Mr. Kempner,

You're very right in your assessment of what went wrong, but you're missing a few important details.

Most glaringly, you make no mention of the issues! At the top of that heap is, of course, Iraq. Even as the war fades from the headlines, and as domestic issues take the forefront, in the back of voters' minds, this election featured a candidate who courageously came out against the Iraq war vs. a candidate who supported this epic blunder.

Second, it was about a candidate who tried hard to run a positive campaign vs. an opponent (and her husband) who ran a negative campaign. Attacks about drugs (by Shaheen, Penn and Bob Johnson) were particularly shameful. Everyone knew EXACTLY what Johnson meant in his SC speech, but Clinton said we should "take him at his word." It was disingenuous. And it was one example of many.

Obama is revered on the world stage in ways that will drastically help our country's image. I'm sure you're aware of Andrew Sullivan's comments. Obama will give us an immediate infusion of soft power.

Obama moved young voters in ways that no politician has in my lifetime. This is very good news, not just for the Democratic Party, but also for our country.

But these points aside, in the end, my judgement of Barack Obama boiled down to this: he was President of the Harvard Law Review, which told me that the man was incredibly intelligent. But when he graduated from Harvard, he went back to the impoverished streets of Chicago. That let me know that his intentions were honorable. And finally, when he came out against the Iraq war, that let me know that this man had good judgment in the face of incredible pressure. What better test could a potential President face?

I'm not one of those people who hate Hillary Clinton (though, as above, I'll admit that I was disappointed with the way her campaign was run). I realize Hillary has spent her life working to help people--and I respect her for that.

But I also feel, fair or unfair, that a Hillary Presidency would've re-ignited old feuds. Obama gives us something new. And in the end, as the man says, it's time to turn the page.

-Mark Ballard

Growing up in New Jersey (with an informal connection to MWW), and having lived in Atlanta for 6 years, it is unfortunately very simple why many people have voted for Obama thus far:

He is black.

At the Georgia primary, people who had presumably never voted before (as indicated by them providing supermarket shopper cards as "identification") were out en masse.

It's not about Iraq. It's not about domestic policy. It's not about fundraising. In urban Atlanta, he garnered 90+% of the Democratic vote because of his skin color.

That is unfortunate.

Hey Josh L:

12,946,615 Americans have voted for Obama so far (about 600,000 more than Clinton). Did you call all these people and poll them? You must have a lot of free time.

Furthermore, are you suggestiong that the "black pride" vote was what put Obama over the top in states like Iowa, Idaho, Vermont, Wisonsin and Utah?

Your post is a short-cut to thinking.

Gee, I wonder. . . when white candidates ran in elections in Atlanta all those years against african-american candidates, do you suppose more than 10% of those white voters pulled the lever for the black guy? Unfortunate. . but probably not.

Looks like the mainstream media is emotionally connecting with Obama, too: http://tinyurl.com/2o2ok7

Comparisons to FDR, JFK and Lincoln.

I should also mention, Mr. Kempner, that the recent "do what I say or I take my ball and go home" letters being sent by you and your fellow Clinton fundraisers are beyond stupid. For two reasons:

1. Threatening to cut off the DCCC will just piss off any remaining superdelegates who need the money.

2. The Obama fundraising machine has the rendered the old models obsolete; Obama has a massive pool of donors who he can go back to again and again. In light of that fact, and the fact that McCain is a really crappy fundraiser, Obama's cash machine has far more clout than a bunch of whiney Clintonite plutocrats who are pissed that their investment failed to pan out.

Moreover, you scapegoat Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi when the people who have power to reverse the rules, the Rules and Bylaws Committee members, go scot-free. Unfortunately, that would require you to send your letters to such people as Mr. Harold Ickes, who voted to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. Yeah, right, send a protest letter to your own campaign. . . (Kinda reveals the disingenuousness of the position of Queen, "Michigan doesn't count so I'm keeping my name on, and, OOPS!, now it does." In middle America, we call that being a "blatant liar".)

You see, here's the issue: Winners win. Whiners whine. But there is no way in hell Senator Clinton is going to whine her way to the nomination. Not happening.

Now traditionally, when candidates lose, their donors stop funding them. Unfortunately, you and the other aforementioned whiney plutocrats have decided to wage a nice little spite campaign. Okay. Get it all out of your system. Fine. When you're done, pull the plug on this vanity tour and, if your still interested, Senator Obama would love to have your support.