NO, ANDREW, RESSENTIMENT IS NOT INEVITABLE
Andrew Romano, blogging for Newsweek, on why not ending the race is good for Democrats:
...If Clinton were to follow the peanut gallery's instructions now, the Democrats would wind up more--not less--divided as a result. The reason? It takes two. With their man at the helm, Obamaniacs are more than ready to "unite" with Clintonistas. But the reverse still isn't true. As Kenneth P. Vogel wrote yesterday in the Politico, "the legions of Clinton backers still investing their cash, energy and emotion into her faltering bid for the Democratic presidential nomination seem driven not by the reasonable expectation that she can beat Barack Obama, but by the emotional desire to see her through to the end of voting and stick it to those who have already written her off." Unless Clinton lets the race run its course ... many of her supporters will blame the media, the DNC, Obama and anyone else within spitting distance for pushing her out prematurely. And that means they'll be less inclined to "come together" than they are now--not more....
But this wouldn't be true if Hillary seemed to be leading the movement toward reconciliation. If she said, "OK, it's time now -- thank you, everyone, but we should all unite around our nominee," if she said everyone had fought the good fight but he'd won fair and square, if she said he was a good man and would be a great president -- if, in short, she said she'd lost the fight, but she wasn't being shafted -- the ressentiment would dissipate.
I'll repeat what I've been saying about the Clintons: yes, they have power, and if only they'd use it for good. Romano is right about the Clinton voters' feelings, but the Clintons can change that.