Here's a few sections, of many, that I have problems with:

"-But the real culprit is the party's stupid, self-destructive nominating system.. .

First, it was designed to anoint a nominee by early February, far too early in the process. The result: Obama built up an insurmountable lead at a time when he was still largely unblemished, untested and unscrutinized."

Although it's certainly hard to disagree with the "stampede" that resulted in the sanctioning of Florida and Michigan (and S.C., N.H. and Wyoming for the Republicans, besides FL and MI), it was the Clinton campaign that (nearly) benefited from this front-loading of nominating contests. The argument should be turned on its head -- why did Clinton campaign fail so miserably given their enormous advantages?

And a subtle point that might be missed here is that the Clinton campaign always relied on mass market appeal, as opposed to the retail, grass roots politics practiced by the Obama campaign. Although much has been made of the differences in class appeal, a better indicator is the educational divide between Clinton and Obama supporters, since it reveals a difference in the modality of persuasion technique favored by each campaign. The "Clinton brand," as it's been called, is  an appropriate expression since the campaign's emphasis was always marketing Clinton in much the same way a manufacturer might market dish soap.

The "unblemished, untested and unscrutinized" crap is just Clinton smear tactics. I'll acknowledge that Obama has only been in the U.S. Senate for a short time so some of this is fair game, but it's mostly a Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) strategy. The purpose of a FUD strategy is not to persuade -- per se -- but to create confusion and paralysis. The end result is that the individual seeks safe harbor, which in this case is the well known Clinton brand.


"..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. .. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked.." - Goering