Ebbie,

How about some discussion on cognitive dissonance?

I don't think gender has a huge role in political feelings or discussions. I much prefer to consider the quality of the person's character. I thought Hillary was just fine before she started tearing Obama and the Democratic Party down rather than building herself up. And I would have had less problem with that if she had had a better chance of winning. But as it has played out it seems to me to have been a very poor decision tactically and frankly, I expected better from the Clintons.

Before Texas/Ohio, the race between them was hard fought, and except for some poor judgment from Bill in South Carolina, pretty clean. Then Hillary came up with the 3 AM add. and started saying that She and McCain were experienced enough and Obama wasn't. This helps McCain.

Then She tries to chip at Obama's base by telling Democrats they could have both and by saying that She should be on the top of the ticket because she won Ohio. But, really Ohio was really closer to a tie, the difference was about 5% of the delegates. AND she made a lie of her experience argument because if she is saying that Obama is qualified to be VP then obviously. There is huge cognitive dissonance between the two positions. Again McCain is helped.

Her people demand that Samantha Power resigns. Then she keeps Ferraro around to play the race card for a week. Then Bill Clinton says that none of them should be fired. "thats politics" I call that hypocracy, but some might call it cognitive dissonance.

Hillary said that the election in Michigan would not count. Now she is squawking about people being disenfranchised. Cognitive dissonance? Hypocracy? either way, Advantage McCain, especially in Michigan and Florida.