What neither Salon nor readers don't seem to get is that, while Hillary can't win, Barack can lose. This is why she is staying in the race. Except for those who live in the dream world of "Yes, we can," the sobering lesson of these primaries is that the Democratic formula has little to do with electoral reality and when it is allowed to extend this long, it is counterproductive. The Democrats designed their primary system to produce a sense of participation and validation as well as an early front-runner. This is why they count the popular vote. The Republicans use the winner-take-all method because, since it resembles how votes are tallied in the Presidential race, it produces results that are more likely to predict what will happens in November. Empowering voters is not high on their list. But the reality remains: in a federalist system (rather than in a direct democracy like ancient Athens), victory is more important than the margin, since its the states that are key, not the voters per se. By this figuring, the only reason Barack is beating Clinton by the small proportional margin he is, is not because of his margins of victory in the states he has won, but because he has done better in defeat than she has in the states that will determine the general election, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, California and Pennsylvania. And he did as well as he did in these states almost solely because he held his blocks of young people, African Americans, and more affluent voters. In a general election, where losing big doesn't matter, as we learned painfully in the last 4 contests, he could be trounced. Moreover, while two of Barack's 3 major constituencies, blacks and young people, have no place else to go, working class and older Americans, who form the base for Clinto, do. The tragedy of this electoral season is not Clinton's dog-headedness, which makes her the Roosevelt to Barack's Kennedy, but a primary process that panders to the popular vote-- and will translate into Congressional victories for Democrats-- while giving up the biggest prize of all.

With everyone complaining ad naseum about teen pregnancy and pacts, lets get a few things clear

Most of the world, about 80%, have the lst babies as teens. This was true in the US until the 60's.

Everyone is complaining about teens not being "responsible." What could be more responsible than an agreement to have and then to raise children together?

The real outcry is not aimed at teen moms, but at teen moms without men. But the reality is that male partners are no less likely stick around with teens then they are with older partners; that women's life chances of making it on their own are much better today than they were in the 60's; that among poor women, like these girls, teen moms actually fare better in the job market than those who do not become teens (primarily because they enter the job market earlier); that in many parts of North America (rural areas, large parts of rural French and Catholic Canada, many AA communities), have a baby as a teen is a recognized rite of passage both to marriage and adulthood (and is one of the few ways to get out of the house and away from a stifling family); and the big differentiat between making it or not in this status is a support network, which many high school teen mother programs have spent a fortune trying to reconstruct.

The one thing that bothered me about the reports was the implication that the girls were doing this without the knowledge of the boyfriends. But we don't know this. What really bugged me though is that millions of young men in the US sabotage their girlfriend's high school or work lives by refusing to wear condoms, putting them at risk of HIV and other STDs as well as unwanted pregnancy, and there has never been more than a whimper about this.

As a feminist and Hillary supporter who has always thought he was closer to the centrist Bill Clinton than Hillary ever was, I would not be at all surprised to see him back pedal on abortion or to adapt Bill's position, which was to push other "feminist" issues (such as domestic violence via the Violence Against Women Act-- which I strongly supported) in lieu of abortion. And, for better or worse, it worked for Bill. But let's remember the Kerry debacle. Despite mucho pressure from many of us, Kerry refused to mention abortion in the lst two debates and his ratings among women plumetted. Before the 3rd debate, his sister literally got onto the table and cursed him out on the issue and he finally came around, clearly advocating a pro-choice position in the 3rd debate. Alas, it was too late. His support form women spiked, but never reached the levels of Gore or Clinton. So back-pedalling on choice is bad politics as well as an insult to morality and social justice. And assuming some chunk of the white working class who supported Hillary shuns Obama, for reasons that have nothing to do with resentiment, Obama will have to rely heavily on the female vote, particularly in the midwest where abortion is a key issue and where it could go either way.