We continue to hear that Hillary voters will not vote for Obama in the fall. The primaries were like voting between two oranges; the general election will be voting between an apple and an orange. Those who can't stand any flavor of orange will vote for the apple. Those who like oranges but prefer some flavors will still vote for the orange. Hillary lost because Obama managed his campaign much better and tailored it to winning the most delegates. Everyone knew the rules before the game. Hillary's advisers (Mark Penn, in particular) chose top focus on just a few large states. It was a losing strategy. Her top campaign staff was hugely overpaid, wasting all of the donations. They also failed to take note of the impact of the web. The fact is she ran a 1992 campaign and that didn't cut it.
I continue to be puzzled by the "experience" comments, e.g., McCain has more experience, or Hillary has more experience. I think everyone is confusing experience with seniority. I believe the Senate provides the wrong kind of experience to be president and the more one serves there the worse president one might be (how's that for a silly generalization). The Senate is a clubby institution that isolates its members from the real world. It requires absolutely no administrative experience whatsoever. They have a great health plan, private clubs, their own tunnels and offices that completely remove them from the exigencies of life. That provides precisely the wrong kind of experience, so let's stop this nonsense about how much more experience McCain or Clinton might have.