It would seem to me that, in a democratic system, you continue to vote until the votes have been tallied. The race shouldn't be "called" until a candidate has a clear victory. Due to the insane, and undemocratic, influence of the superdelegats, this point hasn't been reached yet. The Democrats are victims of their own convoluted policy. It's a miniature model of what can happen when one over-solves a problem. And that's the weakness of the Democratic party. It doesn't mean that Obama (or Clinton) might not be the better candidate (than McCain) at this point in time, but either one ought to learn a lesson in governance from the current fiasco. In the case of Clinton, it's clearly a lesson not learned.

I actually think she had a chance to turn the tide against Obama after the first flare-up of the J. Wright "controversy." But she lost a tremendous amount of momentum when caught repeatedly and boldy lying about the conditions of her trip to Bosnia years ago. Even worse, she didn't "own" the lie, and her tepid apology confirmed suspicions about both Clintons in the minds of the fence-sitters.

Sure, this is all small stuff, far away from the larger important issues. But with somewhat little policy ground separating her from Obama, it was bound to come down to the details. So, Marc, don't lay this one so much on the Democrats as on Hillary Clinton herself.