Well, late though it may be, someone has finally written about the inherent problem we Democrats face: our delegate allocation regime does not align itself in practice with the way in which our presidents are elected.

Who can justify (from the point of view of electability) a system which rewards the candidate who loses the vote with more delegates than the winner? Who can justify (from the point of view of electability) the use of caucuses as a means of determining who the voters of the state prefer when they are so poorly attended and appeal to such a small subset of party members? Who can justify (for any reason) a system that takes such an inordinately long time to produce results and is apparently more difficult to explain than string theory?

I have already gotten used to the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that the Democratic party is going to nominate a candidate who cannot win in November at a moment in which everything suggests a decisive and progressive shift in the political leanings of the American electorate. I am a Democratic lifer, but I admit to feeling conflicted, and I think that many others feel unsettled as well by what is happening in the party. I find the blithe response of so many Democrats to the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters (which was not brought about by the voters themselves) to be both mind boggling and emblematic.

I have given up hope that Clinton can win the race. When I find myself agreeing with Lou Dobbs on the media's role in how this has all played out for the Clinton campaign, it's time for me to throw in the towel and assume a neutral stance. There is nothing really to be done at this point in the election cycle. Perhaps the Obama camp is correct in asserting that their man will win red state voters over because of his change message. I live in a red state that will not be voting Democratic in November, so I'm certainly not convinced.

The question is whether or not after the election we demand changes to the primary rules that have led to results which are so out of sync with the way our presidents are elected. That's pretty much my only hope at this point.

While everyone sobs for Hillary about the unfairness of it all the fact remains that Hillary was her own worst enemy.

She hobbled her campaign by mismanaging it. Beset with money problems and infighting and no strategy after Feb. 5th to compete in the contests in Feb. is what killed her campaign.

One of the factors in determining how someone would lead and run the country is in how they manage their campaign and Hillary failed miserably.

Obama won because he built an amazing organization from scratch and ran it well and innovatively. They looked for ways to fundraise outside the system of big donors and managed that money well. They organized and the campaign in run as team work. Many have commented that this is a campaign to be modeled on for years to come in it's effeciency and team work and organization.

As for Michigan and Florida. Gee, maybe the anger needs to be directed at the politicians who arrogance led them to defy the rules they voted for and ignore the warnings.

They went ahead and did this even knowing they would be punished for leap frogging.

They alone are to blame for the mess they are in. The voters need to place the blame where it belongs. The DNC gave them plenty of time and offered to work with them and they ignored it.

Just how concerned would Hillary be over the rights of these states if she was in the lead. It is false concern and in reality more about herself than the voters. And if she was nursing an insurmountable lead like Obama is now, how would she behave in this situation in this fight.

I am so tired of the excuses run out for poor Hillary. Her problems are of her own making and she lost as a result. It is plain and simple and people need to see this.

This article is obviously written by a Clinton supporter, who is fantasizing about how she could be winning if only the rules were changed -- AGAIN. The Democratic Party set up the rules for the primary election: proportional distribution of delegates, the candidate with the most delegates wins the nomination. Somehow, the Obama team is faulted for having a strategy that gleans the most delegates; could it be that he wants the nomination and has a plan to get there?!

I can't help but wonder how many readers are exhausted from the dialogue about how to change the rules for Michigan and Florida -- and somehow, again, faulting the Obama team for suggesting that the rules that were in place when the race began are the rules that should be followed? Frankly, if the Dems from FL and MI had any guts at all, they would acknowledge that they erred, knowing that the result was that delegates would NOT be seated at the convention. (Sorry, folks -- the FL vote was unanimous and bi-partisan; it wasn't the big bad Republican legislature that made this decision.)

IF CLINTON WERE AHEAD, THE SYSTEM WOULD MAKE SENSE. The only way she can win is to redefine reality and hope that a majority of the voters in this country can't see through her spin. The scary part is that she will say and do anything to get elected -- even if it destroys the party.

1.) I'm going to start cataloguing all the names that the more rabid Clintonistas (Ha! Get it? It's like you're the Sandanistas which means Reagan hates you!) come up with. The ones I've heard are Obamabots, Obamamaniacs Obama fan boys, Obama minions, Obamacans.

There's more and I urge my fellow Obamambots to keep up with them.

2.) Those accusing us of "attacking the messenger." Frankly, I think when the messenger presents a construct that is so patently absurd and partisan you kinda have to call bullshit, but even then there are good arguments against what he's advocating. Proportional elections ARE more democratic than the absurd electoral college, giving far more credence to the will of the voter as opposed to massive state blocks. Having said that, I'll grant that we really should dump the caucus system, which gives us a great sense of campaign organization but makes participation unnecessarily difficult.

3.) Sort of a digression. I think the trust in a "winner-take-all" system is what has gotten the Democrats stuck in a big mess in the first place. There's this bunker mentality where we can just hold onto our guaranteed states (the west coast, the northeast, and the Great Lakes states) and grab something like Ohio and Florida, we'll be fine. And a hell of a lot of good that has done us in the past. If you want to win national elections and move the nation leftward, you should reach out to all those small states and grow the party. Obama may not win Idaho this election, but if those Idaho voters can spread the Obamamania (get it? Because they're Obamamaniacs! Oh my, I slay myself) to the rest of the state, and we could take it in the future. It goes back to the 50 state strategy, and we should use it. Polls show Obama beating McCain in states that haven't gone Democratic in decades, while still carrying most of the blue states. Of course this point is contradicted here:

4.) Polls mean little. At this point, there's not much to gather while the primary race is still running. A more effective criteria would be who has run the better campaign (vote count), who has more effectively dealt with obstacles (Wright v. Bosnia), and who has brought in more money (advantage: Obamanation).