Interesting that Hillary is fond of claiming to have been a key player in the formulation of Clinton Foreign Policy: 9/11 was a direct result of the Clinton Administration’s feckless responses to the numerous Al-Qaida provocations and terrorist assaults against our national interests; as well as, Clinton’s inexplicable temerity in refusing to take Osama bin Laden into captivity when offered several times by the Sudanese. Clinton then exercised little more than his jawbone as bin Laden trained literally thousands of terrorists in his Afghan camps. All of which, convinced bin Laden that he could strike our homeland with relative impunity. The potential for success in bin Laden’s planned assault on our homeland was significantly enhanced by the infamous Gorelick memo which the Clinton Administration promulgated to prohibit any terrorist information exchange between our FBI and CIA intelligence operatives. Further, in the Dec. 4, 1998 Presidential Daily Intelligence Brief , Clinton was advised that Bin Laden was preparing to hijack US aircraft to employ in terrorist attacks. He was apparently more interested in his pursuit of Monica to take follow-up action. A private matter? Hardly. With the KGB monitoring Clinton/Monica phone calls, Boris Yeltsin used the leverage to get Clinton to sponsor full Russian debt forgiveness by the World Bank. Yes, BLACKMAIL that the American taxpayers paid for dearly. Or, perhaps Slick was too preoccupied with his invasion of WACO to confront al-Quida. However, history will record the most heinous assault on America's national security interests by a U.S. president as Clinton's transfer of our most advanced missile guidance technology to the CHICOM for a few campaign shekels. A CHICOM financial arrangement that Hillary continued thru her Chinese bagman, Norman Hsu; and, her ChinaTown dishwasher scam. Does any rational person really want to return the Clinton cabal/scandals to the White House?

Greg Neubeck

As a long time Salon reader, I am incredibly disappointed to read a piece like this in what is ordinarily a forum for diverse views but not irrational ones. When you publish a piece that argues for changing election rules to favor one candidate over another, you lose credibility. This is not about "fairness" or presenting both sides of the story - this is a Clinton supporter arguing that she should be the nominee because.... well, just because!

I voted for Clinton in my state's primary, but the fact is, she's losing. As disappointing as this is to me personally, I realize that I do not personally decide who is president. The collective will of the voters of this country does (and it is those voters, albeit indirectly, who have set up the nominating rules of the Democratic Party and who will hold the party accountable if they don't like the results). The voters have thus far chosen Obama. Any supporter who says Clinton "should be winning" even though she's losing is really saying, "I know better - all those voters were wrong." Which is another way of saying, "democracy is wrong, I'm right." Salon's editors, and Mr. Wilentz, should be ashamed.

Dear Sean,

I could not disagree more with your evaluation. The "zero sum" game of 50 plus 1 (fifty percent plus one vote) has caused the party to focus far too much attention on a few big states while ignoring many other opportunities that a 50 equals 1 mind set could solve. Really, who cares if Hillary can pull in 3 of the 4 swing states if the next 4 years will be nothing but back stabbing and underminding of any agenda? Does everyone forget the backlash of 1994 - the Rebulican Revolution? We lost congress for 12 years. This "just cross the finish line" approach is killing our party.

Let's talk about coat tails, house seats and senate seats, that will be in play in the midwest and the west with Obama that are dead on arrival with Clinton. Let's talk about more than a million small contributors. Let's talk about changing the red and blue map. Sean, you're stuck in the past. You are playing the Rebulican game. Obama has more states, more votes, more delegates and, in the end (I beleive) more supers. Let's stop pissing off a majority of the country by admitting out loud that we only care about the coasts and Ohio. Please.

Sean Dunn

President, Groove 11

San Rafael California

Idiot. republikan troll. Obama is winning by the only measures that count: delegates, and votes. The rest is straw, much like the interior of your empty cranium. Take you freshman logic, fold it origami style, and insert it in the orifice of your choice. Billary is losing and will continue to lose. Boo fucking hoo.

Dear Editor:

Reading Sean Wilenz's article of the mathmatics of winning for the Democrats shows how imperfect our system is.

Mathmatics aside, Hillary is the most outstanding American woman since Eleanor Roosevelt(and I worked with her so I should know).

Hillary has the know-how and determination to see things through, and her policies and programs can only make for a better and more caring society.

Roma Stibravy

As an avid reader of and premium subscriber to Salon, I'm appalled that this article was published at all, much less featured on the front page. The lack of sound logic and reasoning regarding the primary process is as breathtaking as Hillary's embellishment regarding her trip to Bosnia under sniper fire.

Unfairly portioned primaries were largely responsible for the 1984 disaster that favored Walter Mondale over Gary Hart. Any fair system would be based on popular vote alone -- and guess who wins if that were to be the case?

It should be well known that Sean Wilentz has a strong pro-Hillary bias, as noted in his opinion columns in Newsweek and the LA Times. His bias shows quite prominently in this article.

Finally, someone is saying what I've been saying all along. I do hope the Democrats and their superdelegates wake up and see the truth in time to save the party from certain defeat at the hands of the Republicans if they field Obama.

The utter hypocrisy on these pages on both sides is really is pathetic. Hillary Clinton had every advantage. She had an advantage in name recognition and resources. She has been involved in party politics since her early twenties. Her husband is a two time elected President and along with Chuck Robb helped invent Super Tuesday. Most of the people on the rules committee are known to her. There is no excuse for her not to understand the existing rules, recognize what Obama was doing and to not counteract it. None, so the Clintonites should stop whining. That said its ridiculous for the Obama people to keep saying Florida, broke the rules when they know full well a Republican governor and legislature moved the primary date up to cause mischief. Its insane to make thousands of loyal Democrats pay for something they had no control over just so Iowa and New Hampshire can assist the media in their role as designated gatekeeper. How anyone can believe that denying a voice to two large swing states at a convention is anything but a disaster for the party is beyond m?. McCain will have a field day with statements like, they didn’t defend Democracy in his own party so how can they defend the Country. After the election is over, the party for its own sake has got to take a long look at some of the rules that allowed an individual to loose a primary or a caucus and still get more delegates. And a long look at rules that allow Republicans and Independents to cross over and vote in a Democratic primary without changing their registration. Why not charge a small fee to the crossovers to go to the state election fund and defray the cost of the primaries? That would stop a lot of the gaming.