I say this as a former supporter who donated money to both of her Senate campaigns.

She is capable. She is intelligent. She is strong. But I want more in a President. Perhaps that may have been enough in 2004, after the incompetence and lack of intelligence demonstrated by Bush. But 2008 is a whole different ballgame. That stakes and standards have risen.

I want someone who will be honest with me, as a citizen and tell me the truth even when it hurts. I do not think Hillary will do that.

I want someone who can look at themselves and acknowledge their own failings. I do not think Hillary can do that. She has exhibited traits similar to Dubya: never admitting failure (IWR vote), believing she knows what is best despite contrary feedback (derision towards progressive groups like MoveOn, pushing "out of touch" comments to a union in spite of being chastised for pursuing that argument, mandates for PRIVATE insurance).

In short, I think her point of view is that the ends justify the means. Sometimes they do, but in this case, they don't. Hillary enjoyed double digit leads nationwide early on in the race because she was campaigning on her platform--what she would do as President. She sold herself. That is why people responded to her and why her negatives were pretty low at that point. I was proud of that candidate and that campaign, even though I loathed Mark Penn. It seemed like Hillary was in charge of her own destiny and was making wise decisions.

Then enter her strategists Penn and Husband-Clinton. "Change you can xerox" came straight from Penn. Bill Clinton's divisive comments in SC originated from a Penn email. At some point, the very smart, very capable Hillary Clinton should have said, "Hey, we're not going to go there. We're going to run a tough, but aboveboard campaign and let the people decide." That's what got her those leads. Edwards, by far the most progressive, still could not pull ahead of Clinton for that reason. Hillary sold herself and her future Presidency better than he sold his own.

Just the fact that Hillary tried to boost her resume by claiming credit for things she did not do (S-CHIP, peace in Ireland, and dodging sniper fire) illustrates that she didn't really think her own Senate record was enough to persuade voters that she should be the Democratic nominee. She started claiming credit for her husband's accomplishments, instead of distinguishing the times when she disagreed with his policy (NAFTA, DADT). Hillary is to the LEFT of Bill Clinton. I know that. But somehow, she began to try to convince me that she would be more of the Clinton era we had in the '90s. I don't want that, and I think in her heart, if Hillary was President back then, she would have done MANY things differently. Do you remember the debate where one of the moderators tried to catch her up on a policy difference between herself and Bill Clinton? Hillary said something to the effect of "Well, he's not running for President; I am." The crowd burst into thunderous applause. THAT is the Hillary I wanted and that's not at all what I'm looking at today.

At some point in this race, Hillary stopped selling herself. It's not about how good she is, it's about how bad her opponent is. That's no way to win, especially when the opponent is a fellow Democrat. Most of all, Hillary has destroyed all chances of a unity ticket. Her opponent would never put her on the presidential ticket after the way she has conducted her campaign. Nor would her opponent over want to be on a ticket with her at the top. That is so sad. Because even Hillary has admitted she would like a unity ticket on the stump. They could have made a FORMIDABLE and UNSTOPPABLE team. Now, that is no longer a possibility.