This reform should include the elimination of all caucuses

for the elimination of caucuses, I could understand a move to Maine style caucuses which have an absentee ballot and a secret ballot.  I just really liked my caucus in 2004 and 2008 I met a lot of new people and they were energized (heck I voted for Edwards at mine and I came out of it feeling like a democrat would win in a rout this fall).

I think she will endorse too.  I'm curious, though, what do you think they need to negotiate about?  Care to speculate?

supporters are on with Hillary.  

First they hate her and call her every name in the book - all because she stands in the way of their candidate.  Then, they admire her when they think she's dropping out and they want her support.  Then, within a matter of hours, when they didn't hear the magic words they deemed themselves immediately entitled to, she was all the worst names in the book again.

Its funny, but I remember speculation that John Edwards was going to suspend his campaign long before he actually did so.  At the time, it seemed like he was getting his supporters ready for the disappointment, instead of just springing it on them.  Also, as mentioned already, it seemed like he was using his staying in the race as leverage to negotiate offers for him to get out.  

He got a free pass for it as politics as usual.  When Hillary does it, not so much.  She's __ (insert shameless, classless, ambitious, cut throat, shrill, or whatever words Obama supporters use when frustrated that she won't roll over for them).

She deserves a few days to absorb everything.  The media are blowing this up....I have no problems for now.

I take issue with 1 and 2 - specifically how they're framed, but the elimination of caucuses is harder than to just wave a magic wand.

They exist because they're cheap.  Some states don't have a Democratic Party rich enough to fund a primary.  And if they do it with tax money that means that it has to be open to everyone - Democrats and Republicans alike.

And in some places it's just a tradition.  Iowa is not going to part with its caucus system.  And most state parties don't like the national party telling them how to run their affairs.

Who is she negotiating with?  Obama doesn't have the power to force the press to stop calling some voters racist, he doesn't even have the power to reform the  nominating process.  

Senator Clinton has known for weeks that this day would come, she had all the time in the world to prepare to drop out and endorse Obama.  The fact that she has not done so yet, and has instead continued to take shots at Obama and rile up her supporters, speaks volumes about her character.  

She hasn't conceded yet because once she does, her leverage disappears.  Its clear she wants something, even if its not clear what that something is.

There is nothing to negotiate. Hillary has lost. The contest is over. You can't plea bargain after the jury reaches its verdict.

Every newspaper in the world is saying that Obama is the nominee. Hillary just looks foolish when she refuses to acknowledge that fact.

Hillary has lost a net of 12 super delegates to Obama in the last 2 days. That is an indication of the party's displeasure with her.

Hillary will not accomplish anything in the Democratic party if the party itself is not supportive of her and it obviously is not now.

well i think its importatnt for her to make sure that Barack will carry on some of her core arguements: UHC, women's rights, and so on. [very likely duh.] maybe she is making sure that her constiuents are represented aka certain demographics that dont like Barack.

Maybe coming out during an event with Barack is in the works?

be patient peeps, the result may be spectacular.

Obama should simply concede to Hillary.

He lost in every state that Hillary won.  He couldn't win any of em.

Does anyone disagree with the idea that the right thing to do is concede and endorse?  

Why is Hillary not doing the right thing?

1) Hillary has known this was coming for a long time now.  She should have begun these negotiations a while ago.  The longer she waits, the less actual negotiating power she has...

2) Eliminating caucuses is a bad idea, and would be horribly difficult to do.  First off, Iowa would never give theirs up.  Second, the states decide on how they select delegates, so the Dems would have to convince majorities in every statehouse, even GOP controlled ones, to move to primaries.

As much as Clinton supporters retroactively complain about caucuses, they do have their virtues.  In rural, GOP-dominated places, this may be one of the few times where Democrats can get together to organize and plan.  There are states where I would work to make caucuses more easily accessible, but even primaries have barriers to voting.

Oh, for freaks sake.  This isn't the sopranos.  Anyone who wants on board with the Obama campaign and supports it over the next few months will be treated with the utmost respect and will earn the loyalty and gratitude of us all.

Clinton DOES have an obligation to endorse and support Obama.  She has a moral obligation.  It is an obligation she has taken it upon herself over and over again.  It's time to make good.  In a larger sense, she has the moral obligation to endorse and support because he is in position to advance an agenda that is, by her own admission, largely similar to her own.  Either she has principles or not.

First, whatever is said by some Obama supporters about some Clinton supporters is not subject to any "negotiation" between Obama and Hillary.  Accusations of racism aren't misplaced, racism played a clear and unmistakable role in a few outcomes.  Yes, it can and has been overstated as a factor, and wrongly attributed to, and used as a cudgeol against, Hillary, but that racism drove a nontrivial amount of white voters was and is real.  And whatever the case may be, it's not Obama's problem.  He's not responsible for what gets written on blogs or in the media by his supporters or neutral observers.

Second, the nomination process, too, is not subject to any negotiation between Obama and Hillary.  That's up to the DNC and non-DNC elected and non-elected federal and state Democratic officials...in other words, the entire Democratic Party leadership.  Obama can be one player in that process, and he certainly WILL be as an incumbent President running for reelection, but it's not an appropriate topic for Hillary to condition her endorsement.

Only your first topic, that of black elected officials who are getting primaried, is fair game.

I don't understand what she can negotiate with regard to belief that their is disproportionate racism among appalachian hard working white people.  It's not as if Barack can just decree that everyone who looks at Oregon, Iowa, North Carolina, and Virginia and sees lower income, white people without college degrees voting for Obama and then looks at West Virginia, Kentucky, and parts of Pennsylvania going exactly the other way is now hereby directly commanded to not believe their eyes.

with a defense of the caucus system.

but for now i have to go sit in rush hour for a bit. ug.

disclaimer: yes i agree we need reform, but i don't think we should completely do away with caucuses.

Barr/Nader/Gravel will be happy to have your vote, SS.

Both Dems and the GOP use caucuses because they are less expensive and they make it easier for parties to organize.  In a caucus, a vote counts the same no matter who casts it, rich or poor, educated or not, just like a primary (even though both get weighted by population, voting tendencies, etc.)

Let me remind you that the only true Democracy in history (we're a representative republic) was in Athens, were anything being voted upon were debated in public first, just like in a caucus!  (Some caucuses, like NM, don't have that either and are primaries that are caucus in name only...)

At this point, the individual likes, dislikes, or feelings of the two candidates are less important than the very vital need for the Democrats to win the White House in November.

This means that it is Sen. Obama's duty to reach out to Clinton and her supporters and bring the party together, and it is Sen. Clinton's duty to support the nominee, 100%.

Anything else just helps Sen. McCain.

Obama can reach out to those African-American politicians who went against their constituents' wishes by endorsing Clinton, but he cannot "guarantee their well-being".  If there are primary challenges, it's up to the voters to decide who to support.  That's democracy.

I would agree with you that we need to reform the election procedure, but caucuses aren't the problem.  Superdelegates are the problem.

The question of whether and how the Democratic party should reform its process for picking its presidential nominee, can we agree, is a question for the entire party.  On a tactical level it would be unwise for Obama to make any concession which implied that he'd won the nomination illegitimately (which is something, clearly, he doesn't believe).  But on moral grounds it's not really the place of Clinton and Obama to negotiate about these sorts of things.  I'm sure the party will reexamine the whole process.

The question of what will happen to black congressmen who have supported Clinton is an interesting one.  I don't think it's necessarily illegitimate for the issues which came up in this primary race to influence other primaries other levels (eg. a superdelegate from Florida who backed Obama despite constituents going the other way should have to answer for this, let the voters decide of the answer is good enough).  But sure, touchy subject.

I don't think the Obama campaign will show any reluctance to get advice from people on how they might reach out to "hard working white Americans".  For them this might now be job one.