Carter, of course, is the Party's resident expert on healing wounds after a protracted primary struggle, having done such an excellent job of bringing Ted Kennedy's supporters back on side in 1980.

Gerry Ferraro just talked on tv about the Obama campaign's behavior.  They tried to get her fired from her law firm.

"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

I still don't think she should take the VP slot.

Want a unity ticket?

Have Al Gore, who has stayed above the fray, take it to the Convention and flip a freaking coin, like man y ties are resolved. Winner is P, Loser is VP.

That would be the only circumstance in which I'd vote for Obama, as either P or VP.

I pray that this attitude is not prevalent on the Obama team, or the outreach to Hillary's supporters will backfire.

-The war sucks but the Democrats now control Congress. It is cynical, but I would say, on balance, the war has been a huge boon for the Democrats. In fact, to be extra-disgusting cynical, it is not past me believing that all of the go-along-to-get-along votes that Obama and friends did, in funding the war, were designed to keep the war alive as an issue in this election cycle.

- I don't know about you, but I don't vote in a vice-presidential primary, it only says president on the ballot.

When I delved deeper into their dislike of Hillary, it was often something they couldn't seem to verbalize well, perhaps because sexism is hard to recognize in yourself, but many of them referred back to how they felt at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency.  There's still a lot of anger and a sense of betrayal and many people blame Bill for ushering in the Bush dynasty.

We know that many voters base their decisions on feelings rather than intellectual talking points.  Obama has been called an empty suit on this blog, but perhaps that's an advantage for low information voters who have feelings-based distrust of the Clintons, vs. easily disputed talking points they've been fed about Obama.  

A primary vote is not a vote for president. It's a mistake to think of it that way. In this instance, both sides gathered votes that were negative votes against the competition, votes for a intermediate preference, or votes for name recognition, whatever. Even counting the overwhelming support both candidates gained, an Obama/Clinton ticket loses those who voted against women AND against black people.

In addition, I agree with Hilary Rosen's piece in Huff Po today and offer this paragraph from TPM that I think synthesizes the position in which Clinton has placed herself:

Let's be clear about what Hillary is doing here. By signaling that she'll take the VP slot if offered -- and insinuating that a joint ticket is necessary to heal the party(!) -- she is foregoing the normal diplomatic niceties in order to screw Obama. It sticks him with the choice between looking like the bad guy (for not offering) and doing something he really doesn't want to do (putting her on the ticket). Either way, he loses. And either way, she wins: she gets on the ticket or else she engenders a lot of bitterness in her supporters, hurting Obama's chances in November (and thereby increasing her chances for a 2012 run).

What this paragraph doesn't mention is that Obama is nearly forced to say no to Clinton because of the manner in which she's acting.  As Rosen said

She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation .......And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due.

Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry, and party leaders trashing her.

I'm not sure her supporters felt empty as Clinton's remarks were tailored for her supporters, but Clinton did miss a golden opportunity.  Anne Cornbluth from the Washington Post said today that Clinton is still living in the alternate universe of her campaign and that when reality strikes, Clinton will do the right thing. I hope so.

How unfortunate, again, for him to make such ridiculous statements.

What ever I had forgiven him for for his past errors, and enjoyed him for the good work he had been doing, is seriously disappearing after many series this year.

Apparently I was banned because I allegedly used a "sexist" smear. Let's get one thing straight: there was not a single sexist fiber in my contention that she used "tearing up" before the NH primary for her own political gain. Feel free to disagree with that contention. But I said she used it not because she wanted to play the "I am a helpless woman" card but rather she wanted to look more human to those who thought she was a cold hearted policy wonk, not a cold hearted B***H. I have tremendous respect for her abilities as a leader and a politician and I frankly couldn't care less what her gender is as long I thought she could be electable. The fact that I have been given the sexist tag is baffling, infuriating, and deeply, deeply insulting.

Like I said, I am new here and I don't know what kind of abuse you have taken at the hands of Obamaniacs. I was honestly looking for discussion and to rationally plead the case for Obama to those who are still angry. Hell, I am angry too and my guy won. But I do think we need to come together because on the important issues, we are of a like mind on and we all have a common enemy, namely the GOP. I apparently mistimed such an idea because the wound is still too fresh. My bad.

But if you all are going to knee jerk accuse someone of being sexist and banning someone before they have a chance to even explain their case then  I am afraid that no amount of healing time is going to help. If we don't get past this, we're all going to lose big time in November.