Afterhours on MSNBC with Dan Abrams, had the second half of their show after the events of the night occurred, discussing talking about Hillary for VP, yes/no?

Here is my quick reply giving the top-three reasons is should be no:

1) Iraq: She voted for it, and destroys the Obama argument that judgment trumps McCain's experience, because she had the same lapse of judgement that has killed thousands of our troops and enabled the biggest foreign policy disaster in our nation's history. She forces that issue off the table because McCain can simply point to her to negate his clean argument on this issue and thereby cedes national security by default because she is on the ticket.

2) She unifies the GOP: She would be the single biggest unifying force for the GOP base to embrace McCain.

3) GOP pre-loaded GOP talking points: The GOP can avoid talking on the issues if the CLinton name is on the ticket. All they have to say is "Hillarycare" and half the country tunes out and rejects the Democratic potion in Pavlovian response to the tainted brand name of Clinton.

What are you opinions and reasons for or against?

And keep it classy folks.

In her interview with Brian Williams just before John Edwards officially endorsed Barack Obama in Michigan this evening, she spun out a torrent of points in response to being asked about her overturning the voters will in the elections, but by doing so tacitly answered that she would be quite happy to do so. 

Roll the "tape" to the 6:20 mark in the interview:

Brian Williams: For you to be the nominee, it would take a wholesale shift of superdelegates, in effect overturning the pledged delegates and those individual state elections would you be comfortable with that?

Hillary Clinton: Well I think that the superdelegates are there for a purpose that is to determine who they think would be the stronger candidate and the best President. Superdelgates are not bound to vote any way, they can change their minds, they can go to the convention and change their minds, there is no ah... guarantee, and in fact it's equally true for pledged delegates for most states. Obviously people are going to look at the results but I think that it's also important to look at where the delegates came from, how many people actually elected those delegates, what the kind of.. ah.. outcomes were, who has a bigger base to build an electoral majority on. But at the end of the day Brian, you know I know maybe it's because we live in such a media bubble and it's 24/7 and there is SUCH an interest in this campaign, everybody should just take a deep breath, we're going to finish these elections, we're going to find out about Michigan and Florida and how they will be seated, and we're going to know a lot more in about three weeks than we do right now and that is more than enough time for us to unify our party, for us to be, you know absolutely committed to winning in November and I believe that's what's going to happen.

Shorter answer... yes.

That of course is the only conceivable path to the nomination, and is at the root of all the things she throws out in response to the question about if she would be comfortable with overturning the pledged delegates and those individual state elections.

Of course the reality is that Obama could lose all of the remaining races by the exact same margin as West Virginia, and lose all the remaining undeclared superdelegates by that same margin and still secure the nomination by 2,027 votes, however Hillary Clinton is tacitly admitting right there in the video, that she is not uncomfortable with overturning the pledged delegates and those individual state elections. So don't let anyone claiming that Hillary Clinton's campaign is so concerned about making sure all the votes are counted and all the delegations are seated, because she is admitting in this interview that your votes don't matter and that she is comfortable in overturning the results through convention maneuvers if it will get her the nomination.

She said as much, right there, right in front of the camera for the world to see and hear. Is the public willing or able to see her big lie about respecting the will of the voters and the party staring them right in the face?

And how can we distill this down and get this point across to the wider voting populace?

In <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#24624767">her interview</a> with Brian Williams just before John Edwards officially endorsed Barack Obama in Michigan this evening, she spun out a torrent of points in response to being asked about her overturning the voters will in the elections, but by doing so tacitly answered that she would be quite happy to do so. 

Roll the "tape" to the 6:20 mark in the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#24624767">interview</a>:

<blockquote><strong>Brian Williams:</strong> For you to be the nominee, it would take a wholesale shift of superdelegates, in effect overturning the pledged delegates and those individual state elections would you be comfortable with that?

<strong>Hillary Clinton:</strong> Well I think that the superdelegates are there for a purpose that is to determine who they think would be the stronger candidate and the best President. Superdelgates are not bound to vote any way, they can change their minds, they can go to the convention and change their minds, there is no ah... guarantee, and in fact it's equally true for pledged delegates for most states. Obviously people are going to look at the results but I think that it's also important to look at where the delegates came from, how many people actually elected those delegates, what the kind of.. ah.. outcomes were, who has a bigger base to build an electoral majority on. But at the end of the day Brian, you know I know maybe it's because we live in such a media bubble and it's 24/7 and there is SUCH an interest in this campaign, everybody should just take a deep breath, we're going to finish these elections, we're going to find out about Michigan and Florida and how they will be seated, and we're going to know a lot more in about three weeks than we do right now and that is more than enough time for us to unify our party, for us to be, you know absolutely committed to winning in November and I believe that's what's going to happen.</blockquote>

Shorter answer... yes.

That of course is the only conceivable path to the nomination, and is at the root of all the things she throws out in response to the question about if she would be comfortable with overturning the pledged delegates and those individual state elections.

Of course the reality is that Obama could lose all of the remaining races by the exact same margin as West Virginia, and lose all the remaining undeclared superdelegates by that same margin and still secure the nomination by 2,027 votes, however Hillary Clinton is tacitly admitting right there in the video, that she is not uncomfortable with overturning the pledged delegates and those individual state elections. So don't let anyone claiming that Hillary Clinton's campaign is so concerned about making sure all the votes are counted and all the delegations are seated, because she is admitting in this interview that your votes don't matter and that she is comfortable in overturning the results through convention maneuvers if it will get her the nomination.

She said as much, right there, right in front of the camera for the world to see and hear. Is the public willing or able to see her big lie about respecting the will of the voters and the party staring them right in the face?

And how can we distill this down and get this point across to the wider voting populace?