It must be tremendous pressure on Hillary, knowing that if she drops out now, voters in West Virginia, Oregon et al. will be turned away at the polls.

(I hear in some places they'll be rounded up and forced to watch DVDs of Louis Farrakhan speeches, or worse.)

And yet she marches on, shouldering her divine burden, thinking only of her fellow Americans.

If she indeed is forced out, you can bet her opponent's centurions will dip the Holy Sponge in vinegar and hold it to her lips in derision.

OK, I have not seen the rest of the letter, but I assumed Bill not actually mean what he wrote.  I don't mean to be pedantic but "ever last voter"?

1. Some states have open primaries, others closed.  Do closed state primaries discriminate against independents and Republicans?  What ever every one of those voters?

2. There are no "voters" in caucuses.  Should we ignore those states. (Oops, silly question.)

3. By voter, I gather he means registered voter, not every citizen ...

4. By voter, I gather he means every voter who bothers to show up, vote and not spoil his or her ballots ...

5. By "until every last voter", I gather he means, "until the last primary" - because, of course, to track down and wait for "every last voter" could take until the end of the millennium ...

6. The elephant in the room: will HillBill actually respect the votes of the voters at the end of the primaries, or will they continue to seek every last voter until such time as Hillary gets a majority?  I mean, if indeed they propose to overturn the results of the primaries using the Supers on the basis of "electability", what the frack is the point of every last voter having a say?

I'm just saying ...

"We will fight on the beachs of Dover, we will ....". This bravado mercifully will be over fairly soon. But it does look like Hill is going to stay the course until June 3 and maybe a bit beyond. There are two ways of viewing this: a lesser candidate would have dropped out or a greater one would have gracefully bowed out Wednesday morning.

And I believe Dianne Feinstein's reply to "the last voter" thinking was clear. She said ""I, as you know, have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and I'm very loyal to her," Feinstein said. "Having said that, I'd like to talk with her and [get] her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is."  Further, "I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party," Feinstein said. "I think we need to prevent that as much as we can."

Bill may hope "people want Hillary to stay in this race" is a good enough excuse but Feinstein is seeking a "strategy" and their plan can't produce "negative dividends".

I see a paradox: Hillary is respected by the voters but they won't honor her sincere admission that she and they need to move on?

It appears cowardly when a candidate shifts blame to constituents who she is supposed to be leading.  At this point, no voter in a remaining state is owed anything and both Clintons are capable of explaining why everyone should be engaged in defeating John McCain (starting today).

Bill and Hillary must make the first move and declare they're devoting their effort to support Obama and hiding behind the emotions of supporters is using them for no good end.

And the letter writing continues.  This is from the text of a letter purporting to be from Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Obama:

"I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted. We cannot ignore the fact that the people in those states took the time to be a part of this process and to make their preferences known. When efforts were untaken [sic] by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically [sic] opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported. In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same."

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../clintons-open-letter-to-o_b_100861.html

Aside from the type and the illiterate mistake, what I find astounding - flabbergasting - is a) "I have consistently said" - was that before or after the rules were written, and before or after the elections? and b) her comparing the travesty of 2000 to this issue.