You keep saying that everyone is refusing to read the link you posted and the excerpts from that you posted. How do you know this? I read it. You obviously assume that once we read it the scales will fall from our eyes and we will, finally, embrace the truth. Why can't you understand that many of us just do not share your interpretation?

I might add that I have posted many letter to which no "Hillary supporter" has responded to the points I make. In this first one (page 23), I set forth the facts surrounding the primary process and the rules the DNC made re: FL and MI delegates. (Of coure, my first comment on Hillary and her sense of entitlement to the nomination is opinion.)

@jebldmm

Good grief, already. Hillary and Bill will be speaking at the convention. The Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated. Hillary's name will be entered in nomination. There will be a roll call where Hillary's delegates will be able to publicly cast their votes. What more to Hillary supporters want?

Hillary's supporters wanted a coronation and didn't want to follow procedures.

1. Hillary and her campaign entered the primary season assuming the nomination was hers and that the convention would be a coronation

2. Procedures

a. The Democratic state parties of FL and MI broke the rules when they moved their primaries to an earlier date

b. As a sanction, the DNC ruled that the FL and MI delegations would not be seated

c. All candidates agreed to this ruling and agreed that they would not campaign in FL or MI

d. Hillary's was the ONLY name on the MI ballot; ALL other candidates took their names off

e. These primaries were not much more than a name recognition contest, given how early they occurred

1. Michigan: no one knows what the result would have been had all candidates been on the ballot

2. FL & MI: no one knows how many people stayed home because they were told the votes would not count

3. FL & MI: no one knows what the results would have been had the candidates campaigned in these states

One must consider the possibility that Hillary would have won fewer delegates in FL and MI had they been contested

f. DNC solution to FL & MI delegate problem:

1. the DNC imposed sanctions on FL & MI

2. all candidates agreed to abide by this ruling; Hillary Clinton did not register any objectons to this ruling

3. DNC did not have to lift the sanctions and could have stuck with the initial ruling

4. in the interest of taking the White House, DNC came up with a compromise where some FL & MI would be seated (and now all these delegates will be seated)

g. it was not until the Hillary camp saw that a coronation was not going to happen that they raised objections to the DNC sanctions of FL & MI; when she saw that she was losing Hillary wanted to change the rules of the game

h. Caucuses and the popular vote: Hillary and Bill Clinton have been heavy hitters in national politics for years; in addition, the have been leaders of, powerful players and had powerful allies in the DNC for years and; they are experts on the system; so if they believed that the system was flawed they had the power to fix it; that did not happen

1. Caucuses: had Hillary won Iowa and the other caucuses she lost she certainly wouldn't have thought caucuses were flawed

2. Popular vote:

a.) in the primaries delegates are allocated according to the percentage of the vote each candidate gets; winning the popular vote is irrelevant in the primary process;

b.) it is in the general election that electoral votes are given based on the popular vote in each state

c.) the allegation that Clinton should get the nomination because she got more popular votes holds no water: see a.) above and the states used to tally Clinton's tally were cherry-picked - the count did not include all states

To reiterate, the Clintons were powerful players in the DNC and could have changed the procedures if they thought they were flawed, not until the nomination began slipping away did they object.

On p. 27 I give some information about PUMA and its link to McCain. No one has ever responded to this. On p. 19 I ask what reasons "Hillary supporters" have for wanting McCain to be president. This one they never answer.

I sometimes wonder if we deserve this right. Emotion does have a place in politics (especially when much is at stake). But pettiness and spite? No. But your vote needs to be based on more: reason, knowing the facts, and, most important, the issues. I totally respect any McCain supporter who supports him because she believes that his positions on the issues are very similar to hers. If you can't do this you are abusing your precious right to vote and I wonder if you don't deserve to be disenfranchised.

You make several excellent points in your letter. These problems have been around for a long time. I think that many of the disappointed Hillary supporters may not have been involved in politics or even paid much attention until this year. And, I understand why this year got them engaged - the prospect of a woman President was very exciting. But because of their unfamiliarity with the system they may not understand the primary process, the history of how this process came to be, how the DNC works, who the players are, the strategies, games, etc that are all a part of presidential politics. This makes them susceptible to buying into flawed narratives about what happened in the primaries - especially when they come from your favorite candidate and you really want to see a woman become President. So, I hope, along with you, that these women will continue their engagement and turn their anger into positive energy. That way they can help fix things rather than destroy.