Well, you can look at the numbers, but they are not nearly as exciting.

Why vote when the choice is between three warmongering corporate shills?

Oh yeah, one of them is not supposed to be a warmonger.

Right.

And voting for George Bush was voting for Change,

Props to Mr. Shapiro for the evenness of his coverage.

I think events in the following few days will vindicate one of the two parallel narratives about Hillary Clinton. One narrative embraced by her moderate supporters is that she's only focussed on the best interests of the country and wants to make sure there's no "buyer's remorse" if Obama gets the nomination. (Those people also didn't see her continued presence in the race and the bitterness that may or may not have inspired as destructive to Party unity, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.) The other is that she will take the fight to the convention. (Mr. Shapiro correctly pointed out that predecessors have done the same thing.) Nobody, whether they support Clinton or not, thinks that's a good thing for Obama's candidacy. (If you're a die-hard Clinton supporter you probably think Obama won't win anyway so any "damage" done as Clinton hangs in there until we come to our senses is well worth the price.)

I was all set to call my Clintonian friend last night and tell him I've been wrong in my judgements. Then I logged on this morning and read reports that she hadn't conceded, that she appeared in front of a throng at Baruch College that was shouting "Denver, Denver", allowed herself to be introduced as the future President, and made a speech that continued to tout her "popular vote lead." I have to ask-if there is no concession speech, will that change the opinions of some moderate Clinton supporters who believed-like Shapiro-that she had the best interests of the party in mind and was only doing what she was entitled to? I'll certainly concede I've been wrong if she drops out and works immediately to shore up the party and campaign for Obama.

I really hope that this is the last self-serving, self-pitying, self-deluded article from a Hillary supporter about why it's not fair that Hillary won't be the nominee.

In January, Obama will be older than Bill Clinton and JFK were when they were sworn in. He will be older than RFK at the convention. He will have less years of national public service, but he has more years than any of them when you add his experience as a elected state official. By that same metric, Hillary has less experience than Obama, less experience than JFK, less experience even than Bill Clinton.

The facts are that Hillary and her campaign made a series of mistakes in their strategy and in their campaigning. Charitably, Hillary made a series of 'missteps' and 'misspeaks.' For those of you who are convinced that Obama played the race card: a) give me an example, and b) Obama didn't make Hillary say what she did about MLK, about "hard working white Americans;" didn't make Bill compare Obama's SC victory to Jesse Jackson's as opposed to John Edwards', didn't send out Ferraro, didn't ask Mark Penn to claim that the most important demographics to Democrats were Hispanics and poor whites.

For those of you claiming that the media was biased against Hillary, again give me a concrete example of the bias. In fact the same foundation that Ferraro insisted should do a study on sexism in the media, has done a study on media bias for or against both Hillary and Obama, they found that neither enjoyed an advantage in the media. They found that after Hillary made her SNL comment, the media was harder on Obama than it was on Hillary in an effort to compensate for her perception of the media bias against her.

For those of you claiming that sexism was the defining issue. Again, give me a tangible example of how sexism is responsible for her losing. I'm not denying that sexism exists or that Hillary, like the hundred million women in America, has had to face it, but how did sexism tank her otherwise clear path to the nomination?

For those of you claiming that Hillary won the popular vote, you understand the hypocrisy of claiming to be the champion of 'counting every vote' when Hillary's method of calculating the popular vote, excludes any votes for Obama from Michigan and seriously under counts the votes in caucus states?

The truth that Hillary, her campaign, and her supporters don't want to hear or accept is that while many, many people voted for Hillary and wanted her to be president, many more did not. Last spring when a friend asked me if I wanted to go to a Hillary fund raiser with her, I was truly surprised that we, as Democrats, with everything else going on in the US and the world, were going to have to decide if we wanted to nominate another Clinton, with all of her/their baggage. My friend and I had a long conversation over dinner about whether there was another option and whether Hillary could win in the general election. I decided then that I would vote for her if she won the nomination fairly, but that I would take a look at who else was running to see if there was another option.

I am proud that I was able to contribute my time, my energy and my money towards helping Obama win the nomination. I truly believe that he is the best candidate running this year. As a gen-Xer who is now closer to 35 than 25, he is also the first candidate that I've ever been able to vote for that I genuinely feel passionate about, that I genuinely feel proud for having supported.

I understand the frustration that comes through loud and clear in this article and the frustration from Hillary supporters, but I really hope this is the last that we have to hear about this. Your candidate lost. Fairly. Take a couple of days, think about what you want the next 4 years to look like and then either join McCain's campaign or join Obama's.