelius. Don't you think she is someone Clinton could get behind while saving face? A woman with a lot to bring to the ticket - western state- two term governor who has the exec experiences both senators lack.

Her endorsement speech is interesting for the perspective it brings (she was convinced by her sons). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nHp90Z2NJk

They seem temperamentally simpatico and though its only quick hug seem to have a chemistry I can't see developing between Obama and Clinton if they shared a ticket after the rancorous primary.

It is hard to understand why Hillary is getting bashed for fighting for what she believes to be true and just. The latest slam because she called out hard working white voters is scam by the media to make more rifts in the democratic party or create more news.

The fact is...she is talking about hard working white voters. What is the problem with that? We seem to be able to call out black urban voters, but not rural white voters. Has anyone considered what happens if you disinfranchise the white voter? We may have some backlash or "whitelash" againist the democratics come November.

WV primary is a very good indication of where this election is headed. You have an entire state that is down on its luck. They are fighting to survive. The gas prices are at the nations high, more citizens per captia have been given thier lives for the war in Iraq, and no president has won the White House since 1916 with out West Virginia.

As far as super delegates are concerned, Senator Jay Rock has pledged support to Obama and the Governor is uncommitted. Talk about a disconnect with the voters. They may seem themselves on the outside looking in if in if they ignore the votes of their people. Thats news....not the word "white"

What we really need to ask ourselves is who is the best candidate? Many WV's will vote for McCain in November is Obama is the Democratic choice. If you look at the national polls you see Hillary beating McCain. Obama can't beat McCain. Everytime race is thrown back in as a wedge on the Clintons, the Democrats loose more conservative democrats. Those are the same Democrats that cling to guns and religion. Those are the Democrats that voted for George Bush.

Rank the candidate by who's in first with the American Public? 1. Clinton 2. McCain 3. Obama

Hillary Clinton is who is on first. We are playing with political fire if we try to force her out or "fix" the election process. Are we going to steal the election from the hard working white American?