Elected officials, who had to endure the fallout from the presidential race but had no role in choosing a nominee, felt disenfranchised.

God forbid the party bosses not actually be running the party!

This entire article shows a hilarious slant to defending the notion that the people in positions of power have some kind of inherent right to defend that position, even when that position is in tension with basic principles of democracy. This article is littered with phrases that comically downplay the role of superdelegates. "slightly fewer than 20 percent of the votes cast at the Democratic National Convention".

"The logic behind the existence of superdelegates is that if someone has to step in to resolve a deadlock, it probably should be those with the most stake in the future of the party."

Just whose party is this anyway? Like on Orwell's Animal Farm, some Democrats are more equal than others.

The author shows his bias by uncritically passing on the Clinton meme that downplays the large number of states that Obama has won by dismissing them all as not "major" and somehow less important.

The article passes along the myth of an "evenly divided" election that was used by Bush to seize the White House back in 2000. Why is it so hard to understand the difference between a close election and a tie? A system that puts as much as 20% of the delegate voice to insiders is hardly democratic at all. This should be patently obvious. What this system does is put in place a lot of inertia to reward politicians popular with party insiders as opposed to politicians who have the ill fortune to only be more popular with voters.

In short, this article is just so much anti-democratic dribble.

You know, some of us in 2000 wanted Gore to win, but even more we wanted the process to be democratic. That's exactly how I feel about the Democratic nomination in 2008. The trend away from (and even disdain for) democratic processes really is not a positive sign for the United States. It is a sign of rampant cynicism that eats at the core of the national morality.

Wow. What a brainless review we have from Cintra Wilson today!

I watched the Oscars last night. It never occurred to me that xenophobia was a legitimate basis for reviewing the awards ceremony. I suppose we should thank Cintra Wilson for unearthing this distasteful angle to view things.

Which of the four major awards should not have gone to a foreign actor? All of the major awards have gone to Day-Lewis and Bardem for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor respectively. Was there other good acting in 2008? Certainly, but from my perspective these two performances overwhelmed their competition.

On the female side, I think that 2008 suffered from a relative lack of dominant performances. How else does a film like La Vie en Rose nab a Best Actress award? And as for Tilda Swinton, she, like Day-Lewis, played an American character in an American film. That these two fine Brits do this so well can hardly be held against them!

Salon sinks into brainlessness far too often when it comes to film review. Xenophobia is really quite appalling to see on these pages.

The media love the structure of aristocracy because it gives them running storylines that they can lazily spin out time after time. But hasn't history taught us aristocracy is a piss-poor form of government?

This article cites a voter who claims that he doesn't know any doctors who would vote for Clinton. Apparently the buzz phrase "universal health care" is too frightening.

As the son of a physician who can never get insurance companies to pay her the fees she expects, and received with no difficulty two decades ago, I suspect that this voter does not know all that many doctors. A lot of physicians are getting screwed over by the system as it is currently configured.

Salon! Stop it! Please!

is like Burger King in France. It's a foreign invention and you'd have to look real hard to find it.

if the Treasury is put in the position of having to cash in the collateral? Who gets stuck with the "AAA" bonds? Seems like this really is a bailout of sorts. The treasury is offering liquid securities in return for overvalued collateral.

Isn't that exactly what the banks themselves did that started this whole mess?

Well, the big difference is that the Treasury can "write off" losses just by passing them off to taxpayers.

Given that the Yankees have signed 59-year old comedian Billy Crystal to play a game in Spring Training, I think it's clear that yes, they do view Spring training games as unserious exhibitions.

This would never have happened in George Steinbrenner's prime. I loathe the man but to be fair, it's baffling to see that Yankees franchise whining that another team is too physical. That would never have happened in the 70s. What would Thurman Munson say?

(Oh, and I loved the Monkees as a kid, but I suspect the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame prefers bands that played their own instruments on all of their albums.)

I suggest the outraged open their Yellow Pages to find literally hundreds of similar businesses.

"I was shocked, shocked to find a politician dallying with a prostitute!"

Perhaps Salon should do a more serious piece about the value of Spitzer's prosecutions of the crooks on Wall Street who were involved in the types of practices that fleeced shareholders of their investments? Sadly, this far more important work is now going to be ignored, as the political establishment has found a way to punish the man who has actually bucked the system instead of just talking meaninglessly about change.