She's still not over it... and she ain't releasing her delegates either!

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002932848

I'm starting to believe that the reason her 'supporters' don't let it go is that HRC won't either. Not really.

In my opinion, if she was really for party unity she would have released her delegates and publicly (long and loud) told all these groups (PUMA, Clintons4McCain, Denver Group, et al.) that she did not condone their 'movements' and it was not what she wanted.

I doubt HRC will succeed if she tries to pull off a coup. Does she really want to stir up a hornets nest just when things have calmed down and a healing is in process? It would have cataclysmic consequences. Splitting the party apart will guarantee a loss in November.

Hillary will be blamed if Obama loses the general election which is something she does not want. So why would do something so destructive? It makes no sense...

Answer honestly:

Do you trust Clinton?

Awesome.

Let them vote.

Although off subject McCain is now suggesting:

MCCAIN: And some of those tactics — you mention the war in Iraq — are like that we use in the military. You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement, etc, etc.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/mccain-suggests-military-style-invasion-modeled-on-the-surge-to-control-inner-city-crime/

I think it's OK. There's plenty of precedent for letting delegates of losing candidates vote once for their candidate, and then everybody switches votes once the jockeying for being the state to put the winner over the top is done.

The difference is that this delegate race is historically close. But I seriously doubt that Hillary thinks she can win the nomination, or that she can win the general if she somehow steals the nomination.

You think the FISA fold stole enthusiasm from the Obama campaign? Can you imagine what a downer the rest of the convention would be if Hillary stole the nom? I don't think that Hillary or Bill are so politically dense that they could ignore the consequences of such an event.

Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind pending further statements/actions from Camp Hillary.

I read the Huffington Post column you link to. You misrepresent what Hillary said. The only question I have is why you would do that? If you choose to distrust Clinton fine, but don't lie about what is in a column you link to. Some of us might actually read it. The main point that Hillary repeatedly stressed, after she said that she was supporting Senator Obama, was that she was trying to work out what would happen at the convention with the DNC and Obama campaign. Way to pull a Rove dude.

God, I hate that heinous bitch.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I think she should be given the benefit of the doubt. For one thing, Obama is a damn savvy dude and he's in charge of things, with the backing of just about all of the party leaders, so I don't believe that anything ugly is going to be allowed. --- More to the point about Clinton, her losing the nomination is an open door for her: she can step through as Hillary Clinton, not Bill's wife or former first lady - something she couldn't really do even during the primary. The plan of "the Clintons" has failed -- she didn't become NY Sen and then the presidential nominee. Even getting that not in 2012 isn't going to be fulfillment of The Plan as scripted by "the Clintons."

I don't think we know quite yet who HRC-on-her-own is, and she may be a bit smarter, perhaps even wiser, than Bill-and-Hillary. In her concession speech, she walked very deftly the fine line of supporting Obama yet continuing to be the leader of the disaffected, disappointed troops who supported her. She did equally well in NH. Until she makes some stab-in-the-back movement during this time after the demise of 'the Clintons' plan, I think she should be given freedom to chart her own path. Trust? No, to my mind that is asking too much. Respect? for Hillary herself, not as part of Billary? Let's let her make her case.

I have no affection for or trust in HRC. I resent the fact that she prolonged the primary battle long after she had a legitimate chance of winning, and I do not forgive her for the type of campaign she chose to run. I'm amazed that there are those now who are willing, some even eager - "it's our only chance to win!" - to accept her as a nominee for vice-president. And for all of her public claims of support for Obama, she has been, in my view, actively keeping her supporters as a separate identity, her base of power. But this is not about my opinion.

Clinton's name should be placed in nomination out of respect for the millions of people who did vote for her. I disagree strongly with their choice, but they have a right to have that choice be represented.

I suppose there is a chance she could win. That's the risk you take with the system the Democrats have (and I'm not too thrilled with many elements of the system). But since she chose to prolong the battle and to keep her supporters' involved as a separate bloc even now, at this point not taking that risk would undermine the process and the party.

It is not surprising that a certain number of people who supported Hillary are more comfortable with McCain. Hillarys big issue was her hawkishness and gas tax holiday. McCain is definitely more of a hawk that Obama and McCain still supoorts a gas tax holiday.

Elections are about choices like this, some people want a gas tax holiday and more wars, my guess is that more people want a sane foriegn policy and a sane energy policy, and those people will vote for Obama. Let the people who want a neo-con president vote McCain or hopefully just right in Clinton.