A few points I get exasperated that nobody's making:
What about the voters in Florida and Michigan who didn't go out to vote because their primaries didn't count. And why was Clinton saying that the voters in Florida believed their votes would count? -- Were her local supporters telling people they would get them counted anyway?
(Actually, this does get an occasional mention. There seems to have been a lot of non-voters since the turnouts in the Dem primaries were less than in the simultaneous delegate-electing Repub primaries, unlike almost everywhere else.)
The drop in attacks on US forces in Iraq began after the 2006 election, not after the "Surge". The political change led to both the new US strategy and the Sunni "Awakening".
The Iraq war has left the US militarily defenseless. State governments aren't even sure they have enough National Guardsmen for local emergencies let alone the military having sufficient forces in Afghanistan for their purposes.
Americans are sacrificing their own standard of living to fund this effort to provide the Iraqi people with a stable anti-American government.
The Republican policy of borrow and spend is far more devastating to the economy than the Democrats' policy of tax and spend.
And furthermore...
The basic storyline of this primary season was that the Dems liked all their candidates and the Repubs none. (Obviously lost now; though it did push back Bill Clinton for a while.)
The basic issue between Clinton and Obama is whether we are still living in a predominately Republican country. She argues that we are and she is best suited to fighting the rear-guard actions that her husband did so successfully in the 90s. He argues that we can go on ahead now without picking fights over everything.
These two are somewhat superseded by events:
The government described the Guantanomo prisoners as "the worst of the worst" when they knew that the prisoners included two twelve-year-olds and others only slightly less obbviously innocent.
Even though early reports of "NAFTA-gate" mentioned Clinton also contacting Canada, no one seems to have gotten explicit denials from her campaign higher-ups.
A couple of Long-time peeves further afield:
Nuclear power in the US is not required to buy liability insurance. Now that it's said to be so safe why don't they repeal the special dispensation?
The international non-proliferation pact first signed about 50 years ago required (and stil requires) the nuclear powers to negotiate complete nuclear disarmament.
NOTE: I'm sure all of these have been said more than once here, but this puts them all in one place and perhaps momentarily relieves my frustration. I know it doesn't really matter as long as there are ill-intentioned people that we are mixing it up with. It's just bothersome when some of the answers seem so easy.