I write this not because of the propagandized narrative that Clinton can still pull ahead in this campaign but rather because of the assaults on humanity and reason that she has considered evidence that she is fighting for "us" (whoever "us" may be, in her estimation).
As I have said here repeatedly, before Campaign 2008, my attitude was thus: I had expected Clinton to fight for "us" (everyone living in the United States) after 9-11, when it was clear to anyone paying attention that 9-11 was an excuse for an imperialist war, anti-immigrant sentiment, the previously unimaginable revocation of the Bill of Rights, and the transfer of the U.S. treasury to the military-industrial complex. She did not. I had expected her to fight for "us" (the working- and middle-class) when corporate predators of all stripe sought to transfer our personal assets to their stockholders and CEOs. She did not. When I lived in New York City, worked for the Family Independence Administration, and saw funds transferred from needy families into the hands of vendors--big, powerful corporations who claimed to be providing "job training" or "child care,"--I expected her to fight for "us" (everyone who has ever or may ever need a safety net). She did not. She was in my estimation yet another Democratic politician who had let "us" down. A list of all of her counterparts in U.S. government who had done exactly the same would be nauseatingly long.
I bear no animus toward her for the reasons that the notorious Clinton bashers of the 1990s did: that her husband is/was sexually compulsive, that she refused to spend her time as First Lady quietly obsessing over place settings and luncheons, that she claimed an active role in political leadership. In fact, I fought for her against the rabid right wingers and/or misogynists who attacked her for those reasons.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama had won his Senate seat despite standing up for "us"--on the war, on civil liberties, and against financial predators. He was one of few Democratic legislators whom I had seen take principled positions regardless of the very real political risks of doing so. His record is not perfect but has addressed "our" concerns much more directly. His fundraising success with donations of less than $200 was evidence of the groundswell that he created, the first positive one I had seen in my lifetime. He had a much firmer grasp on effective international relations. His books demonstrated to me that he is a first- rate thinker. The contrast was clear and the choice was easy.
In the aftermath of Presidential Primary Campaign of 2008, I do bear especial animus toward Clinton for her blatant emboldening of and subsequent exploitation of racist sentiment, for her coercive attempts to further a personal agenda at the cost of her party, for her rallying cry to white women to mobilize against her/their imagined mistreatment at the hands of Barack Obama, and for her attempts to retrocatively transform all the rules and the mathematics that resulted in her defeat.
Update: Check out this lady getting ejected from the RBC meeting for repeating Clinton campaign talking points:
(h/t Bark, Bugs, Leaves, and Lizards)