He did. I am not too sure what is happening with Michigan, but Florida rejected the revote.

That is one major reason why Florida should not get delegates - the Democrats had tried to reach a compromise, and the state told them to shove it.

Her core claims have one by one, been undermined.

First: Experience.

This has been undermined not by Obama, but by what she included. Exagerated claims on the drama involved in her foreign travels (Dodging sniper fire) and the inclusion of her years as first lady as experience.

Second: Hard Worker.

This was undermined by the revelation that she didn't read the NIE before voting for Iraq.

Admittedly, nor did most of the rest of the people arguing for it, but most of the rest of the people arguing for it, aren't up for president. McCain, at least has the excuse that he is a Republican, and thus not required to work, or for that matter, have a brain.

Third: The tough, vetted candidate.

Tearing up benefitted her in the short term, but it has weakened her on her "Tough" credentials. Recent revelations on her trip to Bosnia raise questions as to just how vetted she has been.

Fourth: The competent campaigner.

Her whole campaign has undermined this, right up to this point where it turns out that she has spent so much money on someone that could legitimately be proclaimed to have cost her this election.

That Hillary ran a poor campaign now, is instructive, we must learn from her mistakes so as not to repeat them - just as we must learn from the failure of Kerry in 2004. This goes for those of us who support Obama, as well as those who support Hillary.

Even if Hillary should come back and take the presidency in November, we must learn from the errors made up to this point.

about "traitors" to their race, I think exactly the same thing as when people in white pointy hats talk about "traitors" to their race.

Bigot!

And racism has hurt Obama, and being the "non-historic" candidate hurt Edwards.

In some circles.

And in some circles racism and sexism has actually helped them both.

The thing is: has it hurt them to the extent that if they were both white males they wouldn't be in the exact same position they are in now? I don't honestly think so.

What has really hurt Hillary is her stance on the war, her past votes, her poor campaign and her endorsement of McCain.

I mean, I don't support Hillary because of the whole Hot Coffee debacle and how this reflects on how her religion is going to influence her presidency, not because she is a she.

What has really hurt Obama is his knowing Rezko, his pastor and the false meme that he has less experience than Hillary.

Obama's major weaknesses are less substantual than Hillary's because his weaknesses tend towards centering on people around him, and Hillary's weaknesses tend towards centering on her.

Plus it is hard to argue that her loss has anything to do with surface issues such as sexism, when she came into this race with a 20 point lead across the board according to the polling data. She was female when those polls were taken, it isn't like she had a sex change when nobody was looking.

So, you are saying that because somehow Obama used his magical mind control powers to make Bill say something really, really stupid he is a traitor to his race?

One: Hillary lost the black vote all on her own. When her husband compared Obama to Jesse Jackson if I remember correctly. She has done sweet bugger all to woo it back since then.

Two: Whenever anyone claims that allegiance is owed to a particular race, well I am left thinking "Yeah, and LBJ was a traitor to HIS race because he supported black people having rights." Not to mention rhetoric used against Abraham Lincoln.

In other words you are employing the exact same argument, in the exact same flipping words, that the KKK employed to slam certain political leaders for being in favor of civil rights.

Also, you are lumping a whole bunch of people together as a "Side" because they happen to share a certain skin color. This "them" mentality the very defining trait of racism - whatever your history may be.

Think about it.

is because it achieved everything that scares the bullcrap out of the Conservative movement.

Racial attitudes shifted once and for all against conservative racism. Back then, it was not socially unnaceptable to be a racist.

Sexual attitudes shifted. The "Good girl" doctrines which were never really practiced were called for what they were.

The attitude towards forcing people to fight in wars shifted, now there is no draft.

The sixties ended McCarthy's war on freedom of speech, public protest became acceptable and if you wear a T Shirt and sandals on a bus today, thank a hippy because they got the shit beaten out of them to give you that right.

This book shows just how scared people are of admitting that ultimately their parents have a lot going for them, how scared my generation is, of admitting that we haven't achieved much.

This article starts with the idea that the sixties is some sort of sacred era. Bullshit. The sixties have been slammed and condemned by the conservative movement since the bloody sixties. It is time to speak up for the truth on what the sixties really meant.

because those manly men proved so successful the last time around.

So they aren't a bunch of hummer humping gun toting morons with a penchant for calling people who read "Faggots." That is hardly a negative.

And aside from that, there is a definite undertone of sexism in the whole thing: Strong men won't work for strong women? Bullshit. Strong men don't give a shit, they want to get the job done.

As an Obama supporter, I am frankly disgusted at that first letter.