Analysis: Clinton fans, please stop whining

No matter what happens in the three tiny remaining primaries, Hillary Clinton is not going to win. If you think she is, you need to drink some reality juice, stat.

That being said, it now seems clear that Clinton herself is only as hellbent on winning as her most frenzied group of supporters -- women (mainly white) who believe it's more important to break the gender barrier rather than the race barrier, who believe that should their Hillary lose the nomination, sexism will have been the culprit.

This is absurdity itself. Clinton lost because, buoyed by arrogance and a sense of entitlement, she ran a crappy campaign and failed to take Barack Obama seriously until it was far too late. Besides, if sexism was why Clinton lost the Democratic nomination, what possible chance would she have in a general election, where she must also face Republican voters who are statistically far less progressive?

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek made this same exact point last week. I've lost count of the magazines, newspapers and online blogs that have already weighed in on why Clinton lost. From John Judis' Clinton campaign "Autopsy Report" in The New Republic to Time magazine's succinct "The Five Reasons Hillary Lost," the story behind Clinton's imminent defeat is one of soaring arrogance, incredible imbecility and a heroic personal effort by Hillary that will soon prove to have been too little, far too late.

I'll tick off a few of the major points in case you're too lazy to click on the stories I referenced above: Clinton put loyalists and not experts in charge of running the show. She was so confident she would clinch the nomination that her campaign had no plan for everything that happened after Super Tuesday (which was on February 5, if you can believe it -- it seems like years ago). She was totally clueless about how the Internet can be used to raise huge funds from a sea of small-sum donors.

These aren't random, tiny minutiae we're talking about here. These are bigass problems that a candidate as "experienced" as Hillary should never have made. They're problems that should've been anticipated by any serious politician, to say nothing of a politician that's hellbent on victory at any cost ("in it to win it," to quote Hillary herself).

She only got this far because the mainstream media loves to spin the race as being tighter than it is. Imagine a rope with two knots tied in it, with Obama being the first knot and Clinton being the second knot, just a few inches behind. Whichever knot passes the finish line first wins. Well, we all know which knot will end up on top, because two knots on the same f*cking rope don't move.

But rather than point this out, the press instead explored and highlighted every possible, outrageous "path" to victory that Clinton's campaign spin doctors tossed out.

And then Clinton turns on the press! Trust me, the press holds one bias above all others -- the good story. A close race is a GREAT story. Most reporters would love it if Clinton took the race to convention, imagine the breathless coverage!

Clinton should be thanking the press that the Democratic race has been portrayed as a nail-biter the entire time. Even when it became clear that her chances were pretty much nil, the mainstream media continued to use hedging phrases like "Clinton's increasingly slippery path to the nomination" or "Obama's seemingly insurmountable lead" or "Clinton's hard delegate math."

As for Clinton's hardcore female supporters, it's time to get over it. You should support a candidate based on his or her beliefs and stances on the issues. You shouldn't support someone just because she's a woman, or a man, or man-eater, for that matter. If you believed in what Hillary stands for, it's time to get behind Obama, because I assure you, the difference between Clinton and Obama is like a little stream compared to the gaping canyon between Obama and John McCain.