Wow. Lots of points to make and rebut.

Bucklaw, you're right that Clinton's poll numbers were much higher than any other candidate's (from either side) back in December. So, no. Her front-runner status wasn't hubris. But other front-runners (Gary Hart, Dick Gephardt, etc.) have found out, as has Mrs. Clinton, that being the front-runner at the beginning is no guarantee of the nomination. Whether she ever thought that it was "in the bag," I don't know, but you yourself say she "took for granted the nomination." Merely from a tactical standpoint, this would have been a poor idea. I've seen no concrete evidence of this, though. However, you are wrong to say that "she knew she couldn't win" Iowa. The polls in Iowa had her ahead to begin with, and even the day before the election showed a statistical tie among her, Obama, and Edwards.

SpeakerNancy, your posts are exemplifying every unfavorable trait associated with Hillary supporters! It's not helping your case. When you suggest Obama will "steal" the nomination, that implies that you think it belonged to Hillary...before all the votes were even in. That is the hubris and aura of entitlement that Obama supporters complain about. When you say the nomination "should" have been Clinton's, Biden's, or Edwards's, you show that you believe your own opinion to be better than that of the general electorate, and that smacks of both excessive pride and great prejudice. Why not call the electorate "plebeians" or "the great unwashed" while you're at it? And you show yourself to be ignorant of history when you claim that experience and background necessarily mean more than other traits. Lincoln had only a SINGLE TWO-YEAR TERM as U.S. Representative before he was elected President...and there were NO "Internet-addicted, trend-setting...Gen X. friends" in the 1850s or 60s! So, please, continue looking down your nose at the Gen Xers, the Internet users, and the Obama supporters, but it opens you up to all kinds of charges of unfounded bias and elitism which helps your cause not at all.

As for your final post, nobody knows whether a Clinton staffer sent that photo. This has neither been proven nor disproven. Clinton said that she had no knowledge of it, and Obama accepted, but that still does not rule out a "rogue" Clinton staffer. As for Obama's campaign being inethical, I don't think either campaign has any moral standing to accuse the other of ethical misconduct. Both sides put out misleading campaign flyers (check factcheck.org if you don't believe me), have manipulated media coverage and events, and have in general behaved like political campaigns. Only Clinton, however, has been flagrantly hypocritical in publicly shaming Obama for things she does herself.

I know several Clinton supporters and hold many of them in high regard. Same with Obama supporters. However, both sides have small but vocal minorities of rabid supporters who constantly bash and trash. It's not good for the party or for their candidate.