(a) the Democratic nominees are chosen by pledged delegates, not by a popular vote.
(b) Clinton is ahead in votes ONLY if you count Michigan and Florida, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. All the Democrats agreed they were not going to campaign in those two states; Hillary blatantly disregarded the rules.
(c) Also consider that Obama took the caucus states, and it is impossible to tally votes from caucus states.
Arguing that Hillary leads by votes is not only silly--it's misleading and wrong. Obama's lead is now insurmountable.
Clinton mathematically cannot win, neither by pledged delegates nor by the popular vote. That's why we're pissed at her and giving her bad press--not because she's female; we're pissed at her because she's ruining the Democratic Party by draining resources and distracting from the real issues in a terrible way. She promotes McCain over Obama; do I forgive that? She wishes to lead the Democrats when she does not have their best interests at heart--sadly, a running theme with the Clintons.
No, nothing says she has to drop out; the question at hand is, why would she want to keep going when it's over? It's wasteful, irresponsible, and petty. Every day she fights her stupid losing battle is another day Obama has to throw resources at her rather than at the Republicans where they deservedly should go.
"But she took Pennsylvania!" I can hear people screaming at me. Check this: she was always going to take Pennsylvania, but a while back, people wagered she would take it by a gigundo landslide. Obama narrowed the gap in popularity between them to 9+ percentage points (10 points if you round up). What does this tell you? As time goes by, Obama's popularity goes up, and Hillary's goes down. Now what does that tell you about who has better chances in the general election (especially as the primary contests drag on and on)?
Her loss is inevitable, and the same would be true if she were a dude.
Also, even if Hillary were a dude, you still would have 1,000,000 other reasons not to vote for her. Her foreign policy sucks, she's a monkey of Big Business, she won't get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, her campaign is in debt, and her health care plan looks just like Mitt Romney's. And then what does she do without solid policy to promote? She turns increasingly negative, both to her detriment and to Obama's. We all know about the ridiculous guilt-by-association story she tried to drum up about Obama's relationship to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and guess what? When Hillary's breeder husband was unfaithful, she sought Reverend Jeremiah Wright's counsel--and yet Obama has too much class to mention it. Who's running the archly negative campaign here? Not Obama. So let's quit pretending that Clinton is being singled out for her mud-slinging; really, it's just her.
(a) She doesn't represent you, compassionately righteous, honest, and noble woman that you are. (And please bear in mind: she won't speak up for lesbians if it's unpopular for her to do so, and you know that; she has too many handlers telling her to be mindful of the gay-hating crowd. Obama, on the other hand, advocates for gay people in places where no one wants to hear it--and that's important.)
(b) She had all the advantages of a front runner, and she managed to throw them away with both hands.
(c) She's not a blameless victim.
So, c'mon, ladies, let's all volunteer at some battered women's shelters if our urges to defend other females become overwhelming; then maybe we will feel comfortable enough to quit defending $109,000,000 Hillary by playing the chick card.
And now a message for all of us Lesbiatopians Living in the Beautiful State of North Carolina....