Whoever LOSES the nomination is responsible for uniting the party.

[Bicoastal]

I know, it may seem counterintuitive. But the way things have been going lately, supporters of the losing candidate aren't going to listen to the winner. They're going to listen to THEIR candidate.

Some people have been whispering that if the winner can't unify the party, they don't deserve the nomination. Well, right now this description applies to BOTH candidates. And the impetus will be on the candidate who attempted to unify the most voters and delegates behind them and failed.

If the losing candidate retires back to Senate, refusing to campaign for their formal rival and maintaining a facade of neutrality, and telling their supporters and former superdelegates to do like wise, our party IS screwed in November. That's the long and short of it, and the nominee wouldn't be able to bring those voters back into the fold no matter how gracious and let-bygones-be-bygones their own attitude is. It's ALL about what the losing candidate does and says.

And if they are sore losers, and we go down in November because of it, said losing candidate will fully deserve to be burned in effigy in every Democratic organization in the country. In my eyes, at least, if they don't do their duty in defeat and bring us squabbling Dems together, they're worse than Lieberman, worse than Zell...perhaps even worse than McCain.

[lisa58]

1. They both have too...

...they have to be inclusive, welcome the other side, encourage their supporters to unify - it will be up to both of them.

[Bicoastal]

5. Sure, but only the winning candidate is REQUIRED to do this

If they really wanted to--if they were selfish, disloyal SOB's--the loser could easily prevent their most diehard supporters from coming back to the fold.

[JVS]

2. I hope Hillary is up to that task.

Her handling of the situation up to this point has not given me confidence in her ability.

[mediaman007]

4. So just let her fade away.

People love to rip on the Clintons. After Obama wins the nomination, it will be Clinton's job to elect him. If he's not elected, it will be Hillary's fault. Or Bill's fault. Maybe the Obama side could use a little more sugar with their approach.

[Bicoastal]

6. Hey, I didn't use a single name in my OP. You're just assuming Obama will win.

If he loses, he'll be equally responsible for thwarting further division.

[mediaman007]

8. I can't imagine that Obama will lose.

I would think that the Clinton's believe the same thing.

In 1968 McCarthy didn't help out Hubert Humphrey. I don't remember the runner's up helping out in 1972, in 1984 or 1988. Who came to help out John Kerry in 2004? Usually, the loser's give token support and fade away. The winner has to adapt to bring in the loser's supporters. There is a reason that Democrats are split. The winner will have to open up his or her campaign to capture the loser's supporters. Obama will have to create room in his platform for Hillary's supporters. They shouldn't have to change their views about what they think is important.

Obviously the same is true if Hillary is selected. But honestly, the Obama people display so much venom towards the Clinton's, I just don't think she could do anything to appease them.

[Bicoastal]

10. Well, the venom would decrease significantly if she was gracious in defeat.

That's what I believe. I don't hate the Clintons, I just hate the campaign they've run. Once their campaign ends, so will my anger.

[mediaman007]

11. Campaigns tend to be that way.

It's not the first time that campaigns have challenged each other. When Obama wins, he can be grateful that it got a little rough. He should have his organization in the perfect position to smack down those pesky Republicans. I can't imagine that they will be anymore damaging than the Clinton campaign.

[mediaman007]

3. Perhaps the winning side shouldn't be win at all costs.

They could be a little less harsh to their opponents.

[BlueIdaho]

7. Boy you said a mouthful

The winner must be generous in victory and the looser must be courageous in defeat.

If not - we are doomed to four more years of republican rule and the end of our civil liberties.

This is serious shit.

[mediaman007]

9. While I'm passing by, let me welcome you to the DU!

[BlueIdaho]

12. Thanks! nt.

[anamandujano]

13. Obama has shown us that his "uniter" routine is a sham. It's a little

too late to expect all the voters that he and the DNC have alienated to forgive and forget.

If Hillary loses, I would expect her to give a fine speech about rallying around. Voters have always had a mind of their own. Nuff said.

[Bicoastal]

14. More of a uniter than Hillary.