Even if she personally asked me, face-to-face, to support Obama, I would have to say no.  The treatment of her in this election has been too unfair, too hurtful for me, as a woman, to ignore.  I voted with my heart and my head for Hillary on Feb. 5.  My heart and my head are both telling me that even though I am aligned with Obama ideologically as a Democrat, I cannot and will not support him against McCain in November.

The census page says there are 5 million or so more of us than men. And I am sure more men have died than women since 2000, they just don't live as long.  So let's start a national underground movement to write her in if the SDs lose their minds and decide Obama is more electable. We can do it, telephone trees, email trees, the whole ball of wax that we have used for years to organize the kiddies and their activities. We can use it to organize ourselves a President.

As far as I read it, Obama and Edwards and other candidates played by the DNC rules and didn't campaign in these States?

The polls are never static. If the election was today, yes, a HRC win could happen. However, Obama has been vetted during this process.

HRC has not been and she would be. The Republican Party  will attack her on a multitude of her own mistatements and dispute her claims of experience [see failed health plan here, Ireland, Bosnia] in the White House.

No one told her to talk about ducking under sniper fire. And no one told her to provoke a foreign country with a nuculear threat when she is in second place in the nomination process.

I know journalists will turn on a dime, but I noted that on Hardball recently, Joe corrected somebody who referred to him as a Republican.  Maybe Hillary has converted him!  

Probably not a violation of the agreement because it wasn't the Obama campaign, but to say there was no Obama campaign is not correct.

It should also be understood that the G rated version of removing himself from the ballot is just that, G rated.  He took himself off the ballot to taint a probable Clinton victory.

Inasmuch as fair is concerned, the entire process is not fair.  As long as public caucuses are mixed in with primaries the process is not fair. As long as caucuses prohibit private voting and invoke the 15% viability rule they are not fair.  As long as caucuses can be a scene dominated by a mob the process is not fair.

It's also not fair that New Hampshire is always awarded the first primary. It's not fair that a small state has a disproportionate influence on selecting the nominee.

Your evaluation of what a "purist" is, or what a "purist" should be, is ludicrous but very funny.

Why would he not be a purist and leave his name off the ballot in Florida. Simple. Because like you said,  then according to Florida rules, [the same rules that gave us Bush instead of Gore],  he wouldn't be on the ballot in November Presidential election. He's smarter than that.

Derridog writes
"In addition, he is the one who squelched having a revote in both states. "

No. No. No. wrong. Each side had terms, the states had terms, the DNC had terms. You need to check your facts. One side, or multiple sides disagreeing with each other on how to proceed, does not equal one party being entirely at fault. It is misleading of you to characterize it in this way, and most people see through it.

Derridog writes
"If you think that is fair, just imagine if the situation were reversed and Obama had won those states and Hillary was being the obstructionist."

It was an extraordinary step to level the death penalty when the rules recommend a 50% penalty.

It was a violation of rules to penalize Michigan and Florida without also penalizing New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina.

If you're so particular about the rules (the whole damn thing was straight out of a grade school playground) then why is it "silly" to point out that Obama did in fact run cable TV ads in Florida. That was a violation of the Rules.

And yes, the WISE thing to do is to count Michigan and Florida 100% as is in lieu of risking the possible loss of both states.

I suppose you believe that Obama deserves to win after refusing to agree to a sensible solution.

It's certainly not like awarding an extra 500 votes to caucus states or changing to winner take all or whatever silly comparison you wish to make.

It's about recognizing the commitment of 2.3 million people who went to the polls and voted.

At this stage, it seems as though the super-delegates will actually decide, so why are we hearing about who they have to vote for, instead of who they should vote for

BTD and many others, including me, believe that the popular vote winner is a much better reflection of the will of the people than the pledged delegate winner (see caucuses, Texas, Washington State,etc.).  Two other major criteria is who is best able to beat John McCain and who is going to be the best President.  Implicit in the first question are the big state/anchor state for EC and the broadest, deepest and most reliable base of support.

"I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."

Even 'pundits' have started studying the 'rules' to see that nowhere is it suggested that superdelegates are to vote according to which candidate has the most delegates in primaries and caucuses that have wildly varying ways of apportioning delegates and where representation in the more limited attendance at caucuses has been a point of contention for some time even if it's cheaper to run.

The superdelegate 'feature' was created when they felt they wanted no more elections in which they had to run a candidate who polls showed was destined to lose in a big way, as McGovern did.   There is no question when a candidate reaches the requirement of 2025+ votes (but more if Fla and Mich are allowed) but there is if neither does.

Ha, those blue-collar people, so pig-headed, so uneducated,
so small-town, so bitter, forget them, they don't count.

His supporters and the pro-Obama media, accusing them of racism,  and of being white-trash can feel good and appeasing their white-guild, but they are doing it at the expanse of party unity and of Obam's ability to appeal to them.

It gives me insight into his style only.

I personally don't like it, but that's a person prejudice.  I spent too many hideously boring dinner party nights with academics.  They all talk like him, like people are bugs and they have all the answers.  

I've watched Hillary from the beginning thread the needle, proposing progressive solutions and bold ideas, and people who normally wouldn't go for that?  They fall right in line.  That's leadership.

I've watched her outsmart Obama in every debate and in every venue.  Smart women usually put off men.  She did, initially, but she won them over.  She's now Margaret Thatcher.  We let a few women in life be alpha.  Hillary has won that spot.

I've watched him talk about divisiveness.  Yet she's the one who consistently calms the troops down.  She's shown leadership in unity even in the primary, convincing all of us that everyone needs to vote.  Dang, if NC isn't a testimony to that, I don't know what is!  They are turning out in droves there.  PA may have been glad to see the spotlight off of them.  But that was because it was 8 straight weeks.  What state can stand that?  NC?  Perfect amount of attention.

Guam......little ole' Guam........was so excited because Bill talked on the radio.  Nobody ever thinks of them.  They were in the news and important.

Hillary's message to let the voters vote has definitely been heard.  Even Dean and Pelosi finally shut up.  She was right.  That's unifying the party.

Here's what people are missing, I think.  As we all have trudged through this long primary together, we have bonded.  Even in our severe differences.  We ARE, in fact, unified.

Once we truly accomplish choosing a nominee, we will have that bond that comes from "we came through the war together."  

As for accomplishments, well, Obama has achieved quite a lot for ordinary Americans in his work as a community organizer, state senator, US senator.
Read this: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/b arack_obama.html
or this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

  And he lost in actual primaries, where most people are able to vote easily, regardless of time constraints due to jobs, and families.

  He lost.  The solid core of the Democrat Party has tried to tell the DNC something and if they don't listen, guess what will happen in November.

  I read about one district in Texas where there were 10 delegates allowed for Obama and 4 for Clinton.  All 10 for Obama didn't show up, so the only delegates sent from that one district were the ones for Clinton.  Bring in new people but also pay attention to whether they are interested in the party or the rock star quality of one of the candidates.  

Good golly.  I spent all this time finally getting to a place where I actually make sense, and now I'm put out on the ice flow?

Not yet.  No way.

When I saw her with a standing room only crowd at Cal-State LA two days before the CA primary, I knew she would win. It's a commuter college like I attended, where most the students are working (even the young ones). At least in CA those colleges graduate the middle-managers, teachers, and public servants.

In contrast, the bigger universities turn out the professionals and academics.

(Note: These are not static categories. For example, I'm a lawyer.)

I do think that Obama deserves a share of the blame for this, by his passive encouragement of these attitudes. And I really do not want to vote for him.