Bostonboomer at The Confluence:

FDL [Firedoglake] did not publicly endorse a candidate, but the posts and comment sections certainly favored Obama. It’s possible Jane [Hamsher, owner of FDL] couldn’t control the Axelrod astroturfers and just threw up her hands, as Digby did. But she allowed her comment sections to be infested with abusive language toward Clinton an[d] anyone who defended her. And she banned commenters who complained about the bullying…

She assumes that everyone who followed the primary battles focused on candidates as personalities rather than looking closely at their characters, policy goals, and personal accomplishments. She could not be more wrong…. I supported Clinton because she showed herself to be smart, knowledgeable, and most of all issue-oriented.

Pacific John at Alegre’s Corner:

Let’s break it down: women and most workers voted for Hillary by about 70/30 on concrete promises…

That leaves the 30% or so of the party, the Janes and the the MoveOn demo, that advanced elaborate, specific promises that BHO, the con. law prof. would be the anti-Bush, that he was the singular hope for reform of the financial system, and that the cherry-picked prog wishlist on his website would be delivered in the saddle bags of unicorns.

I argued strenuously that our only hope for a guaranteed public option was flowcharted on Hillary’s platform document, and swamped by what can only be likened to religious fanaticism. The kind Jane encouraged.

Here’s the thing: we knew this was Bush III a long time ago, when Wall St. and big money backed a nobody from Il over two hometown powerhouses, Rudy and Hillary. That should have set off alarm bells, but instead, the party gleefully raked in more cash than it could figure out how to spend. Overwhelming media bias, never a friend to real Democrats, should have set off bells. Absence of moral definition should have set off alarm bells. Caucus and party games that trumped state run primaries should have set off alarm bells among the very same Michael Moore demo that was obsessed with far smaller vote theft in 2000.

The biggest irony, to me, of the used-to-love-Obama reformers is this:

They were the biggest complainers that after the reasons to attack Iraq were shown to be lies, those who said they were lies BEFORE the invasion were STILL banned from the “serious” media.

Similarly, they were the biggest complainers that after the financial meltdown, those who saw it coming are STILL banned from the “serious” media.

So how hypocritical is it that they STILL ban those of us who saw Obama early on for the fake that he is?