And those cojones are carried by non other than Gary Hart :

It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.

By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.

As Andrew Sullivan deservedly says, "it's a start" but not enough because it would be too high a price to pay if McCain wins in November :

This is a generational struggle - although plenty of older folks get it completely. As such, it usually does take more than one insurrection to move past the past. Usually, we might wait for the forces of reaction and inertia and cynicism to fade away. The trouble is: we cannot afford more Rove-Morris politics given the enormous dangers we now face at home and abroad. And if you give the Clintons any power, we know they will use it to destroy - not just limit - any threat to them. They know the threat Obama and his politics present to them and their machine. They will never forgive his presumption. And you cannot assume they will at some point allow him to take over. The battle really is now.

I'd love to see a Clinton backer to step up to the plate and call her out as well. But none of them seem to have any spine. Not Donna Brazille, not Paul Begala, not Eliot Spitzer or Bill Richardson.

Yes, that Bill Richardson, who has hypocritically been supporting the Clintons privately while publicly declaring himself neutral to the race.

It's amazing to me that people who say "Oh, it's just politics" don't think what the Clintons are doing is not going to have its consequences. Well, John Chait also agrees with me :

Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.

Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?

One last thing : I have been saying for weeks. I even broke the situation down based on the five stages of grief. What all this comes down to is simple : The Clintons refusal to endorse Obama is not because they believe they can win, it's that they truly look at endorsing him as defeat and because they can't fathom defeat, they'll blow up the nomination and take the whole party down with them if they have to.

I have to admit I am not enamored of the Democratic Party and have fantasies of third parties. Yet this year, and especially this election, is not the time for those kinds of shenanigans.

It's time for the party loyalists to step up to the bat and put a stop to this train wreck .