Quinn:

Thank you for your thoughtful, thorough reply. (And welcome back as our designated wordsmith; NS's gain was our loss while you were on vacation.)

In response to the points you made:
1) I personally think a system that awards a position of real responsibility to the runner-up -- particularly one who lost by a slim number -- is smart, as it is also fair. However, no matter what traditions pertain in Canada and in England, to automatically award the Vice Presidency (or the party candidacy for the vice presidency) to the runner-up has not been a tradition in the US since the earliest days of our republic. In fact, it occurred here only before the development of a two-party system. So that only John Adams became VP to Washington in this manner in 1788 and 1792, as Jefferson became Adam's VP in 1796. The election of 1800 was confusing: Jefferson and Burr ran for the first time as a ticket, yet because the party system was new, the electoral college was still voting on the old system. Which discrepancy was revealed when a maverick member of the electoral college, instructed to vote for Jefferson to provide the majority, stubbornly voted for Burr, which resulted in a tie vote, rather than a clean, hierarchical ticket. Never mind. The constitution was therafter amended. And, from 1804 until now --208 years later -- the VP running mate designation has been the winner's prerogative of choice.

Nonetheless, many of us who, like you, supported the Clintons through thick and thin (through, and after, the Flowers/ Jones Lewinski/Ken Starr debacles) -- would have taken a deep breath after the primary and supported Hillary as the VP pick because she's smart, and because it's not her fault that Bill has issues. However, she made a significant mistake -- and no one is responsible for that but Hillary herself, or Bill. And the mistake she made was this: against US tradition, as described, she effectively demanded the VP slot, through multiple surrogates, immediately. That was a remarkably maladroit move by a very savvy woman because, by that demand, she pre-empted Obama-- already recognized for making non-tradition decisions -- from making what might have been a predictably gracious gesture (for him) of asking Hillary to be his VP. Instead, by her polarized distrustful/assumptive attitude, Hillary put Obama between a rock and a hard place in which, because she demanded it, to accede to her demand (rather than making an offer) would then have been perceived as weakness on his part. And Obama is, incredibly, having enough "cojones" problems because he shows inordinate self-control, as he freely admits that he's a health freak who likes green tea and arugula.
So, Quinn, with respect for your world view expertise, in my opinion the model of first runnerup automatically getting the nod is not only a US non-starter, historically, but also an instance of bad manners on the Clintons' part that had unfortunate results for Hillary.
2) Neither I, nor any number of other Obama supporters is saying "my way or the highway." The irony of the primary process is that Hillary and Obama had so many of the same views on specific issues that differences had to be identified on the basis of approach to problem-solving rather than the problem to be solved. So it is a false construct to make an analogy to Bush policies. Obama will implement many of Hillary's programs, and I hope he will enlist Hillary to implement one or more of them. She is one of the smartest people on the planet. But what she lacks, perhaps for good reason and perhaps not, is a belief that principle, rather than manipulation, can acutally prevail. So, with respect, I reject your analogy to Bush. Obama is anything but "my way or the highway." Rather, he is all about middle ground, pragmatic compromise and what it takes to make incremental improvement that leaves room for further improvement. Does that approach disappoint me from time to time, because I want, however unreasonably, a political knight in shining armour? Of course it does. But then again, this is not a fairy tale, despite Bill Clinton's suggestion that Obama's approach, or candidacy, is one.
3) I am undoubtedly less intelligent, politically-savvy and perceptive than you are -- my brain cells are admittedly dying by the day, as we speak -- yet I do not get your argument about minorities at all. You ask me to imagine a scenario in which, at the end of the primaries, one candidate lost all minority categories, which would in fact require serious outreach. But that is not what happened, so your hypothetical confuses me. In fact, Obama and Hillary split the minority vote in the primaries, he garnering most of the AA vote, she garnering more of the Hispanic vote. Now, because we are in the GE, those primary numbers are irrelevant, yes? The only thing that matters now is whether Obama -- as compared to McCain, not Hillary -- can pick up the Hispanic vote, which he seems to be doing, in addition to the AA vote, which he already has. So how does this relate to respect, or lack thereof, for Hillary from the Obama camp?
4) Ditto lack of comprehension as to the relevance of the Evangelical contingent vote comment you made. Not saying I am not dim; only saying I don't get what you said as an example. Obama seems, from my point of view, distressingly sensitive to the religious right, which may be pragmatic from an election point of view, but shivers me timbers from the perspective of separation of church and state. Again, how do his actions show disrespect for Hillary? Obama is apparently more religious in his orientation than Hillary is -- in that regard, she makes me more comfortable than he does. But where is the disrespect for her in his action, which is what this debate is about, isn't it?

My own opinion is that forebearance apparently has no value in this question. Because one of the things I most admire about Obama -- that he has in fact taken flack from from his own base -- is his willingness to forebear, to take hits without reprisal in kind. And in this regard, it is Hillary who showed McCain the way.

In my opinion, Hillary owes Obama at least a mea culpa -- or if not a mea culpa, then at least a correction -- on impugning his executive branch ability. Obama understands the concept of holding one's tongue, keeping one's eye on the big picture. In my opinion, Hillary, who might have been the person with that big picture view, instead fell into the rhythms of old, small strategies.... and she lost, sadly, because we want change from that perspective.

I want Hillary's brain and her indefatigable energy involved in an Obama/Biden administration -- if she is willing. I can understand if she is not so willing, because I understand that she is feeling humiliiated, again. (There is not a woman alive in her age range who does not relate to that.) But the question for all of us in that category is this: can we rise above the humiliation we feel to make the contribution we are qualified to make, anyway? Not asking for tribute, but merely for recognition of what we know we have to give and can give.

Paranthetically, I am winding this up as I watch Ted Kennedy making his contribution to the opening night of the democratic convention. Ted Kennedy is human, and earlier in his life, he made some self-protective mistakes that cost others dearly. Nothing can change that. Yet he has spent the remainder of his life dedicating himself to being all he can be and contributing all he can give. He is a man of principle, whose indefatigable energy over many decades has been devoted to the betterment of others, rather than to his own ego, his own pride or his own aggrandizement. His public service, at this point, is plain for all to see. He has built a legacy based on continually constructive action, in which after a false start, he has never faltered.

Hillary and Bill can do as Ted did. They have the talent and Hillary still has the passion. But -- do they have the class? That is the question. This week, tomorrow and the next day, we will see. And if they come through, I will be first in line to be thankful and to applaud their gesture for the common good.

In the meantime, Quinn, I thank you for your reply to me, which I appreciate. And if you waded through this long-winded reply, I thank you for that, too.