there are miriad of other topic where you can say walk a mile in my shoes, but lets keep it on topic.

Very true. I can easily concede that. If she does get the nomination, we've burned a lot of bridges. Unwise.

this type of blackmail was inevitable on either side of this at the end,

WE all knew this wouldn't end as nicely as some people hoped, but the words have been exchanged and the lines have been drawn.

There is nothing left to do, but put down the swords and stop the hate.

I also like the premise of this because it forces us Obama supporters to flip the situation and imagine it from the other way around. I personally would not need too much convincing because I have never "hated" Hillary Clinton. I have been occasionally saddened and angered by the kinds of arguments she has been obliged to make to maintain her viability, but in general had she won the nomination I would have not been too hard to convince to come back to the Dem fold.

But that's a cop out. Let me try to summons the appropriate amount of outrage and see what it would take to win me back. Mostly I think that keeping the most strident pro-Hillary diarists in check would be a good start. The only snarky posts I ever make are to some of these people(and clearly I don't need to name names for folks to understand which diarists I am talking about). So from our perspective probably keeping the tone of some of the pro-Obama diaries in a respectable place would be a big start. That is what I think is going on here--and its really silly--both sides are blaming the candidates for their most heinous online supporters.

From a policy perspective, I suppose that Clinton, had she been the nominee, could have offered to make bipartisanism a big part of her GE campaign, as well as championing other forms of government/lobbying reform. REnouncing the lobbyist in her inner circle, or at least sidelining them, would be a good start for winning Obama voters in this hypothetical.

Which leads us to ponder what Obama can offer policy wise to bring Clinton folks into the fold. Healthcare is an obvious starting point---adopting some aspects of her plan would be classy. A national commission on sexism in the media, or a speech about this to match Obama's race speech might be a nice touch.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on this interesting subject. Thanks for the diary.

I'd like to think that whoever the nominee will ultimately be is going to address the very question you ask head on.  Barring a "consensual" Obama-Clinton ticket in June, the nominee is going to have to address these concerns if they have any chance of winning.  As an Obama supporter who would be aghast if Clinton convinced the superdelegates to overturn the result of the pledged delegates, I would still be voting for Clinton for one single, solitary reason:  she's many miles better than McCain.  

But this is the single, solitary reason I'd vote for ANY Democrat we'd nominate in the general election - because they're better than the Republican.  I don't consider it blackmail for someone to argue that the eventual Democratic nominee is worth voting for because they'd do the things you list above and McCain would not - I consider it a rational, responsible reason to vote.  If people are going to vote for McCain over Obama or Clinton just because of the way they feel they've been treated in the primary, they're using their vote irresponsibly.  I'd like to think that people still vote for policy over personal grudge, but if they don't, I'd remind them that their civic duty is to vote for the person they'd feel is the best to run the country regardless of how their feelings have been hurt by supporters of other candidates.  If the eventual nominee has hurt a voter's feelings and they won't vote for them because of it, that's their right, but I'd like to think that making the argument that voting for what's best for the country trumps personal slights.  

To those who'd stay at home, vote for the Republican, or vote for some fifth-party candidate, I'd say, I hope your revenge is worth thousands more people dying in Iraq.

Though this is a good diary, I wish people would stop using that term.

Blackmail is when you say "If you don't do X, I will do Y."  The reason this is immoral is because the person making the threat is threatening to make something bad happen that they could prevent.

In this case, nobody is blackmailing.  People are saying "if you don't vote for the nominee, bad things (that I have little control over) will happen."  It's like saying "If you drink that bleach, you will probably die."  There's nothing wrong with that.

a few weeks ago, there was a diarist who posted a diary that stated he did an "informal" poll at beauty shops, etc - to see if Obama supporters would support Hillary if she got the nod

They didn't care about healthcare, women's rights or the war.  

so, it isn't just one-sided here.  Both sides have been playing with this blackmail crap for a long time.

Thank you for your diary.

As a Hillary supporter, hoping Hillary does EXACTLY what your diary states - convince the SD's to move to her......

They would do this for a couple reasons - 1) she made the case she is more electable, 2.) she made the case that the popular vote is more important than pledged delegates because SOME of the caucuses were illegal, 3.) that caucuses carry too much weight when compared to primaries where more voters turn out, 4.) that MI/FL should count....

Okay - so now she won....now what?

Hillary immediately offers Obama the VP position.

If he doesn't want it, what does he want?

Whatever it is - he should get it.

I would even go so far as to say that Hillary should take the FIRST 2 YEARS and Obama takes the 2nd 2 YEARS and this is presented to the party...In each case the other is the VP.

At the end of the 4 year term, they can both run again.

That is what I would do if I could make it happen.