"And I want the nearly 18 million people who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, to be no longer invisible."

Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! But enough about you, let's talk about me! That's basically the HR Clinton mantra.

For all of the Clintonite attacks about the Obama "cult" (words like "acolytes," and "fanatics" and "Obamaniacs" and what-not fired off like broadsides from Clintonian confetti cannons), HR Clinton appears to be the one very comfortably in demagogue country, busy trying to cobble together a mandate out of her own political misfortune -- rhetorically framing it as if supporting the Democratic Party nominee would disrespect, ignore, and marginalize the people who voted for her in the primary. That's shameful, but then, HR Clinton has no sense of shame, so it's not surprising she'd do this. If Obama was in her position, he would've conceded and urged his supporters to back HR Clinton. But no, she doesn't do that, doesn't say that.

Are "her" 18 million people Democrats, or are they Clintonites? What she should've done is concede the race to the candidate who actually won her party's nomination. But that would've required more grace than HR Clinton possesses, sadly.

Frankly, let her take her flock with her in a third party. Let her immolate herself in a bonfire of her own hubris. But let the Democratic Party not allow itself to be bullied by a cult of personality. Either HR Clinton respects the will of the Democratic Party voters, or she doesn't. Simple as that. Her mendacious and opportunistic campaign has really demonstrated where her head and heart is at in this, and it's all about her.

Her time yesterday should've been spent mending fences; instead, she's trying for extra innings in a game she's already lost, as if pure will can somehow win her the day. She truly is the most Nixonian candidate since Nixon. Astounding.

She won't step back from the breach, clearly; but her supporters have to decide whether they are Clintonites first, or Democrats first. It's just a shame for the Democratic Party that HR Clinton's hubristic, messianic run for president is forcing that decision on her followers.

He praised Hillary and her supporters a plenty last night. He paid his respect.

If she's seriously committed to putting a Democrat in the White House I think it's time for her to get on the bus and help her supporters get on with her. The longer she holds out* the more marginalized she'll become.

*it looks like the reason she's holding out and asked people to give her feedback on what to do is to ask for donations to dig out of debt, the feedback form leads directly to the donation form.

It's not for me to say whether Hillary deserves to President. That sort of thing is decided by a majority of electoral votes (in an election that is hopefully fair). If she wins the Presidential election, then she will deserve to be President. That's what our constitutional republic is all about.

If she believes that she deserves to be President and she has a plan to win, then I don't see any reason for her to give up as long as she is able to run. Personally, I think she's deluded, but I still believe she deserves the opportunity to run for President on behalf of her own dreams as well as the hopes of the people who support her. That's what our democracy is all about.

I was a precinct captain for Obama in Iowa. While I haven't always agreed with Clinton's tactics, I respect her as a polititian and a patriot.

It's time for both to set aside egos and do what best for this country. Clearly, Obama/Clinton would be an unbeatable ticket. It would be a bonus for Obama to have that depth of experience at his disposal. Hilary is smart enough to know what a support role means but Obama is smart enough to take advantage of that experience.

or is it 30 years? Clinton even puts his post presidential office in Harlem and now its all over. To justify what they did to Hilary, blacks and libs had to make them out to be racist white supremacists. It must be a bitter bitter day for them.

When you win a nomination, you don't wait to declare victory.

And Walter Shapiro is not telling Clinton what she should be doing. Quite the opposite, in fact:

Make no mistake, there has been a snarky tenor of criticism about Clinton's determination to stay the course through all the primaries. Every other presidential dreamer in her position had taken the fight to the convention (Ronald Reagan in 1976, Ted Kennedy in 1980, Gary Hart in 1984), but she has been demonized for hanging on until the first Tuesday in June.

But to be fair to Obama supporters and the media--and despite the complaints of Clinton supporters--very few people have been calling on Clinton to drop out.

What Obama supporters have criticized, and bitterly, is the tenor of Clinton's campaign, which is rather different from at least one of the predecessors cited. Gary Hart stayed in the race but stayed positive. Both Kennedy and Reagan were more bitter (though not as bitter as Clinton). And both Kennedy and Reagan (unlike Hart) are often seen as contributing to their party's loss the following November.

The anger directed at Clinton and her supporters concerns the kind of campaign she's run, not her insistence on continuing to campaign. That doesn't mean that the accusations labeled at the Clinton camp are fair. But one cannot defend her simply by saying that she shouldn't have been forced to drop out. That's not the issue.

There's another important difference from these earlier examples: when Carter in '80 and Mondale in '84 effectively clinched their nominations, long before the convention, the media said as much. Kennedy and Hart may not have been "demonized," but their candidacies weren't taken seriously once they had no real path to the nomination.

Sen. Clinton reached that point in late February. You can't blame her campaign (and her supporters) for ignoring this fact. You can, however, blame the media for continuing to act as if she had a prayer of actually getting the nomination once Obama had an effectively insurmountable delegate lead.