The author makes an interesting comparison between Hillary and RFK, in terms of the transformation they underwent in campaigning for their respective nominations.

Bobby Kennedy's campaign did not change America; the people of America changed him. As with Bobby Kennedy 40 years ago, this campaign has made her a better person...

When she talks of her responsibility to those who voted for her, it has to my ears no sound of falseness. I believe she has seen her calling, I believe she feels she has been handed a sacred trust, and I believe she will seek to carry out the mandate of that trust as fully and completely as she can. To do so, she must stay in the nomination race until it is completed - in Denver, at the end of August. To do otherwise would break the contract that binds her, and will devalue in an irreparable way her own sense of self.

However, what's the point? As long as he is sitting where the media and he think he's got this etched in stone, why bother?

I hope that she suspends so as to retain her pledged delegates, in the event that she revives her run -- or at least as leverage to clean up the corruption in the party by taking the rules fiasco to the credentials committee and even to the convention floor.

To suggest that role for her is insulting isn't it?  Sorta like the "also ran" status the DNC page gives her with a little "thanks Hillary" box... not that I'm sending THEM a penny.

They should be reminded to be careful who they select for keynote honor.  They shouldn't select someone who could possibly catapult themselves into the top of the party based on a speech.

I tried to explain a bit of politics to her, but she wouldn't hear it.  In her mind, the person who was the best and had worked hard all her life was cheated out of something she earned by the guy who didn't deserve it.  She also contends that most of the girls in her class feel the same way, so why try to do anything anymore? is their attitude.

Obama's voters are worth more delegates. Put precisely, there are 10,237 voters for every Obama pledged delegate and 10,807 voters for every Clinton pledged delegate. That's a difference in Obama's favor of 570 voters per delegate.

No offense, but I think you're both right.  And, really, how many times do you echo Pat Buchanan in your lifetime?

This year, the media picked Obama because they loathed Hillary and nibbled her to death.

The problem is that Hillary won almost 18 million votes in a primary (no one has done that in the history of America) and she won the last primary, South Dakota, despite the fact that Obama was projected to win both last states (notice how the media covered it up) and despite the support of Tom Daschle.

How's that working for you?

But surely anyone who steps back can see the politics in this and the fact that both are fighting for the same things.  Can anyone clarfy this for me?

Yes.  Ethically wrong.  I don't believe in unifying the country.  I believe in democracy.  We disagree with the Republicans.  We disagree with the Libertarians.  As a Democrat, I don't want to unite with them.

2)As for Florida, it was not the democrats fault. It's the Republicans who switched the date. So punishing Florida for something they in no way had authority to make a difference is certainly bogus. Plus the Republican attached a bill about paper balloting. So the democrats had no choice but to vote for it unless you want a repeat of 2000.

3)Michigan is a totally different case. DNC allowed Iowa, Nevada, NH and SC to go first. Michigan who had tried to break the Iowa, NH monopoly had stated that Michigan will not change the date unless any of those 4 states did so. And true enough, NH and SC decided to be funny and pushed their dates early. And with that NH became second again. The DNC decided not to enforce the rules. So it's selective enforcement. Not to say Obama teamed with John Edwards and Bill Richardson to remove their names as a strategic move to please the heads from Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC. 4 out of 8 candidates was still in the ballot, and campaigning was done there despite the rules saying no. So tell me about fairness and illegitimate victory?

4)I do not have to say how the media has sided with Obama against the Clintons, how the 'fairy-tale' was being played to smear the Clintons as racist, the 4 page memo about severing black ties from the Clintons and many more coming from the Obama campaign. I was on Clinton's campaign and  i have to say anything that Obama did to us, it's fine. If the Clinton's campaign ever were to respond with the same tactics, it will become the 'Washington' way. Obama's team engages with the most unethical campaigning methods i've ever seen, from stealing lawn signs consistently to anti-Hillary fliers, i could go on and on. I was all for Hillary doing the same thing against Obama, but of course it all fell on deaf ears. Even the statistics has shown before Feb 5th, Obama spent the most on negative campaigning (more than Edwards and Hillary combine) and 2nd to Mitt Romney. So don't ask why many staffs and volunteers that i met are so so bitter.

5) And finally how undemocratic caucusing can be. Remember that caucusing are not held accountable by the state and only to the party. And the party heads certainly hold huge influence in the process and such will take no action on the complaints received. Not to say Obama's team gamed the caucus as much as possible. That is certainly legit to me but i say why can't you just let the people vote the candidate of their choice in peace? And if there were to be any reform on caucusing, it will certainly not come from Obama as he owed the caucus leaders his victory. The results of the primaries in contrast to the caucusing of Texas, Washington state and Nebraska tells it all. And the people of Washington passed a proposition long time ago saying they want a primary. And so the Republican party allocated the delegates half caucus half primary. But for the democrats, none at all. Where is the will of the voters?

Yes, the premise is wrong.  We don't need to be united in sunshine and flowers right now.  We need a leader who will lead us out of Iraq and the bad economy, not a leader who...well, he really hasn't been too specific.  And saying that we need to be united in the first place denotes that there is division.  Where?  Along political lines?  Of course.  Racial lines?  Of course, but whose fault is that?  People are self-segregating, and blaming the problems on one race does nothing to solve the problem, and Obama has promised nothing to any community re: healing racial divides.  The only currency he has in that respect is his own race, but just standing there lookin' pretty only gets you so far.

In Florida, Clinton enjoyed the name-recognition factor while Obama never had a chance to fully introduce himself.  Surely one can't consider that primary fair to him.  And in Michigan, regardless  of his motivations in pulling his name, that primary wasn't supposed to count.  Does anyone think the results as they were would be fair.  Please explain where I am wrong here?