When Gore was only a couple of 100 votes behind Bush in Florida, there was a group of people who started an echo chamber how Gore should let Bush win to get the country back together and start the healing from polarizing fight.  Gore fought for a little bit, but then he gave in.  Look where we are now, after 8 years of the one of the worst presidencies ever. Gore should have fought on.

Hillary should fight on.  There is still a chance for her to win in Democratic Primary. Much better chance than Gore ever had in GE (after Florida).  Obama's strategy was to concentrate on caucuses and Hillary's to concentrate on big states and superdelegates.  Superdelegates change their mind all the time and the processing of vetting is only starting for Obama.  Even if she is behind 50-100 pledged delegates - she can easily get those back in supers.

Hillary should fight on as Gore should have.  Many people who talk about Hillary dropping out are using the same language as republicans used against Gore:  this is dividing the country,  we need to start the process of healing the country, if it lasts for much longer country/party will never recover from polarization, etc...  Those points didn't come true in 2000 and it will be the same now.  

Hillary should fight until decisive victory or defeat at the convention. If superdelegates give Hillary the nomination, Obama-fans should accept that. At the same time, Hillary-fans should accept if cacuses (with independents and republicans) give nomination to Obama.  Both of those processes are un-democratic, and should be removed for the next election, but rules are rules.

At the end I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. But calls for either candidate to drop out are too premature and have a lot in common with calls for Gore to concede in 2000.  The race is still far too close and in the end, either candidate will come out for the better.

I didn't expect Obama to have any chance at winning Maine.  Actually I am not even sure why.  The only poll I have ever seen was like 3 month ago with Hillary beating him by 20 points.  She was beating him by 20+ points in all states at that time.  Who set up these expectations and why did I believe them?  But that's not the point.

Obama won it fair and square. So big ups to Obama.

Right now I feel sad and disappointed, but there are still some big contests ahead.  Hillary should win all those and then it is to the convention.

I have donated money to Hillary's campaign and voted for her.  I hope that she will win and I will not lose that hope unless she concedes or Obama is elected during convention.  But even if Obama wins it is not the end of the world.  I will not be switching to McCain that's for sure.  I just will not pay as much attention to GE or get into arguments with anti-Hillary people.

Keep the Hope that Hillary will win, but it is not the end of the world either way.

Reading various diaries from Nebraska and Washington State, it seems like Caucus system is pretty undemocratic.  In NJ Primary no one knew how you voted. In "caucuses" it seems there are two ballot boxes and everyone can see who you voted for.  So let's say there are 2:1 Obama supporters in the area. Some Hillary supporters or undecideds may come to caucus, but they can be intimidated by the size of Obama crowd/line.  Many will leave or even switch sides (everyone likes a winner). So instead of 2:1 it may end up to be 4:1 or even worse. Since delegates are chosen proportionally, Obama is getting a lot more delegates than if it would be a normal primary.

Maybe I misunderstand how caucuses work, so if anyone has some insights, I would appreciate it.

It seems like for many Obama supporters the main issue seems to be that he was always against Iraq, while Hillary was originally for it.

How do you know that if Obama was actually in senate during that time - he would vote against the war?

Many democratic senators spoke against the war, but voted for resolution.  They clearly stated that resolution was to put pressure on Saddam to let inspectors back in.  Just because bush used this to start a war, doesn't mean that many senators were FOR the war.

So what would stop Obama from doing exactly the same thing as other Senators.  Speak against the war, but vote for the resolution.  At the time of the vote 60-70% of the country favored the war, so to vote against it would be going against majority of constituents.  I know in some cases Senators have to do "what is right", but I would like to see some examples where Obama made some hard choices (going against his constituents). He voting record related to Iraq is pretty much the same as Hillary's.

There is a huge difference between "Saying you are against the war" as US citizen (or a state senator) and voting for the resolution as US Senator.  I was also against the war from beginning, but I don't represent the state of NY.