Once again, the none too subtle pro-Obama bias in Salon rears its ugly head yet again. Whenever Hillary wins a race, it's seen as a one-off; when Obama wins one, it's just another nail in her political coffin.

So now we have each winning one race last night, or Hillary up 2-1 in the recent contests. By any rational measure, the momentum has clearly swung her way (and with the popular vote in her column too, unless you attempt the Rovian technique of disenfranchising the Florida and Michigan voters). So why would Salon lead with an article so far removed from the truth?

In all honesty, it is not just limited to Salon. Many in the media have had an unhealthy fixation on Obama and McCain in their respective races. And finally we have one of the candidates - Hillary - who has shown that the majority of Democrats are not willing to play along with that game.

Shame on Salon and shame on the Salon readers who are willing to put up with this biased reporting.

I do believe that I have gotten my facts straight and done my math, as you suggested I do. The simple point is that Hillary HAS won a majority of the Democratic vote. There is no disputing that fact.

I will admit that I did forget to mention the seven-vote victory in an unorganized territory half-way around the world. But the point is, of jurisdictions of any size, Hillary has been winning the lion's share of recent contests, not Barack. By any fair standard, that moves the momentum to her direction. If you have to pull out the delegate-tie vote in Guam to bolster Barack's case, that just shows how desperate his chances are.

As to Florida and Michigan, I will admit that as a one-time resident of the Sunshine State - who lived there in 2000 - I am very sensitive to disenfranchisement. The delegates were indeed stripped according to DNC rules, but what's legal and what's just are two different things.

If, hypothetically speaking, Barack secures the nomination without the voters in those two states having their say, his "victory" will be forever tainted.

I fail to understand why your article says that Barack Obama "won" anything. We haven't held the convention, which will actually make that decision, and all we have so far is a thorougly flawed delegate count that continues to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan.

While I admit that it would be ideal for the Democratic party for Barack Obama to concede his defeat to Hillary Clinton graciously, it appears at this point that he will stop at nothing to game the system in his favor.

Personally, I find this behavior repugnant. It was bad enough when George Bush stole the election in 2000. Watching Barack Obama try to do it in 2008 is just as ugly.

To understand why so many Hillary supporters like me are so angry (and, as a young, college-educated man, I know I don't fit the stereotype), look no further than the vote totals. Hillary won more primary votes than Barack, but due to arcane methods of assigning delegates and the concerted lack of superdelegate support, she ended up the loser.

No different, really, from how Gore "lost" the 2000 election.

Eight years of being led by someone who came to power through less than fully democratic methods has been bad enough. We certainly don't need to elect Barack and give us another four.

Klytus,

I inserted the aside to point out that not all of the holdouts are angry middle-aged women. Demographically speaking, I should fall squarely in the Obama camp, though I don't.

Now, concerning the vote totals. Looking at RealClearPolitics' results, even including the estimates for the four caucus states, shows:

Clinton: 18,046,007

Obama: 17,869,542

Looks like a clear Obama loss to me.

Fabrication? These are REAL vote totals. Excepting, as I said, the caucus estimates. Though without those, her lead actually grows.

Klytus,

Find another 50-state count then. But I doubt you will. The point is, the voters selected her and not Obama. Yet somehow, the delegate process rather unfairly awarded "victory" to someone else.

If the comments on this board are indicative of the views of the typical Obama supporter, or even worse, the Obama inner circle, then the Democratic party is in serious trouble this fall.

The vitrol, calling every Democrat who has not thrown themselves on the Obama bandwagon deranged, racist, or Republican operatives, does not seem to me how you win an election.

I saw a poll recently that showed that upwards of 30% of Hillary primary voters are not planning on voting for Obama in the general election. If this is how some Democrats see a sizable chunk of their party, how exactly is he going to win over the independents he needs to carry in November?

Somehow, I thought after 2004, my party would have its act together better this time around. But I'm beginning to think I'm wrong.