What I want to know is how Chelsea gets all the good assignments? She was sent to Hawaii during February and now she's off to Puerto Rico.

I certainly am not going to argue with you positive perceptions about Hillary (#1-3), and won't speculate on the outcomes of elections and negotiations (#4-6) or what that might imply (#7-8).

Some of these things simply will not be known until they take place, and a margin of 1% in this area or that might make an important difference in the final outcome.

Regarding #9, I don't think we should compare this to the Kennedy/Carter primary.  Carter was a sitting President who was likely to lose.  Had Kennedy won, he still would have run after 4 years of what was perceived as poor Democratic leadership.  

In contrast, we've had what is perceived as eight years of poor Republican leadership, and are running against a candidate who is against the majority of the public on the war in Iraq and healthcare, and lacks a decent understanding of economic matters.  This just isn't the same as 1980.  

Given that, there is a reasonable argument that Hillary might make the better general election candidate.  If the primary is indicative of success in the general, then that argument loses some validity, but that aside, we have to consider the following: of those voters that voted in the Democratic primary, is the number Obama would lose because they are irrevocably tied to Hillary's candidacy greater or less than the number that Hillary would lose if she had to fight the theme of a "stolen" election, after Superdelegates reversed the will of the voters as expressed through the pledged delegates.

In the short term, with Obama as the likely winner, we focus on the millions of Hillary voters who had the choice to vote for Obama and chose to not do so.  He has to carry a large amount of those voters to win...I do not dispute that.  But I'm not convinced that there is anything so offensive to America's democratic character as a nominee who is chosen by overruling the will of the voters.  After all, doesn't that describe George Bush, and is he not offensive to Democrats for that reason alone (though, obviously, for MANY other reasons).  So, in other words, assuming that Hillary doesn't overcome Obama's pledged delegate lead, my argument is that her losses of voters, either offended by or in protest because of the nature of her nomination, would be greater (and certainly more offensive to democratic principles) than any loss of Clinton voters due to an Obama nomination.  

I DO feel that a unity ticket, no matter which candidate is at the top or bottom, would be the best way to combat the loss of either group of voters.  I'm not sure how likely that is to happen, and a geographically strategic choice like Strickland of a "void filling" choice like Clark/Webb (for Obama) makes sense, too.  But I think a unity ticket would do the most to immediately cauterize the wound and staunch the bleeding of voters to John McCain.

#1. Hillary will be here til the end of the primaries. I am certain of this because they are looking for supporters to go to Puerto Rico.

Huckabee and Romney set up campaign events right up until they day they conceded.

#2. Hillary will not let money stop her from achieving her and our dream. This has never been about money, it is about making history, about the First Woman President in U.S. history. Hillary wants this and we (her die-hard supporters) want her in that spot.

Uhh, the problem is, the money may end up stopping her. If she can't afford to go anywhere, do anything, repay her campaign's debts, etc... I guess she's got plenty of money she can use to retire the debt, though whether she wants to forgive the other nine-million dollars of debt (besides the 12 million she's given to her campaign herself), then hopefully she's got the fluid cash to be able to do so.

But I'm sorry, I'm supporting Obama because I think he's the right candidate for the job, not because I care about "making history", or think he does, either. That's a pretty shallow concern, IMHO.

#3. Having watched her for 16 months now, we should all have a glimpse into her character and realize - Hillary does not give up. She's a fighter, she doesn't quit. She will stay in until the bitter end because that's who she is.

This is pretty scary, actually. Not ever conceding defeat? Sounds too much like what we've experienced the last eight years.

#4. We will know at the end of May what the real magic number is. I believe it will not be 2,024 - but it will be 2,209 including FL/MI. If the committee does not agree to count them in full, Hillary will fight (lawsuit) to make this happen. She has nothing to lose because she can stay in until the convention. If that becomes the magic number, then that puts Obama further from it. She too will be further from it, but closer to Obama.

Ignoring Clinton herself signed a pledge, her campaign cited 2025 as the number for months, etc- if Hillary decides to sue the DNC, what's her basis? You understand the Democratic party is a private organization, and has the right to organize this contest however they please? A lawsuit would be the epitome of uselessness. Besides, if FL/MI get seated at this point, it will likely be more of a boon to Obama than not, considering they'll get some sort of penalty.

#5. Hillary will have the argument of the popular vote to help make her case to the SD's.

Following that link demonstrates how convoluted this argument is to make. Talk about selective disenfranchisement. And what a way to make the case for the undecided superdelegates in the caucus states- I'm sure they'll be real impressed you decided their method of choosing nominees didn't fit into your narrative, so they don't matter.

#6. Hillary will also be able to make the case of her electoral strength against McCain vs. Obama, here:

Not much longer. The narrative is quickly shifting in Obama's direction, and besides, this link also is pretty tenuous in it's associations, at best.

#7. Over the next month while the primaries are going on, Obama will be running a GE campaign against McCain and Hillary will be running a primary campaign against Obama (yes, she'll play nice). McCain will be able to make Hillary's case for her by attacking Obama directly on his weaknesses. So while Hillary is winning primaries in difficult states, McCain will be attacking Obama, the pundits and SD's will start looking more seriously at his flaws.

Or they'll be taking him more seriously as a general election candidate, and note Clinton can't compare. As Obama has shifted to GE mode, the polls have been going in his direction. Expect that to only increase as time goes on.

#8. Exit polls will continue to show that Hillary's support and coalition is much broader than Obama's. It is the winning coalition against McCain. The SD's will also look hard at the fact that so many Hillary supporters will jump ship and not vote for Obama.

There's no evidence Hillary's coalition is "much broader" than Obama's. I also wonder how Clinton will explain the large percentage of voters in places like Indiana who places McCain over Clinton in their preferences of who to vote for in exit polling interviews.

#9. It will go to the convention. Kennedy challenged Carter, an incumbent President with far less delegates. Hillary can stay in through the convention as well. She has more delegates then Kennedy did at the time. Those that say it will hurt the party, need to realize that any candidate that has taken it this far does so because he or she truly believes the other candidate is flawed and can't win. The candidate believes, just as I believe and so many of her supporters believe, that She will be not only a better President, but the winner. And that is what it's about - Winning.

This is patently ridiculous. Look how well that election turned out for us. If Clinton somehow even got the nomination, what chance would she have to heal the party AND shift the narrative from Obama to McCain? We would be doomed, and Clinton would join the likes of Joe-Joe from CT, or Zell Miller. What a great legacy to leave.

#10. Finally. Those that argue that convention fights lose elections are forgetting that the internet, TV, youtube didn't exist back then. Voters have not been making their choice until a few days before the elections. Sep/Oct will still give them enough time to move quickly to win.

Sorry. You need to come to a place I like to call "reality" and readdress these points.

a bunch.

Check Al Rogers diary on the rec list for why this isn't going to happen.  The electability argument won't wash, Obama is already pulling ahead of both Clinton - by 12 points - and McCain, now that he is the presumed nominee.  I admire your resilience,  but at some stage you need to recognize that the party is more important than one candidate, and the party has chosen Obama.  The supers have seen this, they are flocking to Obama, and there is a trend for Clinton supers to switch.  Sorry, but there is no chance of Clinton pulling this out.

Hillary can still win! What Hillary said about pledge delegates being able to switch is TRUE! HERE IS PROOF.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202554. html?referrer=digg

Johnson, who endorsed Clinton nine days before Maryland's February primary, said he will urge Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, who co-chair Clinton's Maryland campaign, to bring all of her delegates to Obama's camp for the sake of party unity.

Unlike superdelegates, who are free to endorse either candidate, Johnson is one of 28 pledged delegates who have agreed to represent the 36 percent of Maryland Democrats who voted for Clinton on Feb. 12.

Some Clinton delegates were chosen by voters at the ballot. Others, such as Johnson, were selected in consultation with the Clinton campaign by the Maryland Democratic State Central Committee, party spokesman David Paulson said.

Clinton can still win this see a pledge delegat can switch sides just like Clinton told us.

there is absolutely no chance it will happen.  First of all, Hillary will make herself completely persona non grata in Democratic circles and will be excoriated by the media, and tarnish her legacy irreparably.

But even if she does go through with a lawsuit, she stands no chance of winning it, because parties are private entities, and while suffrage is guaranteed at a national election level, the Constitution says nothing about the rights of political parties to select their nominees how they see fit.  The Democratic Party could write a rule that says that the party nominee is chosen by the DNC chair exclusively, and the courts wouldn't bat an eye.

I believe you are absolutely sincere, and perhaps this is theraputic for you.

But, you need to really think about WHY this scenario you forsee will not happen?

Because, as much as you would be happy to see Senator Clinton go to the convention, no matter what, with lawsuits in hand, and challenge each and every step the nomination of Senator Obama, THERE IS one group of folks that will not let this happen?

The superdelegates, at least a very large portion of them, are elected Democrats. Many are running on the ticket in the fall?

And, they will NOT sit there and watch the party wrenched apart at the convention on 24/7 cable TV, EVEN IF they agree with you, that Senator Clinton WOULD have had a better pure chance to beat McCain.

Because they know, after that kind of a bloodbath of a primary, neither democrat would win?

Now, I admit, there are PLENTY of posters here and at Hillayis44, TaylorMarsh, that are perfect FINE with that scenario; Mutual Suicide, the party destroyed, as long as it is saved from the evil Obamabots? And then, reclaimed by them, THE TRUE DEMOCRATS!

But, NONE OF THEM has a superdelegate vote?

Those elected politicians will not throw themselves on the ritual pyre with Senator Clinton NOR would they with Senator Obama, where the circumstances reversed.

No, If it LOOKS like Senator Clinton is going to go there, to take it to the convention, AFTER MI and FL are settled (and they will be, sometime after OR) and she is STILL behind in the delegate count AND the Popular vote, and her argument is about Electability, or something else....

It won't matter WHAT the number is? 2025, 2209?

Cause you can throw out EVEN those supers pledged to Hillary now?

I have spent some time talking to my two senators, Cantwell and Murray, both came out Early for Senator Clinton.  I know them, I know their staffs.

They are pragmatists, with long political careers, and rather then render the democratic party assunder, to help Senator Clinton, they will switch to Senator Obama.

EVEN IF they believe he will lose to Senator McCain, they would rather save the rest of the ticket and the party and fight again another day?

I truly believe the scenario would play out the other way, except I believe Senator Obama would long since have bowed out, when the math was against him, and the money ran out.

So, I hear you, I hear how important this is to you?

But it's just not going to play out that way?

If it looks like she is going to fight all they way to the convention, the party regulars, the congress people, will hand what-ever number is required to Obama.

But, truly, you know, if  you really listen to your head instead of your heart, that it won't have to get that far?

Rahm Emmanuel, or Strickland, or some other strong Clinton supporter will go to Bill and Hillary and talk them out of it.

Talk to them about 2012, if they truly believe Obama is going down in flames in 2008?

But, they will not let her to the convention, and wage a war.

Isn't it bizarre reading these comments? Obama supporters live in a bubble. there is no reality but theirs. they have no idea that he might not be the nominee. I love the way they assume all of the SDs are secretly in Obama's camp and will absolutely just hand him the nomination to prevent Clinton from getting it.

Obama supporters are starting to make me ashamed of this party. I always thought of us as the reality-based community but the Obama campaign has convinced me that they and their supporters are just as delusional as the GOP.

With all due respect, I find it very difficult to take seriously a post that contains the phrase,
"My belief that she will win is not based on any facts or knowledge of anything."

When the best argument for your candidate is one that is "not based on any facts or knowledge," isn't it time for her to drop out, or at least for her supporters to acknowledge that it's probably not going to happen?

Some of you believe still that the supers will overturn the pledged delegates, that a flood of pledged delegates will go back on their commitments, or that the party will allow a floor fight in August. I understand. You persist in this because you are wholly committed to your candidate, and you'll probably persist until a few weeks from now when Hillary begins to campaign for Obama.

So be it. Maybe you're right. Maybe the world is an even more twisted place than I think. We're just a short time away from finding out, and that's pretty exciting. This nightmare and all its associated speculations is almost done. We'll all get to see how it turns out together, and then hopefully we can all focus on working for some of the principles that Hillary has espoused and most of you have signed on to, and defeat John McCain.