i have to say that i disagree with your very first point. “99 problems” was reported by the press and television all over the wold when it happened. even by the reliably in-the-tank huffpo (if i knew discus better i'd provide the links – heck, here the huffpo one though you'll need to copy and paste http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/at-oba... ). i don't think that one post by ben smith saying he can't confirm it proves anything in the face of that.

second the words used by hillary re: lbj were not “insensitive” in any way. they were simple, non-controversial statements of fact. the obama campaign deliberately chose to make them an issue as their now-infamous campaign memo on the topic demonstrated. he needed to win s carolina and what better way than by playing the victim card. do you think that what she said what incorrect (it amy have hurt obama's feelings as the chosen one, but that is utterly irrelevant – i want any president to be able to withstand factual comments or else we should just prepare to kiss our remaining freedoms goodbye).

i don't know how the campaigns treated art students. i have no doubt that the obama campaign “welcomed them with open arms” while saying that white working class (per brazile and axelrod) are undesirable and unneeded. that smacks of elitism to me. if you do not see that well then we have very different ideas about who is oppressed: i think workers have a stronger claim on my support..

i do think obama has run a great media campaign, that he early on realised that the “creative class” is bored of real, live politics and that it likes the soundbite slogans of “change” and “hope” combined with open disdain for those who need to work for a living, as well as gays, hispanics, women and the elderly. so aligning themselves with creative class laziness was a clever move. but watching the talking heads on television (most of them 30-40is fratboy types like tweety) and their equivalents at bogs like dkos spewing their unrelenting hate doesn't make us want to back their candidate. it has the opposite effect.

i agree that the democratic party has some huge problems right now. but the idea that it is all hillary and her backers fault for existing and not quietly going away is not going to get you where you want to be.

what we are waiting for now is a set of clear statements from the obama campaign and the dnc that the days of character assassination and insults are over and, most importantly, that there is something in it for us to back obama. let's get some on universal healthcare, on protecting workers rights, on rolling back nafta for a start.

we are willing to listen but we want to hear something that addresses the reasons why we backed hilary throughout this race — and continue to do so.

I have long felt that at some point we needed to move back toward a truer vision of what the Democratic party stands for at its best, but nothing good comes without some refining fire around it, which is what we are seeing.

Still, people like Harriet Christian mystify me, because they are not really thinking through the issues, living in the emotional and yes, bitter, past.

Saturday wasn't that surprising to me. You had one side (Clinton's) demanding that no votes be counted in Michigan, and the other side agreeing to what was presented by the state committee as their best stab at a compromise. In the end, it made little difference. Had Clinton gotten everything she wanted, she could have claimed some moral authority to proclaim herself the winner of the popular vote. I'm guessing that it was common knowledge that Obama had the superdelegates lined up to claim the nomination on Tuesday anyway, and giving her even that small edge would have also given some small weight to the claim she made: that the nomination was stolen from her.

The fact is, Obama really won the nomination the day of the Indiana/North Carolina votes. By coming within 11,000 votes of her in Indiana, he foreclosed any mathematical chance of her winning, whether or not Michigan and Florida were counted.

The only benefit to waiting through the final primaries was that it completed the vision of a 50-state strategy, leaving grassroots organizations in communities across all 50 states. That bodes well for the national election, and I appreciate Hillary Clinton's doggedness in that regard.

However, Tuesday night's 'non-concession' speech more or less killed any respect I had for her. I'm sure she'll produce justifications for it, but they're hollow. She lost, and she was sulky and ungracious. Factor in the “I'm leading in the popular vote” lie she kept telling along with the ramped-up appeal to women to support her because she was a woman…and the fallout is toxic.

I wrote on this blog that I would resign from the party and become an Independent if she won the nomination. I also said I'd vote for her. And I would. I resist constantly the possibility that she could become a running-mate. That would just be drama and more drama, without end.

We'll see.

i am a hard working, white American but call me sexist because I don't accept a candidate endorsing the other party's candidate over one of her own, referring to a heart wrenching assassination twice and alluding to it three times, deceiving the public about putting herself in peril of sniper fire, alienating African-Americans by divisive voting block tactics, publicly vilifying a former ally for endorsing her rival, and proving a poor commander-in-chief in mismanaging a “big money” campaign from day one only to lose the contest and not relinquish the stage at the expense of her opponent's good graces. And spin it all like they are the victim.

The order is rapidly changing; please get off the new road if ya can't lend a hand!
Hey – even Bob Dylan seems to know the hour that the ship comes in!

I would like to say, however, for the last 15 months, so many Americans – probably more than ever before – have felt for the first time they finally had a vested interest in the process of getting a Democratic nominee with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

With Hillary now out of the running, and not showing her acceptance and support of Barack as the nominee, it's only to be expected that some (a lot?) of her supporters would turn against Barack in favor of John McCain. I have to believe, if the reverse had happened, we could be doing the same thing. Not me, but some.

The main thing, however, is that Barack is not the one to whom they should direct their ire. Rather, it should be to the process. Personally, I'm still reeling over that whole scene over the weekend. I realize what happened makes sense to a lot of people. But, not to me.

Anyway, it happened, and to give your vote to John McCain as some kind of punishment because Hillary didn't get the nomination just flies in the face of what we as Democrats stand for and hope for. Like someone else here said, a better tomorrow for all of us, among other things.

I hope this makes sense. Like I said, very emotional and still reeling.

P.S. Karoli, your Grab our RSS Feed link has some extra characters at the beginning. I thought I'd finally subscribe since this appears to be where the action is.