Now that we're all in this reconciliation mode, I felt a need to clarify a few points that I feel have been muddled along the way in the hope that it may resolve a few bitter thoughts. I'll take the risk that it just might reignite some smoldering embers but I just have this compulsion toward accurate perceptions. At least accurate in the way that I see the facts and as I am presenting them for all to critique.
The first is a misconception that the rules of the DNC's nomination process are faulty and contributed to Clinton's defeat. It was not the rules that were at fault at all. It was the breaking of the rules by the Florida and Michigan legislatures that led to a greater misunderstanding. The DNC disenfranchised no one. The Obama campaign in their negotiations for a resolution disenfranchised no one. The legislatures in the two states committed the disenfranchisement. This is a fact that needs to be made perfectly clear.
The rule to schedule small state primaries and caucuses first and keep larger states at a later date is a critical rule for a fair democracy and one Howard Dean deserves much credit for enforcing and defending. This allows lesser-known candidates with few funds to make a name for themselves with a few wins or good shows and then build a campaign that could then possibly compete fairly in a big state against a well-established candidate with national name recognition, wide-spread political infrastructure, and an influential donor base. If we were not to abide by this rule, our country would truly be run by large political dynasties and the people's democracy would be a farce. Just as Howard Dean deserves our sincere gratitude for his 50-state strategy in 2006, we also owe him much for standing up to the heat and protecting our democratic values in this presidential primary. 
The other perception I think is inaccurate is that the media contributed to Hillary's defeat. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the media had pretty much given Hillary the nomination before the first vote was even cast. I also remember nonstop loops and endless discussions of Obama's pastor and the "clinging" remark that Clinton advisors somehow managed to use to paint a South Chicago community organizer as an elitist. 
The Clinton campaign actually made skillful use of the media against Obama. He may never recover from some of it in Appalachia. But when the media went negative on Clinton was when she gave them good reason to. Inaccurate statements on Bosnia, Penn lobbying for free trade with Columbia, inflammatory rhetoric toward Iran, and numerous other misstatements and strategic blunders that I'm sure no one wants to see listed now. 
Toward the end, the Clinton campaign seemed to become a single-issue campaign. It appeared to me to be all about electing the first woman president. I would think that every good Democrat embraces this ideal and she has undoubtedly proven that its potential is political reality today. But her supporters should not let an attachment to this feat and the painful disappointment of not realizing it this time cloud their perception of the facts. Lingering anger vented in the wrong direction can only hinder our efforts to unite to achieve possibly the most crucial common objective we have had in a lifetime.