No, this is not snark.

As the contest winds down, I want do some post-mortem type examination, and I want to frame these discussions in the least inflammatory way possible so that understandably sensitive Clinton supporters don't respond reflexively.

Rather, I want genuine, positive responses that will help us understand everything that happened this year. This first question - was she ever "owed" the nom at any point - is a serious inquiry.

I was listening to Bill Press' show on my way into work this morning, and topic was sexism in this campaign. I was stunned, yet not particularly surprised when at least three women called in who claimed to be fervent Hillary supporters who were voting for McCain.

We've all heard the statements. She's taking it all the way to the convention. She's in it to win it. She won't stop until Florida and Michigan are fully seated. So on and so on.

It's a nice public face, but we now have confirmation of what we've long suspected. It's all an elaborate ruse to whip up her supporters as leverage to force her way on as VP. From Al Giordano/Rural Votes:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248

One of the most common arguments among Clinton supporters is that Hillary has been let down/betrayed/attacked by "the party" because superdelegates are moving toward Obama, and will ultimately hand him the nomination. This, in turn, makes some feel as if they can no longer be part of the party, and we all know what that means.

That's not what this diary is about. This is a legitimate inquiry into how the Party could've treated her better. I thought they were already massively behind her when she began the primaries with a top heavy schedule seemingly favorable to her, a 100 superdelegate lead before anyone voted, and the backing of regional machine controllers like Rendell.

Apparently, that wasn't enough. So, I genuinely ask - no snark or meanness intended - what else could've been done for Hillary? Go back and really think this through before you answer. Think about from Iowa onwards. And let's keep it civil. Thanks.

I've only been here a short time, and I'm obviously an Obama supporter. I want a united party, so my LAST intention is to goad or mock Hillary's supporters. But I do have a honest question that I cannot figure the answer to:

Some of you guys are die hards, and some of you are never say die. I get that. But I've never seen so many supporters of a candidate unable to accept that they can't win. I mean Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich and Edwards supporters got an even rawer deal than you because their candidate got MUCH, MUCH worse media attention (or lack thereof) and was only viable for a few contests. But they all seemed to accept it, and then move on to another viable choice (Obama or Clinton).

But despite Hillary having huge name recognition advantages, a built-in Superdelegate cushion in Januray, a $109 million personal kitty to draw from, and the unwavering support of biggies like Rendell or Bayh...she still couldn't get it done.