No matter how you feel about Hillary's assassination remarks, or her luke-warm regrets over them -- everyone agrees that making those remarks was a monumental blunder.  

This diary is a cooler, logical look at this blunder.   No name calling.  No tears.   No anxiety.    In fact, I'm going to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt:  She didn't mean to make those remarks, she didn't mean to offend anyone and she regrets making them.  

Still...

Many indications signal we are headed to a brokered convention.  I'm not going to go into my reasons to believe this.  Several diaries here today cover that.  

Speaking with a friend who worked in a previous administration last night, he said, "You do realize that this could lead to a fight on the floor."  

"That's where it looks like it's headed," I replied.

"No, I mean an actual fight with hitting.   All it would take is one angry, strung-out Hillary supporter to poke an equally strung-out Obama supporter with a sign and... who knows how big it could get. It would the be the top news story of the day. The talking heads would love it.  They'd play endless clips of it, no matter how insignificant it was."  

Senator Dianne Feinstein is a Democratic Senator in my state of California.   Today I spoke with three staffers in Senator Feinstein's offices (Los Angeles and DC) with a very simple question:

I know Dianne Feinstein supports Hillary Clinton.   And I see Clinton supporters going on TV and claiming they will never vote for Senator Obama should he be the nominee.   I see a terrible rift in the party.  

What is Senator Feinstein's plan for reuniting the party after the nominee is picked?  

Their answers below the fold.

A close personal friend forwarded me an e-mail with this article in it from The New York Review of Books entitled Two Speeches on Race by Garry Wills
It is a comparison of Abraham Lincoln to Barack Obama through the lens of their rise in politics and speeches each one gave at critical junctures in their campaigns. -- Lincoln's speech at Cooper Union in New York (Feb 27, 1860) and Obama's speech at the National Consititution Center in Philadelphia (Mar 18, 2008).  

It is a fascinating comparison when looking at the situations both men faced:  Lincoln's John Brown compares to Obama's Rev. Wright.  

I'm not sure this diary will get much traction or recs -- it is a bit heady.  But for those of you interested in history, or those who want to understand just how much history can repeat itself, and how these two great minds handled similar issues in similar ways, it is a fascinating read.

http://www.nybooks.com/...

I'm going to preface this with "I believe."   I'm sure some Clinton supporters will flame this, and some will discount the simplicity of my argument.  But IMHO, this is one more reason Clinton needs to stop her campaign and go home.  

Clinton's win-at-any-cost campaign has become detrimental not only to the democratic party from a strategic standpoint, but also to the country as a whole from a moral standpoint.

Found this video over at alternet.org and thought it was moving.  

It is under the headline Young Muslim Artists Challenge Stereotypes.  

I realize that this is not up to diary standards (three unique paragraphs).  But I thought the video was worth sharing and thinking about.  Feel free to comment if you'd like.   I hope you enjoy it.    

In the LA Times Top of the Ticket Blog:

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York Daily News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.

But guess what? She's also an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

Their supporter, Reynolds, helps arrange a speech by the outspoken and egocentric Wright which receives blanket national coverage to the disadvantage of Clinton's opponent. As Louis writes: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted."

As I see it, it doesn't really matter how much money Obama spent on PA.  It was well spent.  He utilized his resources to keep Hillary from getting some math-changing, race-altering win in PA.    

And he has lots of money left over.  

This diary is dedicated to exploring ways Clinton could step aside while creating the strongest atmosphere for Democrats to win the White House -- united.   Hopefully we will get some fun, creative suggestions.  Even more hopefully, the Clinton staffers who read the blogs may stumble across this, find one that they like and say, "Hey, this sounds like a great exit strategy!"  And share it with Hillary.  

So use your ingenuity to solve this problem:  How can Hillary step down from her campaign and reunite the party behind Barack Obama?

My solution follows:

We know that America has to make some big changes in the coming years.  NAFTA is just one of the legacy problems we face.   (Healthcare, War, the Economy are others, but let's just focus on NAFTA for now. )  
 

With so many changes necessary, it is important that our new president be able to lead.   One qualification of leadership is being able to talk others into understanding and supporting your position.   If our new president it going to lead on renegotiating and fixing NAFTA and similar trade deals, he or she is going to have to be able to drum up support to accomplish that goal.   The president can't fix this country all alone.
 
 
What Hillary has shown recently is that she can't really lead.  Even under ideal circumstances.  

Recently Hillary repeated the allegation that the media is biased against her.  She complains that there are double standards when reporting on her versus her opponent.  

Clinton supporters agree.   Obama supporters scoff or see it the other way.   What both camps agree on is that the media is currently not covering Clinton as if she were the inevitable nominee, as they once did.    

There is no doubt that the media is not always fair.    Iraq is just the latest example of media bias leading us down the wrong path.  

But there is another side to Clinton's current claims of bias which, when looked at through a larger frame, render those claims irrelevant in this presidential race.

I came across this article on Huffpo today.  Ugh.  Don't understand what it's doing there.  Seems ugly and neoconish to me.  

You Are Hung up on Barack, but Hillary is What You Need
I know you. You are kind and caring. You genuinely want to help the disadvantaged. But I also know you better than you know yourselves, because I can see you from the outside. You work hard. You're giving. But you need your lattes. You need your leg waxes. You need to go to Balthazar or a comparable restaurant every week, you need your workouts, you need self-care.

You need a safe place to do all these things.

And you have always had it. Except for one fateful day--September 11--and its aftermath.

Think about it. Barack's concerns for underprivileged are admirable, his ideas (whatever they may be--he hasn't shared much that is specific) are noble. But do you really know him?

Before I begin, I'd like to ask that readers take my comments in earnest.  I'm not being snarky or subversive.  I'm really curious and concerned.    I'd like to get and idea of what is going on in the minds of Clinton supporters.   I recently read AngryMouse's diary entry Coming to Obama and I was deeply touched.   I can relate to her pain.   (Obama wasn't my first pick either.)   AngryMouse's honesty and awareness come though in every word.   I urge everyone to read her diary entry if they've not yet done so.

To be brief: I'm concerned that Hillary supporters and the Democratic party are being set up by the right-wing, corporate media.  I'm not sure why.  We can all guess. But no one is sure.   But the set-up looks obvious to me and I wonder, with Hillary's grip on the nomination so tenuous, should this be a consideration?  Should we take a hint?   Are Hillary supporters being snookered into supporting a candidate that the right-wing media is just going to steam-roll if she gets the nomination?