Isn't "IF" a wonderful word? It's almost as wonderful as "Is" is...just ask the former president.

Let's see...

IF this was winner take all, Clinton would be winning. Fair enough. So, what do we do now? Should we change the rules in the middle of the game? Should we give the nomination to Clinton because "IF" it was winner take all, she would be way ahead?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the reason for this article. Honestly, "IF" I had a million dollar then I wouldn't have to live in this dorm room, but I DON'T. This ISN'T a winner take all contest, and your crying about it isn't going to change anything.

But, let's ASSUME this was a winner take all primary from the start. For your argument to hold water we would have to ASSUME everyone would have voted exactly the same was as they already have thus far.

Again, "IF" we had a winner take all contest from the start, we can't begin to know HOW people would have voted. There is a chance Clinton would be way ahead, but this is far from certain.

Both candidates strategy would have been different, and therefore we can assume the outcome would have been different. There is simply no way of knowing how this change would effect the voting! The only way we could know is "IF" we could go back in time and have new elections.

Sorry, I just don't see the logic in this argument. Nothing is static. "IF" isn't a good enough reason to start second guessing the will of the people that have voted thus far.

This is more about "sour grapes" than "what if's".

ADDITION IS A FIRST GRADE SKILL. There is a caucus total. There is a vote total. You got them both wrong. New Mexico's 'caucus' was really a primary and should be counted as such. For God's sake, pay attention.

Obama and his treacherous thug republicans lead the caucus total. HILLARY CLINTON LEADS THE POPULAR VOTE TOTAL. Elections, secret ballots, absentee ballots, voting at regular polling places, remember? HILLARY HAS LED THE POPULAR VOTE SINCE NEW HAMPSHIRE, except for 13 days. I DEMAND A CORRECTION.

If you subtract Obama's malicious republican support--those amoral republicans who are treacherously interfering in the Democratic Party nomination process, then Obama has only the most limited, racist appeal among Democrats.

Slider is right. If you don't vote for the eventual nominee, you will condemn us all. That goes for both Obama and Clinton supporters -- I've heard the same shrill cries from both camps.

Now, take a look at the map. Obama did well where Romney and Huckabee were strongest. Would either Clinton or Obama win even half those states?

Assuming that Ca and NY go Democratic and Texas goes to the Republicans, then Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Florida and Virginia (went for Obama) become very important for the Democratic candidate. I don't think it's heresy or "bias" to point that out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/primaries/

This is both a thinly veiled an poorly reasoned piece of propaganda that probably comes straight from Clinton's campaign HQ.

Obama's advantage...depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all.

The author fails to establish any connection between winning the Democratic primary in state and then winning the general election in that state. He noticeably leaves out any polling data to establish the correlation because almost every poll works against his fallacious argument.

This article reads like bullet-points from a Clinton campaign brochure. Are you really trying to pass this off as some sort of worthwhile political analysis? Really? I come to salon often for good journalism. This is just embarrassing, the kind of propaganda piece you'd expect from Fox News.

You complain about the fact that Hillary should be winning in a winner take all system. The Democratic Party rules are the rules that sent her husband to the White House. The Democratic Party has the right to establish its rules (including the right to censor those who break them such as Michigan and Florida). The rules are enforced fairly and whoever wins, wins fairly. It is nonsense to say that Hillary "should" be winning when she hasn't done well enough under the rules of the party to be in the lead. Your thesis is nonsense.

The problem with this "analysis" is that it confuses how a political PARTY will choose its nominee with how a GOVERNMENT should select its leaders.

The simple fact that all the primaries aren't held on the same day might be a bit of a hint that fundamental differences exist. There are "certain eccentricities" indeed.

The caucus is a VERY democratic institution in that it allows activists with passion and organization to participate in the selection of the leadership. Without the caucus, money would become the overriding determining factor (many would argue it already is) and the party faithful would be reduced to a mass of voter/consumers, dependent on the media, checking a box - truly democracy with a tiny 'd'. But apparently less "eccentric" and "less flawed" for some.

It is disingenuous to suggest that there are rules that the Democratic Party is adhering to and there are "rules" of democracy that one candidate is not.

This article has been written by someone who fully knows that the reason the party cannot simply issue an edict and say "we will resolve Michigan and Florida by cutting their delegations in half and conducting a new mail-in election on June xx" is because: 1) the Rules Committee and the State parties are split, and 2) you run a huge risk that one of the campaigns would actually sue the party (guess which one).

This is why we have the embarrassing display of the Democratic Party "leadership" getting both campaigns on conference calls to attempt a compromise - without which the rules committee won't/can't change the rules. After all, one of the two might actually win the Presidency, you wouldn't want to be on the wrong side.

Neither campaign knows what the future looks like, and they are BOTH hedging their bets. So while we get no solution, we do get a lot of hot air and lots o' spin and the "oldest ploys in the playbook" from everyone involved.