Perception is king. Truth is lost somewhere between here and Topeka. Facts are merely speed bumps.

If Hillary Clinton is the best at understanding "complex" policy details, why has she failed so miserably to master the "complex" nature of the Democratic nomination system? Obama is the one who surrounded himself with people who really understood the system, including its arcane rules, to take advantage of it the best he could. And he's going to win.

Hillary ran a terribly mismanaged campaign. Bad strategy, bad strategists, poor fiscal management, constantly changing themes, playing the victim, trying to change the rules, keeping and trusting underperforming staffers for far too long ... the list goes on. Is this what we want in our President?

Everyone just assumes Hillary is the policy wonk because she memorizes a bunch of statistics for her stump speeches. Perception is king. But when it comes to actually RUNNING a complex organization, the truth is impossible to ignore.

I don't hate Hillary. I actually sympathize with her. But her actions throughout the course of this campaign have only solidified my view that Obama is the far superior candidate and far superior person to run our country. That's not an indictment of Hillary. It's just the truth, based on facts and evidence.

I don't begrudge Joan for devoting 80% of her column to Obama's decision to leave his church. I don't even begrudge her for blatantly ignoring his stated reason for leaving his church (the constant harassment of the congregation and the microscope under which the church has been placed).

This is part of the healing process. Hillary supporters have fought a long and hard fight and have finally realized they lost. So let them get their parting shots in so they can release some of that rage before joining up to destroy McCain. Just please don't do anything that encourages them to encourage her to keep running.

This is funny:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAu39I5QOUc

I agree with everything you said. The problem is that to anyone who's anti-Obama because of TUC, logical explanations for why he joined that church fall on deaf ears.

People who consider his membership in TUC an example of "bad judgment" don't really bother to think any steps beyond that. Why exactly was it bad judgment? Because he heard some extremist things being said? I regularly read extremist things written on Salon - I hope if I one day run for office my premium membership to this web site isn't used as a reflection of my poor judgment. I suppose I should cancel my membership in a huff just to be certain.

Obama has yet again been placed in a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" predicament by his detractors, a hallmark of unfair criticism.

That people are so unwilling to admit defeat in a close contest is reflective of how narcissistic and selfish we've become as a culture. My way or the highway. But someone had to lose. And all things considered, Hillary lost because her campaign was not as effective as Obama's. And she was in charge of it.

If ever there was a concrete example of a candidate's judgment, Hillary's campaign is it. And seeing how she's reacted to being bested is a concrete example of her character.

Are the judgment and character she's displayed the kind of judgment and character we want in a President?

I don't think any objective observer of this entire primary contest can sympathize with Hillary. The only people who think Hillary's loss was somehow "unfair" are Hillary supporters. This is not a shocker. The loser of every close sporting event can make a case that they were somehow screwed. Claiming unfairness in hotly-contested events where there's a lot on the line is as old as competition itself. But most of it is really only in the eyes of the loser - it's impossible for them to look at the situation objectively because they're so emotionally entrenched, so they convince themselves of their own flawed arguments in order to ease their own suffering.

That usually doesn't change the fact that in the eyes of objective observers, the loser usually deserved their fate. And I still haven't read one objective argument, from a non-Hillary supporter (or someone who otherwise has no vested interest in the outcome of the primary), who says that she was somehow screwed. Nobody but Hillary supporters is crying foul. If she really had been screwed, or this really was unfair, I'd expect to read more objective analyses based on real arguments and not raw emotion backing up why Hillary was screwed. Kinda like how everyone agreed after the 1972 Olympic gold medal game that the Americans got screwed.

If anyone can point me to an objective analysis of how exactly Hillary got screwed, I'd love to read it.