I would like you to logically argue why Hillary should be the nominee and how this decision today is "throwing the election away" or whatever variant you choose. I would like to know what would have happened today that would have been fair to you. What exactly did you not like about today? Was it that she did not get full representation from Florida? Was it that Obama got representation from Michigan even though he wasn't on the ballot? Do you not like the half vote for each delegate? What is it that you specifically did not like?

As far as the case that Hillary is the best nominee, well we've had a primary and Hillary does not have,

- a lead in pledged delegates

- a lead in super delegates

- a lead in states one

- a lead in popular vote

So basically, this is what I'm reading so far from Clinton supporters: The losing candidate for the nomination should be the nominee. How does this make any sense what so ever? You can try to argue the "wins in big states" argument but this is a primary, not the general. We haven't gotten to that part yet and many things can change quickly so any projections of November are just conjecture.

Right now, you all look like sore losers to me, nothing else. I have yet to see one logical argument that could be debated to suggest Hillary is the best candidate for president. Your arguments are essentially, "he's a bad candidate and mine is better. How dare you nominate him?" even though, he...won. You can cite all these issues with Obama, but this is almost forgetting the problems Hillary has as well. Remember when the GOP was drooling to run against her? So what is your argument?

If you are actually democrats (this is debatable for some of you), I honestly ask you to look at the facts here and realize that your candidate has lost. Usually when that happens, you accept the results. Now, one could argue that the results are not legitimate but again, I have yet to see one good argument for that case.

I agree, the nomination process needs to be revisited. Ignoring the fact that Sen. Levin basically caused (or largely contributed to) the Michigan primary fiasco, he does have a point about Iowa and New Hampshire. Additionally, states like Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and all the others after super tuesday usually don't get a say in the election of our nominees when I think they should.

One idea that is being floated around is a lottery system where each primary date is chosen by random. I'm somewhat ok with this idea, but you know big states will have issue the year that Alaska, Idaho, and Kansas are the first states to hold primaries/caucuses. Then there is the caucus issue that some people don't like and think is unrepresentative. You could have a fixed rotation system that separates states randomly but then in subsequent years allows rotates through the list. You could go with a national primary, but only states like California and New York would be visited, not Wyoming and Utah, where there are democrats even though people might not think their are. Etc, etc etc.

Then I guess, do we even have the right to do this? Where does federalism come in? The issues with Florida in 2000 are not a federal issue really, they all stem from state decisions and their election process. At what point do we break the idea of our federalist system when it comes to voting, and tell every state how this is all done?

There certainly needs to be a debate on this or someone to write a nice article (hint hint Salon) about what are some realistic options to reforming elections in this country. To be a proper symbol of democracy for the rest of the world, we should have a system of voting that works exactly when it needs to. Right now, I personally am not convinced it does.

I don't refer to her that way, but you bet that's how she'll be viewed by many people in the country....including your new candidate. Do I need to send you the link to the YouTube video?

I think you need to re-evaluate who you "support". You seem like a sore-loser that didn't get his way, not that you actually believe in what these people actually stand for.

For those of you who do not understand what it means, here is the following for reference.

–noun

1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

2. the result of such a settlement.

3. something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.

4. an endangering, esp. of reputation; exposure to danger, suspicion, etc.: a compromise of one's integrity.

–verb (used with object)

5. to settle by a compromise.

6. to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.; jeopardize: a military oversight that compromised the nation's defenses.

7. Obsolete.

a. to bind by bargain or agreement.

b. to bring to terms.

–verb (used without object)

8. to make a compromise or compromises: The conflicting parties agreed to compromise.

9. to make a dishonorable or shameful concession: He is too honorable to compromise with his principles.