I do think the statistic as to what this race would be like if it were winner-take-all is an interesting one. But the idea that somehow, for the purposes of party nomination, that "Winner Take All" makes more SENSE is nothing but a bias reflective of Wilenz's own political preferences. Many conservative Republicans argued that the proportional representation system made more sense when Winner Take All enabled McCain to beat up on his conservative opponents by winning California and northern progressive states and putting the race away early. Just as much sour grapes, of course, but still a perspective dictated by the outcome you desire. In general elections, of course winner takes all. But these aren't general elections. They're designed to create the sense of inclusion, energize voters, ensure that diverse voices get heard, and help generate unity in August when the real election takes place. After all, in the olden days they didn't even bother with primaries. It may not work the way they had hoped, but that's what was intended. Wilenz is a Clinton hack who should be more frustrated by the fact that she has run a shockingly disorganized campaign and has proven to be a not-so-impressive candidate. But, in what appears to be the new Clinton style, he prefers to cry that the rules are unfair. And of course, since little is less appealing than a whiny candidate, these kinds of articles do more to illustrate precisely why Clinton is losing than they do to make the point the author wants to make.

And this article was published because....

Just to keep the discussion civil lets assume two candidates A and B. A is the candidate with the greatest name recognition and he has the largest pool of large donors i.e. can raise a lot of money in a hurry. B is the candidate with better ideas but she is not as well known as candidate A nor does she have a large Rolodex of donors. Would we all agree that a system of proportional representation gives the less well known candidate a better chance of being nominated? Is that not what we would want our nominating process to be about? The reason the Republicans have a winner take all system is that they dislike outsiders (just see what they did to McCain in 2000) and prefer coronations to elections.

I have to thank you for revealing to me the mindset of the Clinton backers that are so very adament that she should stay in the race. They're delusional!

Your assumptions and assertions about how to measure this race are so far removed from the reality of how the Democratic Party chooses their nominee that I laughed out loud at several places in your article.

Essentially, your argument seems to be that since HRC is not winning by ANY measure that the party actually uses to choose the nominee, let's just find a measurement where she does win.

Also, your assertions about Michigan and Florida (Michigan in particular) are so poorly researched and biased towards Clinton as to make them useless. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, but you feel it would be fair and democratic to count the popluar vote? There are tens or hundreds of thousands of voters in Michigan (yes I live there) who voted in the Republican primary in Michigan ONLY because the candidate we wanted to vote for on the Democratic side wasn't on the ballot. HRC says that since we already cast a primary ballot that we would not be allowed to vote in the re-vote.

THAT is why so many have opposed a re-vote in Michigan, because you can't change the rules in the middle of the contest and expect everyone to jump on board.

I can only hope that you will exercise this much blind zeal for Barack as the nominee in November.

Pay no attention to the mob, they rarely read, watch or listen to anything beyond their comfort zone. They have made up this notion that you are somehow connected to the Clinton's when, which is a direct right wing notion from the National Review. Welcome to the Animal farm world: Four legs good, two legs bad.

Start with the result that H.C. is elected, and then design the system to accomodate this desire?

I mean, there's nothing wrong with evaluating the obviously imperfect process. And there are valid reasons for concern. But an "objective" critique of a system coupled with obvious support for a particular candidate smells fishy right off the bat.

As an Obama supporter, I don't like at all the notion that so many primary voters had their votes stripped. That it likely (though it's hard to say, especially given Clinton's recent litany of "mis-statements") helps Obama does put the "people's candidate" in an odd position, no question.

(It seems like there will never be a perfect solution which exactly balances proportionality with individual votes, but I'm all for improvement.)

But Obama is just playing by the rules EVERYONE agreed to—in advance (which means BEFORE any of the actual voting started). He didn't set out to disenfranchise anyone. A journalist with a smidgen of integrity would find this--oh, I don't know, worth mentioning. I guess word limits are pretty tight in on-line publishing.

Where was Hillary's concern for voting rights when the decision was made by the DNC? When she wanted (as so many others have pointed out) to count votes in a contest in which Obama WASN'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT?

Hillary, nicely wonkish we know, has a lot of positions and experience I admire (though voting for Iraq war and selling out national interests for GATT are not among them). She has, however, failed to articulate a vision of remaking America after this truly disastrous "presidency," and instead instead relies on ridiculous ploys and theatrics which help keep us divided and conquered.

I don't support Hillary. Gee, does this mean I'm a sexist? How do you think Iraqi women and girls feel about her vote to cede Congress' consititional authority to declare war to Dubya?

I've been drinking some Obama koolaid in the hopes that it would make me delusionally happy, that I would see him as infallible savior who leaves daisies growing in his footsteps. Sadly, it didn't happen. I merely see him as a mortal politician, but one who is head and shoulders above Clinton and McCain.

p.s. the "war vote" will never be a dead horse so long as survivors of this tragedy (Americans, Iraqis, etc.) are living with the loss of loved ones, with crippling injuries, life-long psychological trauma, etc.

It is certainly not a dead issue when 1) people are still dying in Iraq and 2) neo-cons are trying to drum up support for bombing Iran. For God's sake!

p.p.s. what's wrong with our economy? Well, the Iraq war, borrowing money from China, GATT, and legalized corporate lawlessness don't seem to be helping us. Will H.C.?