the democrats should turn repthuglikan so hillary can win? my ass. proportional representation: what a scandal. PIss off.

Salon needs to do a better job labeling their OPINION pieces as just that, opinion. I have noticed this before. Although this is in the opinion section, it should be mentioned under the title on the home page, and it should be clearly stated on the article page itself.

That way, those of us who don't wish to read Clinton campaign press releases disguised as pointless speculation disguised as an opinion piece, can more easily avoid it.

Its sad to me that Democrats have once again decided to find a way to lose the Presidency. I believe Hillary is far more electable due to simple electorial math. She would win Ohio, Penn and Florida, states you have to win - period. I don't think Obama can.

I'd remind folks that JKerry was a two-time decorated war veteran and we thought that would be a bullet-proof advantage - yet somehow he came out looking unpatriotic. Facts are facts and once the Rev Wright stuff is USED in the fall to question Obama's patriotism....well, I think it'll be a BIG loss. I grew up in the midwest and I'm Veteran. Though I'm a good Dem who has almost always supported our nominee, I'll tell you, it did make my blood boil when I thought of Obama sitting there - and exposing his children to, that anti-American rhetoric. I truly believe that once its 'used' it will turn many Independants & Dems against him. It won't even be unfair or 'swiftboating' to ask the question whether his actions have matched his words.

Its also a silly, risky, overly idealistic argument that 'other' states would be in play that havn't been in the past. Which ones that wouldn't be in play for Hillary as well? Is winning the point or unrestrained idealism?

And if I were four inches taller and 30 pounds lighter, I'd be a supermodel. Alas, much like Hillary, I am left to play the cards I've been dealt.

Poor widdle Sean and all the other Hillarybots, trying to find some way to explain why the LOSER they decided to back should be the winner.

Do you actually think that any state Hillary won in the primaries is going to go Republican in November? Democrats are Democrats and in fact polls here in California show Hillary wouldn't win the state now if she was in a primary contest with Obama this month. Unlike Hillary, there is a good chance Obama may turn some "magenta" states purple enough to break out of the 17-state "DLC zone" that over-educated, under-intelligent morons like you, Mr. Wilenz, have consigned us to for the past 20 years.

Thank God for the system we have, which has revealed The Empress for being as naked as she is when it comes to good sense, judgement, managerial ability in leading her campaign and choosing her staff, and the flat out ability to just not lie. David Geffen was right when he said that the Clintons have lied to so many people about so many things for so long that they now wouldn't know the truth if it kicked them. Sinpers in Bosnia? Chelsea in danger on 9/11? She had any influence on any legislation ever (other than screwing the pooch when she tried to be "co-President" and work her magic on health care)?

The truth is, the incompetence of your candidate means she has now set back the cause of feminism for the next 20 years as thoroughly as her incompetence set back the cause of universal health insurance for the past 15 years.

OK since when do democrats know how to win or even seem to care about it?? when "president obama" follows - and he will - as the next logical name on the list that starts with "president gore" and "president kerry", we shall all look back on this exceedingly well reasoned piece and say "ohmigod we should have listened and now look, we've done it again: snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the race for the presidency". while hillary was not my first choice at the beginning of the race, as a resident of one of those states where obama won by a large margin which will NEVER go democratic in the general (i'm in GA) and from a state that has in large part been responsible for picking the president for the last 2 elections (florida) which the DNC and obama campaigns seem hell-bent on spanking instead of respecting and courting, democrats have to be nuts to think that obama is the most likely winner.

am also a bit tired of the "HRC has higher negatives" than obama point. has anyone noticed that so does mcCain: and in his own party! but hey, y'all, know why they picked him anyway? because unlike the democratic party, the republicans have this novel idea that the point is... you know... to WIN.

This article is just a compilation of desperate arguments.

a) If the system were winner take all, Hillary Clinton would be ahead. The system is not winner take all, and all of the campaigns have formulated their strategies accordingly. Under different rules, both candidates would have apportioned their time differently, and Obama would not have spent so much time on states in which he had big leads.

b) Clinton would be ahead in the popular vote if you counted Michigan and Florida. I am sick of hearing about the popular vote from the supporters of both sides. The popular vote doesn't mean a thing. This is a contest for delegates. It is particularly disingenuous to worry about popular vote when there is a mix of caucuses and primaries. Both Obama and Clinton likely would have gained votes in the caucuses states if they had had primaries instead. Clinton probably would have narrowed the percentage gap she faces in those states, but Obama probably would have gotten more votes. But who knows for sure. The one thing that is certain is that adding primary votes and caucus votes together and pretending like you are getting a meaningful number is silly, especially since some states didn't even release vote totals for their caucuses.

As for Michigan and Florida, they knew what the rules were and they played accordingly. I hope that the DNC can broker a deal, but if not those delegations should not be seated.

c. Hillary has won more big states, which will be what matters in the electoral college. Once again the rules are the rules, and both campaigns have been playing by them. Besides which, Clinton has won a lot of big states that McCain has no chance at - New York, Massachusetts, and California, for example. So it is far from clear whether Obama or Clinton's electoral college situation is better. The fact that Clinton is polling better than Obama in Florida and Michigan is particularly meaningless since Obama has not had a chance to campaign there yet.

I am sure that I missed some of the arguments, but overall there was nothing very convincing here. Obama is ahead and Clinton has a difficult road to change that. Hypotheticals like those presented here don't prove anything.