(Editor’s note: Though the content and tone of this post may be intensely critical of Hillary Clinton, the writer did at one time hold a deep admiration for her and her husband. For those supporters of Mrs. Clinton that may construe any of the comments regarding Mrs. Clinton to be offensive, such comments are intended to criticize the actions and the potential actions of the person, not the person.)

 

So what have we learned about Hillary Clinton in this exhaustive, knock-down-drag-out, go-on-for-ever, divisive, contentious, incredibly expensive, not-over-yet, Democratic primary that we can use to make a judgment on her fitness as a president:

 

1. She surrounds herself with advisors that tend to influence her toward manipulating facts in order to achieve an objective.

 

2.  She is skilled in delivering misleading statements designed to influence large segments of the population into believing things that are not true.

 

3.  She employs agents that privately work on objectives that are in direct opposition to policies she publicly claims to champion.

 

4.  She values individual achievement over party unity and success.

 

In what ways could these attributes shape a possible, but mostly improbable, Hillary Clinton presidency:

 

1.  She could lie to the American people over critical matters of state.

 

2.  She could revel in the awesome power of the office and lose her sense of obligation to the average American.

 

Do we now know enough to make an informed decision?

In keeping with the newly proposed rules, I just want to say first that there was no animosity intended in the title toward Hillary or any of her supporters. And according to some of the exit polls, there should be a sizable number of her supporters that actually agree with it. 
But to the point, an enormous amount of money has been donated and spent on a campaign that most everyone agrees can only have one logical outcome. After all of the smears and fears, Obama is still solidly positioned to win in every important category - delegates, popular vote, number of states, and money raised. The best Hillary can do, considering the most favorable scenario possible for her, is a close second. 
I've always tried to see facts as they were and to face reality early. I'm not one to exert a great deal of energy into something that has a near-zero chance of success. There's a certain principle known as the point of diminishing returns that any good businessperson understands. And despite the benefits of "toughening up Obama for the general," I think we are well past that point. 
Though I'm sure this is all very difficult for her supporters to accept, it is what it is. Her continued fight in this campaign will burn up precious financial resources and further exasperate the recent rift in the party only to prove that yes she can finish in a close second. 

I’m really having trouble understanding this fixation on the “Florida and Michigan problem.” Hillary said last night on Larry King, “"I'm going until we get Florida and Michigan resolved." As a Florida resident who took part in the object of this fiasco, I’m under the impression that it had been resolved before it started.

 

The DNC made it clear to the Florida legislature that their delegates would not be seated if the primary date was moved up. This policy supported a valid democratic principle that candidates should start their campaigns in small states allowing for the electorate to get to know lesser known candidates with less financial ability. As their recognition and strength grew, they would be better equipped to challenge more established candidates in the larger states later. That should appear to every Democrat the fair and American thing to do.

 

Each of the candidates in the race at the time signed off on a pledge not to campaign in the two states if they chose to defy this DNC policy.  The Republican legislature in Florida, with some Democratic participation, proceeded to hold an early primary anyway, putting into effect the signed pledges.

 

I was under no illusion that my vote for Edwards would have any more effect than an informal popularity contest. This fact should have been well known throughout the state. The vast majority of the voter turnout was for a referendum on a controversial property tax amendment. I imagine there was a significantly low turnout from those who are not property owners.

 

But now an irrational emotion has been brought to a boil behind the idea that these voters are being disenfranchised. How often does every state in the union get to play a part in the presidential primary process? It is true that the entire debacle should have never happened. But it certainly was not the fault of the DNC or any particular candidate.

 

What is troubling is the fact that Clinton is intent on retracting her written pledge upon the reason that it would benefit her ailing position. What type of character or crisis management style does this demonstrate? Would she be this quick to go back on campaign pledges or international treaties at the first moment they became unfavorable in any way to her current status quo.  It becomes even more absurd when you look at the delegate math and realize that even Florida and Michigan would still not solve her problem.