Duly noted.  She won't be on the ballot in November.  I'm sorry, I really am sorry if you're disappointed by this.

I don't enjoy this.  We've got a lot of the same values, I assume.  I'm sure you're a good and decent person, and I'm not spending time on the internet trying to belittle you.

But she's lost.  I'm cool with her staying in through these last six contests.  No reason not to now.

But come on, man.  Most of us picked somebody other than Clinton.  Would you expect us to have agonized to this extent when another candidate won?  Another candidate that would seek to do most of the same things as the one we picked?

Life is full of compromises and imperfections.  Do what you can with the options you've got.  I had to pick between a candidat I didn't really like (Kerry) and one that I thought would inch the world closer and closer to destruction (Bush).

It's a part of life.  Either you'll heal and come to grips with the fact that your candidate just couldn't make it, or you won't.

I would hope it doesn't matter what "username: whatever" thinks.

But most of us have been saturated with threats to stay out or vote for McCain, and are beyond the points where we were ever going to be solicitous of threats.

So you speak for all Clinton supporters now. That's an awful lofty perch you've climbed onto. I certainly hope you don't fall.

It's a serious comment. Sorry -- I looked at all of your links, and all it convinces me of is that both sides have some cause to complain. While I understand that you disagree, and that it's possible to pick at isolated bits of media bashing of Clinton post-mid-February (Tuzla, for instance), the media has been full-bore on the attack against Obama with very limited exceptions since mid-February.

For instance, Tuzla took a week to come to full boil. NAFTAgate was front-page news the same day it was alleged. Yet Tuzla was completely true (if not a really huge story), while NAFTAgate was false in pretty much every detail. Wright dominated the media before and after Obama's speech and again late last month.

Despite the ridiculous spin in one of your links, the media never rushed to Obama's defense over Bitter-gate -- in fact, it was just the opposite. We were told over and over and over and over how this was the end, how Obama was hopelessly elitist and, even if he wasn't, no one would ever think otherwise. The media bought into and reported the Clinton-campaign spin on Bittergate hook, line, and sinker. It boggles the mind that someone actually is trying to claim the opposite.

For every "sexism!" claim you care to provide from the media, there's a "racism!" one right back. I don't actually think the sexism (notwishstanding a few really bad moments) has been all that much, nor that the racism (despite a few really bad moments) has been all that much either.

And, for that matter -- you're providing links from, in several cases, the media! You believe them when they tell you that their colleagues have been nice to Obama and nasty to Clinton, while to me, it just says that not only are they being nasty to Obama and playing favorites with Clinton, they're also trying to pretend that they should be being even worse and/or justify their behavior when they do just that.

Not buying the spin, sorry. I've been following this campaign far too obsessively, and I have yet to see any piling on against Clinton that even scratches the surface of how Wright or Bittergate or NAFTAgate were treated. Even the example you cite of the media calls for Clinton to drop out are highly disingenuous - immediately after those started, the rest of the media attacked those calling for her to drop out, and the very source you cite is a clear example of it. Where were the media calls for backing off on Wright? on Bittergate? A month later, maybe. Where are the copious apologies about NAFTAgate that we got when Hospitalgate was proven incorrect?

The very complaining here about news coverage since Indiana and North Carolina proves the point better than anything else can. If the media were really in the tank for Obama in the way you're trying to claim, that's how the news would have been every day. Yet everyone is pointing out what a huge swing this has been. In order for there to be a huge swing, things have to have been markedly different before the swing. They were.

The media's had a clear favorite since mid-February, and that candidate is not Barack Obama. Their interest has been in prolonging the campaign as long as possible, and they've been propping up the candidate who's behind in order to do just that.

now you're question-begging.  You can't challenge her integrity regarding the claim that she has always maintained that caucuses are undemocratic on the basis of her comments in the diary saying that she thinks caucuses are undemocratic.

Both MI and FL are tricky issues; there is no clearly right or wrong approach regardless of what you might choose to think.  It is not appropriate to think ill of, or treat people poorly, simply because you disagree with them on a complex matter.

I actually find the argument that it is BO's own fault he took his name of the ballot fairly compelling.  If you want to punish MI for breaking the rules and claim it's just too bad for the voters, then it seems to be the same hard-ass argument to say it's too bad he opted off the ballot.

As for "I think it's absurd logic, but seems par the course coming from the Clinton's and their supporters these days in order to find a metric, any metric, to win this thing," that's typical of the hyperbole that's been spread around all primary season by Obama supporters and is a key reason I don't support him.  There are two metrics that have always been argued as important:  delegates and the PV.  Neither is going to win with pledged delegates, and so the HRC campaign has every reason to urge the superdelegates to consider the PV as a measure of electability before they commit to a candidate.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.  If she loses the popular vote, then that's it. Period.

Now, it is very true that Hillary has won the states that must be won in the general, and Obama has only won caucus states and red states (many of which were caucuses), and so that has been argued as an electability issue, but it hasn't been argued as a metric for outright choosing the nominee.