That's pro-Hillary blogger Taylor Marsh's reaction (complete with nearly 1,000 comments) to yesterday's

Four delegates do not a convention challenge make but add in Hillary's defecit in delegates overall, plus her near sense of entitlement, and you have a recipe for trucking on. She may withdraw out of pragmatic considerations, i.e., she will want the support of Obama supporters in 2012, if he were to lose this year but I think her uberdetermination orients her forward and her cast-iron stomach is prepared to handle anything.

There's no 'near' in her sense of entitlement!  She won't quit because that would mean accepting reality - something neither she nor Bill have any hope of ever comprehending.

Leaving on her own terms, with the greatest possible aura of strength and potency, setting the tone for her next act.

Yeah, being a monumentally bad loser really shows strength and potency. Mitt Romney put her to shame with his classy exit from the campaign. Even Huckabee, who took some ribbing for his continued campaign, was an absolute class act.

Hillary Clinton is just an embarrassment to any thinking Democrat.

Blackton, she is fighting till she loses and I predict that when she loses--probably this week when probably the needed supers come out for Obama to put him over the op. So it's been a tough fight and nothing wrong with that, and someone has to win and someone has to lose. I predict that once she loses she will be cool and graceful and good humored will appear to be enthusiastically supporting and stumping for Obama. If that prediction bears out, it may be that some people should rethink their vitriol. and animus. If she tries to become, on the other hand, a doomsday machine, a virtual dog in the manger, then for sure I will have to rethink all that I have thought about her.But I don't think I will.

Four delegates does matter.  The Clintons obviously have a dual agenda here.

On the one hand, they need to compromise enough to ensure that they are not blamed for the breakup of the party.

On the other hand, they are very deliberately trying to build an urban myth that this "election" has been stolen from HRC.  This explains all the references to 2000 and "popular vote".  To that extent, all of the slights, however small or large, from hand gestures to 4 delegates matter a lot.  

The RBC meeting was a perfect outcome for the HRC camp.  They are still within then pale as far as the party is concerned, but they also can play the victim card and complain that they were cheated.

basman, do you think she'll say "I misspoke - Obama has passed the Commander in Chief threshold, please vote for him" or "I misspoke - Obama won fair and square, didn't steal this election, and please don't vote for McCain"?  Maybe she doesn't believe that she misspoke, in which case she shouldn't support Obama or be a gracious loser. She should stick to her guns. Like Ralph Nader. And I can only hope her political future is as bright as his.

One question Senator Clinton should ask herself: if Obama looses this year, does she really think she'll be welcome with open arms in 2012 primaries?  If she's so smart, then she'd better think twice about what her tactics at the end of the campaign says about her.  The way she conducted herself in the end of the primaries will not endear her to a large segment (majority?) of Democratic voters.  This was supposed to be her year, her time.  It didn't happen and it won't happen.  Ever.  HRC's time is past, time for her to move on, just like Ted Kennedy in 1980.  All I see in HRC right now is a very sore looser, the same as a kid that looses at some board game and in a fit of anger just flips the board.

Want an example of how being a good looser pays off?  Just look at the Republicans.  McCain didn't 'flip the board' and now is their nominee, for better or worse.  If he'd trashed GWB in 2000, I'm sure he would NOT be in the position he's in right now.

A woman will become president within my lifetime (I'm in my mid 40s) and I will gladly vote for the  her if she's the right candidate.  That 'right candidate' will not be Hillary Clinton, and the majority of Democrats this year said the same thing via this nomination process.

This ugly spectacle that the Clintonistas have put on is the sad exclamation point at the end of what was once the Clinton legacy. Clintonism will not go down in the history books as the politics of inclusion, but rather the politics of narcissism, racism, and narrow self-interest.

Did the RBC remind anyone else of a lame faculty meeting at a liberal arts college?  You had Ickes there without a jacket/tie and being sanctimonious and uttering profanity for effect.  You had a couple of the hard-core Clintonites almost come to tears when making their remarks.  You had some stridently angry speeches with ridiculous historical analogies.  And I specifically recall one undeclared panel member in a sleeveless shirt (you're on national TV people!) with a hairdo / eyeglass chain combo that reminded me of nothing more than my sociology 101 prof.  Oh, and did anyone else catch the woman who complained that she wasn't being called on even though she had her hand up?  

I shouldn't paint everyone with the same brush -- Herman and Roosevelt did a good job keeping things in check as best they could.  

psantillana

I'll wager you my today's work in process against yours (just kdding of course) that when she steps down--and I think it will be this week if the sds do the expected--she will be gracious, good humored and supportive of Obama. All the campaign crap will merge--as in the legal doctrine of merger--in the unanimous selection of Obama. And she will go on to whatever she goes on to. All of that may not be in her heart, but who knows what is anyone's heart, and but she is too smart, I reckon,  to do anything else.

As I say, if she does, some folks ought to rethink their animus towards her, and if she becomes a fly in the ointment, a nail in the wheel, a stone in Obama's shoe, I will have to rethink my estimation of her.