(Those who feel this is her time, that Obama stole her moment.)
Look at this graph with an open mind.
![](http://www.pollster.com/USTopzDems600.png)
Hillary Clinton has never even reached the 45% mark. It would not have mattered WHO ran against her. If Obama had not run, Gore might have. Other candidates who did run would have gotten more media attention. Edwards would surely have been getting more press attention and better results (I wanted Edwards, but I'm not bitter about it any more.) The fact that Obama's numbers shot up after Edwards dropped out, while Hillary's did not, really confirms that there were a large number of people within the Democratic Party who just did not want Hillary Clinton. Look how quickly he surpassed her after Edwards dropped out, and stayed ahead of her.
To me, this shows that it doesn't really matter who had run against Hillary, (within reason of course) - she'd probably be in the same boat right now.
You're blaming the messenger for the message. The message is clear to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear.
The message was, "We're looking forward, not backward." The message was, "Not you, Hillary." Yes, there were a lot of women (and men) who wanted this to be the year of the woman. But there were a lot more who didn't want THIS woman.
And that is not something you can lay on Obama. Lay the blame wherever else you want, but it doesn't belong on his shoulders.