So I switched to black yesterday and today, as I am in mourning, too.

No one will ever let a powerful lefty brand like  the Clintons repeat  or reinorce FDR's revolution.   You 26 years of experience to even know what to do let alone 16 years to know how to do it.

CNN analyst Gloria Borger said Clinton must speak to the female voters who supported her, "many of whom are so angry about this race.  She really has to tell women why Barack Obama is the best candidate for president," Borger said. "She has to go a long way to try [to] get rid of that anger."

Don't ya love that ambiguous last line -- implying Clinton's anger or mine, I dunno?  But no, Gloria, it's Obama's job to talk to me and tell me why.  As soon as he gets off the golf course, I guess.  I begin to wonder if the guy is as threatened by angry me as he was by Clinton?  If so, I'm staying far away from him, as I know now how he handles women who resist him.  Under the bus with sweetie me, it would be -- and I would be dogs*t on his shoe.

Perhaps we should get up a joint petition for supporters of both sides to express that. I've got a  draft at

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nohillaryvp/

NO Obama/Clinton

For differing reasons, we oppose having Hillary Clinton as VP on an Obama ticket.

Signers include both supporters and opponents of Hillary Clinton. Opponents may think she would detract from the ticket; supporters may think she could use her time better in the Senate or elsewhere.

I've read many comments from Hillary supporters saying they will only vote for Obama if she is on the ticket. True this is not scientific evidence, but it leads me to believe they should be able to pull off a win -- together.

1. A partial reversal of Roe would look like the ruling in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, which already supercedes Roe, thanks to Obama's buddy and endorser. Casey was the greatest modification of Roe since Roe's inception--and was upheld by SCOTUS.

2. Not sure what you're after here, but most everyone agrees that if Roe is overturned, it will be up to each state to decide whether abortion is legal and which restrictions apply (short of human life being declared at conception, which I doubt the Court would rule). So it's unlikely a state would be in the position of doing anything other than sanctioning or prohibiting abortion within its jurisdiction, and as we've seen, many states have made it increasingly difficult for abortion providers and women who seek abortions.

3. It's already the case that poor women face hurdles to obtaining abortions, particularly in states where providers have been regulated to the hilt or harassed out of existence, and other than some effort to repeal the SD law that was overturned by voter referendum, I've yet to see any great outcry or rebellion by the public. If Roe is overturned and it's left to each state to decide, there will be state-by-state efforts to both ban it and keep it legal, but not much a grassroots effort can do outside of traditional lobbying, since it'll be up to each state legislature to decide.

4. Not necessarily, although it's likely. A couple of the remaining pro-Roe justices were appointed by Republicans, and Sandra Day O'Connor (who supported Roe when she was on the bench) was appointed by Reagan. That said, abortion is likely the reason Bush appointed Alito and Roberts, but on the other hand, Obama has been fuzzy on the issue (declaring at a recent debate he hadn't decided whether life begins at conception, and initially supporting Roberts), and McCain might not be as abortion-centric with his choice of nominees as Bush was. Further, since the Dems in the Senate chose to not filibuster Alito or Roberts, I hold them nearly as responsible for those justices serving as I hold Bush.

I want to speak to the question of her "downside", the baggage, the chance that Bill will pose a problem, that they might combine their negatives, and so forth.  Again, compare to the other names.  Joe Biden has a "plagiarism" problem, so he's out.  Kathleen Sibielius from Kansas bored the hell out of us.  Gov. Napolitano would become an even bigger target for the misogynists.  You can do it yourselves better than me.  The point is that all those other political figures have their own downsides, often even bigger "negatives" (admit it, Biden would be an obviously stupid choice despite all his good qualities).

I've always been comfortable with Sen. Clinton.      

They say that having Sen. Clinton on the ticket will fire up the GOP base.  With the war, the economy and McCain, I'm not so sure that's going to happen.  I think they are terminally moribund.

For Obama to choose anyone else, they can't look second rate or spiteful or even manipulative.  Very few prominent individuals fit that bill.  Perhaps former vice president Al Gore?  It's a very small circle.  I think Sen. Clinton is the only one left.

There's the stuff about would Sen. Obama look weak (more blah blah).  I considered that.  Think about Denver.  All her delegates and all his delegates voting for the two of them?  Party Unity on parade.  He's called himself "transformative" and he's called her the same.  

1st:  Either all out war on the blogs Obamabot style, or ignore blogs that tolerate the non-sense and write to same indicating Hillary supporters will not visit their cites until they get control of the hate-mongering.  Site visits count for advertising dollars.

2nd:  Have a set of talkingpoints to dispute the main points being made to discredit each of the Clintons. Send mass petitions or large numbers of e-mails to MSNBC, NY Times, CNN, etc.  Numbers talk.  Reminds me of the line in Aaron Sorkin's movie, "The President," where his chief of staff (played to Michael Fox) says to the Prez in exasperation that the public is listening to the nay-saying pundits because no one else is doing the talking.  Is it possible that MSNBC's pro-Obama stance during the primaries has been driven, at least in part, by NBC's interest in the demographic he attracts for NBC audience & ad sales?  I noticed yesterday that MSNBC had only 1 million viewers in their choice demographic for coverage of Hillary's speech while CNN had 1.4 million.  

3rd:  Combat the pundits by calling them on not having done their research (thanks, BTD) -- with specifics to back this up, put together montages of their non-stop criticisms, cite the Rasmussen study quoted above, and remind them how they are losing audience.  In the legal profession there are codes of ethics lawyers and judges must live by.  If anyone has any codes of ethics that jounralists are taught to live by (even if not required by law), and these pundits violate elements of these codes, let's call them out for violations of the codes, for covering issues of their own failings (misogeny) as well as politics without providing opposing points of view or pretending to provide same by claiming the pundit assigned to such role represents that viewpoint when (s)he does not.

I think we need to do something to combat the biased, short-on-facts type of coverage that has been passing for TV journalism of late.  

The fact is, Mr. "Soaring Rhetoric" is being laughed at these days.  His history will say "this is the day the oceans stopped rising and the earth began to heal" remark in his "victory" speech was so over the top I was stunned he could give it with a straight face and not start giggling.

When "soaring rhetoric" is your selling point, it's never long before the counter attack is well look who else had soaring rhetoric -- Huey Long, Mussolini, and yes, Hitler.  Is it fair?  No.  But politics ain't beanbag.  And when you've got nothing but rhetoric, when your resume is so thin it makes carbon paper* look strong in comparison, you are vulnerable to just such attacks.

So nice try guys.  But good luck with this nonsense when the 527s come to town.  Comparisons to Hilter will seem about as nasty as a mewling kitten.

Secondly we haven't read that she did anywhere and if she did it would be news.

And thirdly if she did you know Obama would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Right now Clinton is in negotiations with BO. those delegates are her leverage. They also represent the Presidency should Obama implode before August or the GOP guts him enough for the Party elders to have second thoughts on who should be the nominee. Nothing is a done deal until the votes are officially cast at the convention.

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

While some feminists engage in a form of invitational (Rogerianesque) rhetoric, not all feminists agree that a "touchy feely" form of empathy is the way to go.

Jondee, you apparently are unaware that, as in all things, women who are feminists are not all of one mind about how to achieve that that goal -- as ever, agreement on that goal and definition (even if you do not, but your question suggests you are not a feminist, so hardly one to define us) does not mean agreement on strategy and tactics to achieve it.  

Of course, the real question is:

Now that Clinton is mostly gone, who will they pick on in her stead?

Upbeat stories about candidates aren't going to fit the bill.  My guess is that without Clinton versus Obama to write about, the press will swing first to The Issues.  The Economy, The War, Global Warming, Gas Prices, Health Care - and the press will start wanting to know what the candidates plan on doing about them.