Janet--

I had thought you were too intelligent to fall for the "FL and MI disenfranchised" canard. I'll try not to overestimate you in the future.

1)   Your girl Hillary herself explicitly endorsed the idea that FL and MI votes would not count--before she "won" them herself.   It's only since then that we've heard the whining about "disenfranchisement".

2) Her own campaign chairman said in January it would be a 17-state primary season--Hillary's campaign expected it to be over when she disposed of Obama on "Super Tuesday"--so did not plan at all beyond that. ( Not exactly the best advertisement for a president--who really should be able to plan for more than one contingency). But when he said that, it would seem that 33 states would have been "disenfranchised" according to the Hillary plan. Yet obviously that did not bother her people--or Hillary herself.

3) It's a tempest in a teapot, at this point. I've read that the Michigan Democratic party has offered a deal whereby she gets 69 delegates and he gets 59. And the Florida party solution has to do with halving the number--so she will come out 29 ahead in FL. He'll still be comfortably ahead.

Time for even you to come to terms with the fact that he ran a much better and more innovative campaign--harnessing the power of the Net to raise money in small amounts from huge numbers of people, thereby giving them a stake in his success. His campaign was also more perceptive, and far more positive than that of Team Clinton. She had all the advantages when she started--and she threw them away. He has won this contest fair and square.

One obvious aspect of this--his team recognized, right from the start---, possibly from his experience in Chicago politics, where numbers are important-- that they could pile up lots of delegates in caucuses--especially in the period right after "Super Tuesday" . Her team could have done the same--after all, in 2007, she had more money, more name recognition, and more delegates already lined up--including the Democratic "Establishment" most places. But they squandered their money on pricy hotels, Mark Penn, and other necessities.

And on top of that she alienated the antiwar movement by refusing to admit she was wrong in voting to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. She had scads of opportunities to rectify this, including several explicit invitations in debates. But she declined to do so, thinking she could "triangulate" the electorate right from the start---run from the beginning as if she were in the general election, not bothering to actually address the desires of her own party first. Perhaps the "triangulation" was based on advice from Bill--who's been full of wonderful ideas this primary season.

She--and he--guessed-- spectacularly-- wrong. And they have paid the price.

And your accusation of misogynistic attitudes being behind her loss is also-- not to put too fine a point on it--total drivel. There are many strong women who could have run a better campaign--and gotten far more support--and that I and many other Obama supporters would have been pleased to support--and will be pleased to support in the future. Nancy Pelosi leaps to mind.

The first requirement this campaign season was to be strongly against the Iraq war. She blew even this first point. And that in itself was enough to kill her chances.

Her refusal to admit she was wrong in the 2002 Iraq vote--and her backing GWB in his saber-rattling against Iran--forced the anti-war movement to look elsewhere for a home. They tried Kucinich and some others. But when it came down to only HRC and Obama, no question where the antiwar movement was going to go. And it ain't Hillary.

Sounds like classic sour grapes on your part. Unsurprisingly.