I too was appalled at how the MLK/LBJ comment was twisted to sound racially motivated. I was and still am a strong supporter of Hillary (although I thought her gas tax holiday was ill conceived). I have since resolved to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt and he has proven himself since, but I have yet to forgive Tim Russert for stoking the fires two Sundays in a row about Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment even after Hillary pointed out that he was taking the sentence out of context. Russert became the head of a media pack that was so biased against the Clintons that they ended up hurting Barack Obama instead of helping him. It wasn't until the Starurday Night Live stint that people realized there was something unfair about the whole affair but by then, it was too late. McCain and the Republicans tried then and are still trying today to make media bias an issue. That might be one of the stains left by the water under the bridge.

If I can jump back in here, there were at least four things unrelated to Hillary's candidacy itself that contributed to her not receiving the nomination:

1) The ethical double standard:

While promising us a new kind of politics ("What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize..." Obama declared at the head of his website), the Obama campaign waged a methodical campaign to smear Hillary not just as racist but "disingenuous,” “divisive,” “untruthful,”
“dishonest,” “polarizing,” “calculating,”
“saying whatever it takes to win,” “attempting to deceive the American people,” “one of the most secretive in America,” “deliberately misleading,” “literally willing to do anything to win” (all direct quotes from his campaign), not to mention a pretender riding her husband's coattails. The lie, circulated around the blogosphere, that "Hillary was fired from her job with the House Judiciary Committee for lying and ethical misconduct" became established fact, virtually impossible to dislodge, although utterly untrue.But Obama engaged in such negative campaigning while flying under the radar, so to speak. Hillary tried to call him on it but nobody in the media listened. Obama is a talented politician who has never been afraid to get down and dirty when he needs to but it was Hillary, never Obama, who was repeatedly called to task for her "shamefully despicable techniques." The ethical double-standard at work has never been truly acknowledged.

2) Media bias:

So many examples! My two favorite both come from Chris Matthews, but he was by no means acting alone. After Hillary's unexpected "loss" in Iowa (where the top three candidates essentially garnered about a third of the vote each), he gushed about a new wind blowing around the world (Obama) and declared Hillary's candidacy all but dead in the water: "Her nomination has gone from inevitable to improbable overnight," he opined. Then after her unexpected win in New Hampshire, Chris Matthews told us bluntly, "The reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit." Can you IMAGINE any pundit saying anything remotely as offensive about the Obama candiacy? Say, for instance, that the main reason he was chosen to give that address at the 2004 Democratic convention -- the one that propelled him into the Senate and ultimately into the contest for the Democratic nomination in 2008 -- is because he is black? Or that being black gave him a decided advantage in states with a significant black electorate? Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro found out what happened if one tried to approach that topic with a ten foot pole.

3) Lack of neutrality among key Democratic leaders:

Again, more than one culprit here, but I'd like to single out Nancy Pelosi. Like Donna Brazile, another allegedly "neutral" superdelegate (and CNN pundit), Pelosi may not have announced her endorsement of Obama, but her preferences were transparently clear. Let's go to the videotape:

a) March 11, 2008: Nancy Pelosi tells Boston TV that a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket is "impossible." "I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama. I think that either way is impossible," she said. "We'll have a 'dream team,' it just won't be those two individuals."

The "Clinton administration"? Is this another way of saying "Billary" with Hillary as junior partner in that amorphous entity? And who exactly is Pelosi to opine about the Democratic ticket in March?

b) March 26, 2008: "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party." [translation: they had better select Obama].

So Pelosi, like the Obama campaign, was making up an arbitrary "rule" about how Super Delegates should vote, i.e. they should endorse the candidate with a plurality of pledged delegates. Since when was Pelosi the Grand Pumba Arbiter of DNC superdelegate rules? No such rule exists. And never mind that we were two months away from the RBC's ruling on MI and FLA, and that Hillary still had a reasonably good shot at winning the popular vote. Never mind that more registered VOTERS (by a margin of about 3 to 1) felt the superdelegates should base their decision on the winner of the popular vote, rather than the candidate with a plurality of pledged delegates. It was never the intention of party elders in establishing the superdelegate system to have them select the nominee in March, and if Pelosi didn't know that, she shouldn't be Speaker.

c) May 29, 2008: "Top Democratic leaders intend to push for a quick end to the battle for the presidential nomination when primaries are over next week...Democratic officials said Pelosi already has begun contacting uncommitted House members urging them to weigh in soon...Pelosi has also said she hopes the nominating contest is wrapped up quickly."

In 1980, despite Carter's sizeable lead in delegates, Ted Kennedy was permitted to pursue the nomination all the way to the convention and didn't concede until the second to last day, at which time he snubbed Carter by striding off stage without shaking his hand. In 2008, in a hotly contested nomination battle in which Obama held a razor thin margin, Democratic leaders made it clear they weren't going to allow Hillary the same privilege -- in fact, we were treated to that farcical "roll call" that attempted to keep in the shadows the fact that Hillary won 18 million votes and came extremely close to being our nominee. Truly disgraceful.

4) The caucuses:

Leaving aside possible abuses by ACORN which I agree have not been sufficiently investigated, as another blogger noted above, the caucus states favored Obama not because of his superior grassroots organization in those states but because Hillary's proven base was selectively disadvantaged, including seniors (esp >65), working women, women with children, and shift workers who cannot caucus as easily - if at all. Surely we can agree there is something inherently unfair about a voting system that selectively favors one candidate's constituents. This is especially evident in the four states that held BOTH caucuses and primaries. In Texas, as we all know, Hillary won the primary but ended up with fewer delegates because of the caucus results (94 delegates to Obama's 99). In Washington state, Obama received 53 delegates to Hillary's 25 based on the fact that he won the caucuses 68% to 31%. But at the "beauty contest" non-binding primary in Washington ten days later, the vote was Obama 51% to Hillary 49%. In Nebraska, Obama won 16 delegates to Hillary's 8 based on the fact that he won the caucuses 68% to 32%. However, in the "beauty contest" non-binding primary in Nebraska, held several months later, the vote was again much closer (Obama 49% to Hillary 46%) -- yet Obama was awarded twice as many delegates. Obama netted 57 delegates for JUST THESE FOUR caucus states (Obama 187 delegates, Hillary 130). The final difference in pledged delegate totals at the end of the primary season was only 127. Think about that fact: 57 of those 127 pledged delegates came from just four states where the caucus results did not fairly reflect the proverbial will of the people, as measured by the popular vote results in the primaries.

Having said all that, Hillary gets some blame for her campaign's failure to have anticipated that Obama's superior on-the-ground grassroots organization (+/- voter registration fraud, voter intimidation, and similar shinanegans by ACORN) would help him outperform her in the caucus states Even if that took the Clinton campaign by surprise in Iowa, they should have been able to adjust their strategy in time for the later caucuses and inexplicably did not. Another big factor for which I also blame Hillary was Mark Penn. What an odious man! He should have been jettisoned right after Iowa, along with his message of "insider experience" and "inevitability." It should have been obvious after her loss in Iowa (and win in New Hampshire) that Hillary needed to find a new voice -- she did, briefly, but didn't really come into her own until Pennsylvania and by then it was getting late. Bill Clinton had it right when he referred to Penn's strategy as "malpractice."

These issues have received very little attention thus far. I'm waiting for a Joe Klein or someone of that caliber to write an impartial book about the primaries that brings some of these factors to light, but I think I'm going to wait a long, long time.