“And now — right before she stumps for Obama tomorrow in Nevada — comes a YouTube clip of Hillary telling her supporters that she wants a ‘strategy’ to have her delegates heard at the Democratic convention. Watching the video clip, you can tell that Hillary still hasn’t gotten over losing, and given all of the people she had telling her that she’d be the next president, we can understand the denial; she had been preparing for this moment for nearly four years.

“But we’ve asked this question a million times and we ask it again: Would the Clintons have been as deferential (or be expected to be as deferential) to Obama if the roles were reversed? What has happened over the last few days has given Obama the high ground here. ” — from this morning’s “First Read” on MSNBC.com.
This also from Time‘s Karen Tumulty, filed ysterday (8.6): “Clinton has been giving tacit encouragement to suggestions that her name be placed in nomination at the convention, a symbolic move that would be a reminder of the bruising primary battle. ‘No decisions have been made,’ Clinton said when asked in California — to whoops and applause — about that possibility. Still, it was hard to miss what Clinton would like to see in the pointed way she added, ‘Delegates can decide to do this on their own. They don’t need permission.'”
I can’t resist posting this [edited] reader response on the “First Read” blog, to wit: “The Clintons have become like the Night of the Living Dead zombies. Hillary and Bill: take our advice. We are wealthy, white, middle-aged and female, but we REJECTED you. We are also well-educated and we know that Obama is the future and you are the past. When we do elect a woman, and we will, it will be one that has won on her own merits, not by staying married to a serial womanizer and saying anything to get elected.
“And just so you know, you are on the cusp of ruining any chance of a political future if you don’t STFU.” — LB, Virginia.