in June.

Sen. Barack Obama has posted his first campaign report since the end of the contentious Democratic primary battle, and political reporters and bloggers are already trying to ferret out whether donors to Sen. Hillary Clinton have been helping her formal rival, now the party's presumptive nominee.

The Post has now conducted its own analysis of how Clinton supporters directed their money in June. More than 2,200 Clinton donors became first-time Obama donors, giving him $1.8 million of the $52 million he raised last month. Of those, 355 contributed at least $2,000, for a total of $1 million.

The WaPo also writes why the original HuffPo article was mistaken as pointed out by the aides of both Obama and Clinton.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2008/07/21/hillary_donors_give_obama_18 _m.html

heh!

The real problem is that PUMA is not "more invested in getting the process right rather than the issues of the day". The problem is that PUMA is more invested in getting the process to give the "right" answer than anything else.

I still think the DNC could've avoided a lot of problems simply by saying "You know what, we said MI and FL were out at the beginning, they're still out now." By caving on that, they created an argument over people's perceptions of what may or may not have happened, if the election had been understood to matter when it occurred.

The DNC actually cared so much that the democratic process have the appearance of fair play that they gave a stack of unearned delegates to both sides, with Clinton receiving the lion's share. As I mentioned in a diary at the time, they came pretty darn close to giving a proportionate voice to those who voted.

But in the end we were left with the same situation: the "opposition", as you call them, did not get the result they wanted. They screamed, they shouted, they stormed off to their own corners of the web where they could get the echo chamber they wanted... But I never got the impression that they were concerned with any "right" answer that was not "Hillary". I realize not all of them were yelling "inadequate black male", but the loudest voices cornered the market on outrage and began throwing around scurrilous accusations. With that they created the impression that somehow getting delegates that weren't supposed to be awarded, but not as many as necessary to close the gap before the end of the primaries, was a slight against Hillary and women in general. That's still a fallacy of the greatest order.

The best case scenario would be that people read and understand the message of your sig line:

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

You see, the truth of the feminist movement, from college-aged friends of mine, is that they are no longer convinced that Hillary is and was their one shot at a female president. They're convinced that they will have one within their lifetime, so they didn't feel compelled to support Hillary. They went with the candidate that inspired them. They judged both candidates by their merits. Some went with Hillary, some with Obama.

But to say that the ideal of feminism was trampled on simply because the female candidate lost diminishes the entire movement. The movement was never about entitlement, but equality. About being judged on your merits. Hillary's campaign was less well run than Obama's. His message was clear the entire time (change) while hers shifted a number of times (inevitability, front-runner, tested, experienced, electable, finally to change). His money was well-spent, his advisors were better, his oration was fantastically inspiring.

Two great candidates ran. (I expressed earlier today that the primary was like choosing between Wonder Woman and Batman for your rescuer, and we can call George W. Bizarro for this analogy). In the end, though, one had to win. One candidate will have to take the mantle of those liberal causes that have been championed over time.

Both faced challenges from small-minded bigots in the media and both showed that they could expose and overcome them. The sexism and race-baiting were both really atrocious, but many people were also exposed to the reality and pervasiveness of the problem. Not to sound like GI Joe, but getting people to know it is there is half the battle when it comes to fighting intolerance.

To summarize, it was inevitable that 49.9% of the party was going to be disappointed. Unless you can show me evidence that the process was rigged (voter fraud, kickbacks to committee members for favorable votes, violations of rules and procedures), I'm not going to oppose the candidate elected by the rules agreed upon before the process began. And, in the absence of that evidence, I'm not particularly inclined to give the PUMA opposition credit for trying to get the process right instead of simply trying to get their candidate the win.

That word came directly from the title of Canadian Gal's title for her diary. Complain to her.