Yes, there are people who will not vote for her because she is a woman. There are people who will not vote for Barack Because he is black. Despite these two facts, both candidates have bee nable to raise record sums of money, create record turnout, and are relatively close in terms of total votes cast. Although, Barack is winning the delegate count rather handily.

There are people who want to vote for a woman president but do not want to vote for Hillary. It takes a special person to screw up being the presumptive nominee for over a year, running what was supposed to be the best campaign ever, having a three decade headstart in the hearts of voters, to running second place to someone America is only recently getting to know.

This battle, between Barack and Hillary, has been less about whether people want to vote for a woman and more about her failure to close the deal early enough to make it not matter. She could have closed this whole thing down within the first few contests if her campaign wasn't completely clueless. Furthermore, she could have shut the door on Barack if she had any type of plan in place for after Super Tuesday. Instead, she had a dozen losses in a row before hitting friendly territory.

Hillary Clinton failed to close the deal. The contract with America was sitting on her desk waiting to be signed. Instead, she partied and prance around, thinking the contract couldn't be taken away by anyone. By the time she got back to sign it, it was in the hands of Barack Obama.

She was irresponsible and she will pay the price. She ignored all the dead canaries that were scattered around her campaign. You can walk behind her now and dispose of their hardened bodies.

She needed to be winning by double digits in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and California and Texas and Missouri and Maryland and Virginia and Louisiana and Wisconsin, for starters. It's too late now.

translation: we will ignore it, gotcha

you obama folks are so predicable

all those advantages of cash, organization, charisma...and it keeps falling with a thud in major swing states where the black voting bloc is not sizeable, or else you have tons of smug elitists.

comments but nothing in response to the real issue, keep dodging it, when the primary rolls around, i will be back.

i expect the same ostrich in the sand routine

I noticed that the fact that Hillary is being outspent is often raised in the context of it being an unfair advantage held by the Obama campaign.

If Hillary's so set on winning PA, no problem. I'm sure the media markets in PA would be happy to take Hillary's money for ad buys. No unfairness there. No prejudice either - she is the front runner, after all. Although, statistically speaking, she probably has fewer supporters in the media - they being the latte-sipping, educated-impressionable type. But they'd take her money, I'm sure, as long as they knew they would get paid.

You say she doesn't have as much money? Is that unfair too?

I noticed that the fact that Hillary is being outspent is often raised in the context of it being an unfair advantage held by the Obama campaign.

If Hillary's so set on winning PA, no problem. I'm sure the media markets in PA would be happy to take Hillary's money for ad buys. No unfairness there. No prejudice either - she is the front runner, after all. Although, statistically speaking, she probably has fewer supporters in the media - they being the latte-sipping, educated-impressionable type. But they'd take her money, I'm sure, as long as they knew they would get paid.

You say she doesn't have as much money? Is that unfair too?

Hmmmm... it appears that Ms. Grainger buys in to the Clinton argument -- expressed most recently by the candidate herslf on Michelle Norris' NPR show -- that there is this "double standard" applied to Clinton.

When asked by Ms. Norris about the fact that "if Hillary Clinton wins, it's because she wins 'dirty'." Clinton responded that both candidates would have to get the support of super delegates to win (true). That there is a double standard applied to her (unfounded). When asked by Ms. Norris to describe what she meant, at first said "Well, anyone who's watching closely knows what I mean." Pressed to describe the "double standard" exactly, Clinton said, "I always get asked the question!" (Suggesting that being asked about her campaign strategy by reporters is a double standard.)

So, IF Hillary wins by any margin in Pennsylvania, we will say what we've always said: Clinton will have played the gender card, pretended to be the victim (of non-existent, imaginary slights), thrown the kitchen sink at her opponent, and lied up one side and down the other. That's what we'll say.

And then we'll start talking again about the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.

I hate to say it because of the consequences, but if Hillary wins big in Pennsylvania, it will become a huge problem for Obama and the Democratic Party. There will be peril that can't be ignored and that may be insurmountable.

A big Hillary win in PA won't mean Hillary can win the nomination based on voter preference, but it will increase her prospects of shattering the party and costing Democrats the election. The battle will go on and, if Hillary thinks nasty tactics are working, it will get nastier. Hillary may be able to persuade enough superdelegates to overturn the aggregate results of numerous primaries and caucuses. In that event, she'll get the nomination at the convention.

Unfortunately, there will be little time left to undo John's McCain's many months of media-aided anti-Democratic messaging. If the nomination comes that late (whether to Hillary or Obama), the whole GE campaign will be consumed by attempting to untarnish the Democratic candidate, who will be greeted by multiple salvos of fresh Swiftboat style attacks repeated endlessly on TV. There will be no time for anything but trying to contradict negative impressions. There will be no time for healing Democratic campaign wounds, which will be deep. Despite the nation's serious problems, enough people will vote for McCain or not vote for the Democrat to ensure a complete travesty in what should be the best Democratic year in memory.

Obama won't be able to win against McCain. We've seen how Hillary campaigns, and there's no doubt she will have convinced her ardent supporters that she was robbed. This could include not only older women convinced Obama stole the dream of feminism, but also, if Hillary tars Obama as anti-Israel or antisemitic, a significant block of Jewish voters. It could include blue-collar Democrats Hillary has convinced Obama is not in their corner, low-income Democrats Hillary has convinced Obama will deprive of healthcare reform, and foreign-policy-oriented Democrats convinced Obama is not fit to be commander-in-chief.

Hillary will also lose if she's the nominee, probably by a bigger margin. African Americans and people under 40 will leave the Democratic Party in droves. This will be more than sour grapes. If a black guy gets the most elected delegates and doesn't get the nomination, African Americans who have been seeking justice for generations will know they've been denied justice in a very important matter. Add to that the way Hillary has campaigned and we might be looking at a long-term realignment of American political parties in which the Democratic base loses its most loyal constituency. It will also lose its most promising new constituency. Young people - white, black and Latino - who worked so hard to win so many elections and caucuses will know they've been robbed and who did it: old politicians gaming the system. These young people won't vote for Hillary not because they didn't get their favorite candidate, but because they are idealistic. One of their ideals is pretty basic: having the person with the most votes win an election. Look for young people and African Americans to found a significant third party as the only hope of ensuring a closer correspondence between how people vote and who gets elected. The same concern will bring in most academics and consumer advocates.

What will be left of the Democratic Party? An alliance of shrinking unions who have good reason for their anti-business views, pro-business DINOs who don't care for unions or trouble-making women's rights activists, and strong older feminists who know the unions and DINOs consider them a neverending pain. You'll also have the over-the-hill gang of elected officials gaping slack-jawed at three constituencies that can't stand one another. Soon there will be only two constituencies to gape at. It will take one election cycle for the DINOs to pull a mass Lieberman, molting their Democratic skin to reveal enduring "moderate" Republican hide.

So you'll just be left with the unions and the older feminists staring each other down over conference tables in smaller meeting rooms. They'll call for three cheers for Hillary, but they'll only be able to muster two.

You can call this view apocalyptic, and maybe it is. But if a campaign is deeply and artfully divisive, there is a risk that it will succeed in dividing people to this extent. And if the winner of the nomination wins despite having fewer votes and fewer elected delegates, allowing the outcome to stand flushes a very, very basic principle down the drain. The choice won't feel like it's between Hillary and McCain, but between Hillary and elective democracy. Hillary will be the better candidate on issues, but one-person, one-vote democracy is more important than any single issue, and more important than Hillary.