...someone rises above the din of rhetoric from the Obamabots, Tim Russert and the other pathetic chattering TV puppets to set the record straight. Obama is a politician, not a transformative figure, and as such, is engaging in the cheapest of ploys to frame the electoral agenda for the convention to his liking...Sean, you spell out his blind ambition clearly and plainly, something few have done because they have been caught up in the selling of the Obama brand to gullible, susceptible, and ultimately, foolhardy recipients. Some of us aren't buying, not now, not in November.

For all of the commenters on the board, this is a quick note from here in little old Germany (part of old Europe) to let you know that I am truly heartened that actually, there can be some kind of consensus within the American community...

This is not to patronise at all, but it does my little heart good to see that the perfunctory nonsense in this article is not being taken lying down. This SHIT needs to be called for what it is, a FUCKING EMBARASSMENT to the author, editor and publisher of what i HAD considered one of the more balanced media outlets in your country.

This may seem exaggerated to you guys, but the response to this shrill PROPOGANDA gives me what I have sought for years: reinforcement of the belief that the American people will not stand for being REPEATEDLY FUCKED OVER by anyone with any kind of power in the public sphere. Forgive me, but such evidence has been sorely lacking over the last few years.

Yes, it's so quaint and eccentric that the Democratic Party, unlike the Republicans or the national election system, actually comes closer to counting the votes of ALL the people. Why can't Democrats just straighten up and use the winner take all system that conveniently ignores so many votes? You know which one I mean: the one that helped elect George Bush even though Al Gore got more votes.

Isn't it funny how much whining and moaning takes place when someone who is EXPECTED to win, loses?

The facts are that the rules were in place long before Obama came along and he succeeded in his candidacy the same as Kerry, Gore, and Bill Clinton. This just indicates that his campaign has been run better, far better than Clinton's. If you have been around national campaigns for decades and STILL can't figure out how to win, you are not particularly worthy of the job.

I'm all for pieces that both praise and criticize both candidates. But this was nothing more than a laughable attempt to spin Clinton's failures and massive delegate deficit into some sort of positivie message.

-- ceytron

The Obamabots have a hard time when they are called out for the brazen opportunists they are...I am glad you feel it is spin, for it says more about your ridiculous inability to accept reality. Obamabots forget that he hasn't won one major state except Illinois that will count for anything come November...Wilentz's point that the minor states Obama won will never go Dem is exactly right...how many friggin' Dems are their in Wyoming? When has Iowa EVER mattered in recent elections? Bill Clinton was creamed in Iowa...end of story.

Wilentz's argument may not suit you, but it is exactly right...as he points out, and you ignore, Obama changed the narrative when it was convenient for him, exactly what Hillary detractors claimed about her...yet the fact of the matter is that when Obamabots prattle on mindlessly about popular vote totals, they need to get it through their heads that it is, as Wilentz said, winner take all come November, and not some caucus where Obamabots are twisting arms and ranting endlessly in some godforesaken little state that will be deciding the outcome of November.

Salon is one of the few sites I actually pay for, and used to be my first read just about every day. But over the last few months I have been confronted with so much shilling for Clinton that Salon now often triggers feelings of disappointment and revulsion.

This latest drivel has pushed me a step closer to cancelling.

Since February Clinton's only path to the nomination goes through coup by character assassination. She lost. Get over it Salon, and go back to being a site for intelligent and progressive political and cultural analysis.

Thanks

I'm glad it's pointed out that this is an opinion piece, and opinions, like assholes, are something we all have. The system is what the system is, and by the math of the system, Clinton is losing.

Precisely why Obamabots will lose us an election. With idiotic logic like this, the Repubs are going to wipe the floor with the Dems...in all those teeny weeny 5 delegate states Obama accumulated. The states where the number of Dems can be counted on one hand.

The silliest, of course, are the Hillary supporters who are hoping magic ponies will make the mean man go away so they can have the victory they haven't earned. Hello, why on earth should Obama "suspend his campaign"? Abraham Lincoln had little relevant experience to be President.

Then there is Hillary's failure to make any effort to organize caucuses or otherwise to learn the rules. Her husband (whose experience she always cites) was really good during both his campaigns at counting. He knew to count to 270 and that he didn't need to count one electoral vote past it. He won two plurality elections without ever getting a majority, with huge electoral majorities. If Hillary's staff was unable to do the same in the run up to the convention, shame on them and I really don't care to hear their second-guessing of the validity of the rules. One thing is sure: Barack Obama didn't control the DNC or the state parties when these rules were put in place.

On the unfairness of caucus votes, it goes both ways. Our precinct had six delegates to the county convention. When the preliminary vote was taken, there would have been five Obama delegates and one undecided delegate. After discussing it for an hour, 10 of the 11 undecided changed to Obama. So the result was that Obama got five delegates and Hillary got one delegate. No system is perfect.

If you really want to fix the system, start talking up the stupid and entirely changeable size of the House of Representatives, which is set by Congress, not by the Constitution. D.W. Meinig has shown that the origins of the 435 seats was based on anti-immigrant sentiment around the turn of the last century. The result is to give the citizens of North Dakota (who haven't voted Democratic since 1964) far more power in a Presidential election than the citizens of California. There are more citizens in Florida who are disenfranchised by the ban on convict voters than there are citizens in North Dakota, but they get three electoral votes nonetheless. If you doubled the size of Congress (or, and this would take an amendment to Constitution, did it solely for the purposes of the Electoral College), you'd reduce the disproportionality substantially.

Increasing the size of the Electoral College could also make the Republicans' current wet dream about getting rid of winner-take-all by state to make more sense. Frankly, if it were done on a national basis, it would make the election far more participatory. As it is, citizens in more than half the states may never see a presidential campaign ad for the general election, let alone a candidate. Texas is going Republican, but certainly there are large areas that could go Democratic.