But it don't wash...First....Hillary understood and agreed to the rules of this primary season....second....Hillary went along with excluding the results of Florida and Michigan....until of course she needed those votes...third...Hillary has a 37% approval rating...and that rating has acturally been DROPPING since the primary season started...Like it or not Sean the Repo attack machine has had 16 years to villify Hillary Clinton...Outside the NY/La bubble for the most part Hillary is dispised...Now don't get me wrong...if Hillary manages to get the nomination I will vote for her willingly...I think she'd be a more than competant president....but so will Obama...forth...your argument seems to be that Obama will not win strong Democratic States like NY and California simply because he lost the primaries to Hillary?...If that is your contention you're even more delusional than Hillary....The reality Sean is Obama will win the Blue states and he has a much better shot at getting some red states than Hillary ever will...And I'll tell you something else Sean...If this drags on to the convention with the Clinton's using their take no prisoners strategy and Obama gets the nomination but goes on to lose an election that should have been a democratic cakewalk....guess who's gonna be blamed for the loss?....It would be a sad end to the Clinton era...

Trecinda: "Hillary has won all of the states that will count in the general election."

Really? Really? I must have missed her big wins in IL, WA, MN, WI, IA, VT, MO, MD, CT, CO, etc. Either she didn't win those states, or else now they "don't count" either. It's amazing how many states Hillary can jettison and still win the election. It almost defies math!

Rules are rules, or what is the point of having rules? Obama leads by strict adherence to the rules.

Meanwhile, caucuses have been a feature of America democracy for over 300 years. Why is it necessary to bash the system? It existed ten years ago when Clinton began her run for this office.

Caucuses are an excellent measure of a campaign's ability to organize. It would appear that Obama is vastly superior to Clinton in organizational skills.

If my fellow Democrats want to revise the primary system for 2012, we can have a discussion of that next year. Meantime, Obama is winning fair and square.

You know what I'm tired of? Being called a mindless idiot just because I happen to support Obama. It keeps happening in these comments, as well as all over the blogosphere.

The way I see it, the question isn't whether Obama represents new politics, and change, and the dawn of a new America and happy butterflies. The bar doesn't have to be set quite so high. The question is more prosaic: which candidate is better, Obama or Clinton?

Obama isn't perfect and there's no need to argue that he is. The choice isn't for most perfect candidate. The choice is Obama vs. Clinton. Just because I don't support Hillary Clinton in a two-person race does not mean that I'm a mindless cultist automaton, and I resent being seen as such. Nor does it mean I'm sexist, an implication I also resent.

As for Obama being a new type of politician, I don't really buy that. I just think he's a better politician. Why is that such a slur?

...that if the current counting system had Clinton ahead but the proposed alternative would put Obama ahead that we wouldn't be hearing any clarion calls for "fairness" from Clinton supporters?

Yes, if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin'.

Ah, to the payne. Princess Bride, final act. We love that movie. Billary would be the overconfident sicilian dwarf who laughs at the iocaine powder until he falls over dead. Never go in against a Klintoonian when a nomination's on the line, ahhh, hhaaa, hhaa, ha, ha, uhhhh. Plop. Bye Billary.

Snipers,woman who did not have insurance and now lobbying for CFT when you are suppose to be against it. One does not have to hate Hillary to argue against her being the nominee.

...there would be at least 87 pages of mostly spittle from the Obamatons over this article. How does that old line go? - "Don't confuse me with the facts!" God forbid.

If you people want nothing but mindless, non-stop 24/7 shilling for your candidate, why not head over to Slate and their nauseating Hillary Deathwatch? You'll be welcomed with open arms.

Please leave Salon to those of us who still employ some critical thinking skills.

More power to you, Joan.

Now back to the Hillary Hating Festival....

Whatever. . .

Can I buy some pot from you?

Based on the title "Why Hillary Clinton should be winning," I expected the article to offer some rational argument as to why Clinton should be winning. The closest thing I found was this line: "If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count." But not the slightest speck of logic is offered as to why the Democrats should have done this!

In fact, many Democrats would offer the exact opposite argument, that the general election process that allowed George Bush to win with fewer popular votes than Al Gore is a system that, based on fairness and democracy, should not be followed!

Granted, reasonable people could disagree on this issue. But if Clinton or Clinton supporters really feel this way, why didn't they object before the nominating process? If winner-take-all is really preferable, why did Clinton supporters say nothing in support of changing the system till now? Could it be a mere coincidence that Wilentz is bringing up this issue precisely when it works in favor of the candidate he supports?

The decision to exclude Michigan and Florida was made before the primary season began. Why weren't Clinton and Wilentz objecting to it then? Isn't it rather convenient to support this decision when it was made, and then change your mind just when it's in your own interest to do so?

When rational people decide what's fair, decide what should be... they look at the facts objectively, and draw conclusions from there. This article seems to have that process backwards. Wilentz starts out with the conclusion he wants to reach (that Clinton should be winning), and then tries to spin all the facts to support it. Does any sane person believe that Wilentz would have been using these arguments if the result weren't in Clinton's favor?

I'd have perfect respect for anyone who opposed proportional primaries, caucuses, or denying delegates to MI and FL... if they do so on principle. I have no respect for arguing this way out of convenience. How different is that from, say, supporting the Iraq war as long as it seemed to be politically useful to do so, and then switching positions as soon as it became popular to oppose the war?

Stuart

(Stuart's "Random Thoughts" blog)