Although I've always preferred that Obama win the nomination -- because, among other factors, he represents a minority (black males) that is considerably more disadvantaged and disenfranchised than either women, or especially white women, and I think the vitriolic hatred of her among Republicans bodes ill for the prospects of restoring a more bipartisan spirit to the workings of Washington -- it really wasn't until her second invocation of the Kennedy assassination that I realized that I simply could not vote for her in the (by then) virtually impossible event she won the nomination, and that I would either not vote in the national election or vote of Nader (if he's still running).

However, I think the egregious delay in Clinton's official acceptance of Obama's winning the nomination raises additional and more substantial questions about her judgment as a political leader. For many weeks it has been obvious that she had virtually no chance of winning the nomination. Shouldn't she long ago have prepared a magnanimous concession speech unambiguously encouraging a shift of focus on the part of her supporters to Obama and the larger interests of the Democractic Party?

The only reasonable explanations for why she didn't do so must, I think, crucially invoke the influence of unsavory selfish and self-aggrandizing motivational factors at odds with the sort of judgment we should hope for in a leader of such importance as the President.

So, setting aside questions that have been raised about the service she performs as a role model for women (the ambiguity of which, I think, is well reflected in the generational divide in support for her among female voters), simply focusing on some of the decisions she's made in the conduct and conclusion of her campaign is, for me, cause enough for considerable relief that she didn't win the nomination.

Frankly, I never really cared for any candidate's race or gender.