I understand what Josh is trying to say but I think he papers over a key issue that merits discussion.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184975.php

While the policy differences between the two campaigns are minimal, IMHO, there are marked differences in the candidates themselves and the way the two campaigns have conducted themselves.

The Clinton campaign expected a cake walk to the nomination. Instead, they have faced the most remarkably effective and uplifting presidential campaigns in my lifetime.

The manner in which the Clinton camp responded to the Obama threat has not been pretty. Bill Clinton's performance during the South Carolina primary was appalling. I was a mid-level staffer in the Clinton White House for many years. I defended him with friends and family during the Lewinski scandal. I thought he was a damned good president. My opinion of him has declined considerably.

After Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign responded like a cornered animal. As it became clearer that the delegate math was against them, the campaign concluded it's only chance was to tear down Obama. Their long-shot scorched earth strategy has been an ugly thing to witness. It has been a "say anything, do anything," ends-justifies-the-means approach to politics. I expect such behavior in a general election. But primaries are different, especially when there are no meaningful differences in policy between the candidates.

I had always assumed that I would support Clinton if she got the nomination. But my conscience began to be troubled by this question: Should I reward a Democrat with my vote who uses Republican political tactics to beat a fellow Democrat? Should I overlook the despicable means if the ultimate end is to beat a Republican in November?

I've tried to approach this as a pragmatic realist. I'm not a naive newbie when it comes to politics. I labored on my first campaign in 1972 when I worked for McGovern. I've since made a career of politics/policy advocacy.

In the end, it wasn't "emotional infantilism" that caused me to reach the idealistic conclusion that I couldn't support Clinton if she got the nomination. It wasn't childishness, rather, it was my advanced age and long experience in politics. I'm just too old for politics as usual. I have not been so excited by a political figure since I was mesmerized by RFK while in high school. I believe in Obama deep in my soul. He is truly a once-in-a-lifetime leader and I know that if this opportunity passes I will never see the likes of him again. OTOH, I find no inspiration whatsoever in Hillary Clinton.

After years of anger at the Atwater/Rovian tactics of the Republican Party, I concluded that I simply could not support a Democrat who would use such tactics to undermine such a remarkable Democratic candidate. So I shocked family and co-workers when I casually mentioned that I would sit the presidential election out if Clinton were the nominee. And I have stubbornly held that position for weeks despite the pleadings of my friends.

I would like to close with a plea to fellow Obama supporters. It is now becoming clearer by the day that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

This will be the last time this year that I tell this story or speak unkindly of Hillary Clinton in any way. While I remain disappointed and bitter concerning her actions, continuing to express those feelings will do Barack Obama no good whatsoever.

It's time to for the healing to begin. I know that the feelings of some Clinton supporters mirror my own. I am not going to gloat or try to convince them that they have been wrong. But I think it's the obligation of all Obama supporters to refrain from fueling those bad feelings and hope that the party can come together to defeat John McCain in the fall.

In this morning's WaPo, Michael Gerson audaciously judges that Barack Obama's speech on America's racial divide "fell short." But we must ask: As we mark the 5th anniversary of the disastrous decision to invade Iraq, who is Gerson to stand in judgment of another?

Gerson, you will recall, was George W. Bush's speechwriter and a central player in the White House's march to war. Gerson penned the infamous line about "a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud" to scare the American people into believing that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Obama courageously and eloquently addressed the issues swirling around his relationship with his pastor.

Gerson, however, cowardly chose to ignore the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and his role in the debacle -- focusing instead on how Obama "fell short."

Gerson has blood on his hands. The blood of 4,000 Americans and at least 100,000 Iraqis. Until he has the guts to publicly discuss his own culpability in this tragedy, his judgments of others must be judged audacious, indeed.