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.