"Loyalty" to Hillary Clinton is no longer an excuse to continue this madness.  How about loyalty to the Democratic Party?  After tonight, Obama will have won the majority of pledged delegates in the DNC sanctioned elections.  By any reasonable calculation, he is also going to win the majority of pledged delegates in all of the states (including FL & MI).  He has also amassed the support of enough super delegates to make it clear to any reasonable person that he is going to be the Democratic nominee this November.

What is the point of continuing to support Hillary Clinton in order to give her a platform for arguing that Obama's victory is somehow illegitimate or based on sexism?  What purpose does that serve?

I can't speak for others, but I will support any reasonably progressive primary challenger to a Clinton super delegate that continues to support her after tonight (I'm looking at you Brad Sherman).  

Fellow Kossacks,

There is news today that the Clinton campaign is on pace to raise $10 million in 24 hours.  At this point, it is very difficult to believe that that money is coming from Democrats, because she already tapped out most of her big donors a long time ago, and I have a tough time believing that there are very many small donors who support her or want this race to continue.

I suspect that a significant amount of her money is now coming from the Rush Limbaugh crowd.  Republicans have a history of giving money to candidates they do not like that will harm our nominee or that they perceive as weak (e.g. Ralph Nader and, yes, some to Howard Dean).

Let's hit opensecrets.org and find out who has been donating to her since Super Tuesday (yes, I realize we cannot get the records from the last 24 hours)....

Below is an email I sent out to friends today asking them to donate to the DCCC.

Please feel free to cut & paste the text below (and add your own) and send it to friends and colleagues.

You may have to add the hyperlinks to your email.  

Let's show the DCCC and the super delegates that the choice is between the candidate that praises John McCain, kneecaps a fellow Democrat and endorses the threats of its supporters to withhold money from the DCCC, and the candidate that embodies the ideals and vision of the Democratic Party and whose supporters actually support fellow Democrats.  

The traditional media is missing a major part of the story over Hillary's Bosnia lie.  

Hillary's lie doesn't just tell us that she inflated her national security experience, or that she is this week's target in the all too familiar game of "gotcha" the traditional media plays ever election cycle, rather, the process by which the Bosnia lie became the story of the week tells us about Hillary's political instincts and judgment.  Instincts and judgment that can play a major role in her success or failure as President

More after the jump.

There is an old truism in politics that any person who wants to be President is, by virtue of being so ambitious, unqualified for the job.  Hillary Clinton's words and actions over the past week are a perfect demonstration of this point.

While Hillary Clinton continues her tawdry and selfish quest for power, she is proving to the country that she is the candidate that does not pass the Commander in Chief test.  

The Commander in Chief test is not who can get the most generals to stand on the stage with them. Rather, the true Commander in Chief test is whether we can be 100% confident that if the U.S. were attacked on January 19, 2013, the President would turn power over the next day to an elected rival whom she despises.  If you hesitate answering "yes" to that question for even 1 second, even if you are 99.9% confident, the person in question fails the test (e.g. Cheney and Giuliani both clearly fail this test).    

Many of you have commented upon the fact that the attacks coming from the Clinton campaign are increasingly nasty and increasing sound like John McCain talking points.  

It is also pretty clear that if Barack Obama wins the general election in November, it is highly unlikely that Hillary Clinton will ever be President.  However, if Obama loses in November, Hillary Clinton would again be the Democratic front runner headed into 2012, and she will make the case that it was a mistake to deny her the nomination the first time.  

I believe that this is an important discussion for the progressive community to be engaging in because winning in November isn't just the ultimate goal, it's the only goal.  If Obama's supporters believe that Hillary Clinton is intentionally  sabotaging Obama's general election campaign, there is an increased chance that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the party's nominee, which we cannot afford.  

I think we need to begin asking whether Hillary Clinton is attempting to sabotage Barack Obama's chances in 2008 in order to preserve a shot for herself in 2012.  

If Obama is the nominee and wins, there will not be different Democratic nominee until 2016, when Obama's VP will likely be a front runner and Hillary Clinton will be 68.  She knows that if Obama wins in 2008, she will never be President.    

As others have pointed out (e.g. kubla000), the Clinton campaign is now running a negative advertisement that attacks Barack Obama in a manner eerily similar to how McCain has been and will be attacking Obama this fall.