Obama should stop blocking a revote in Florida and Michigan. A nominee chosen by the voters is a more credible nominee than one chosen by superdelegates. This is just common sense.

alden wrote: "I don't get why this article was published. Neither the primaries nor the general election is a 'direct, plebiscitary system,' so there's no story. And if Obama's arguments (which are no different in virtue from Clinton's) are 'one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics,' then there's no news either. Twelve hundred words saying nothing."

If Obama's political arguments are "no different in virtue" than are Clinton's then why doesn't that fact count as news?

Maybe alden is unaware that as much of Obama's campaign centers around the style of Obama's campaign as it does its substance.

The news, alden, is that many Democrats have been hoodwinked by the Obama campaign and by the MSM into believing that Barack Obama is some kind of transformative, bipartisan, new kind of politician when the facts on the ground scream something wildly different.

Obama is an exceptionally skilled, 'old school' politician whose greatest gift lies in his ability to convince folks that he is the change they've been waiting for -- when in reality he's only more of the same in a newer, jazzier package.

Sir/Madam:

Thank you for taking this issue. I am gratified that you are talking about something that the mainstream media continues to ignore.

For one, all votes need to be counted not so much for Clinton's sake, but for the sake of all Americans including MI and FL votes.

Second, why are media biased in favoring a Clinton withdrawal when in fact, Obama remains a mystery to most people. His accomplishments are scant. His associations with the racist Rev. Wright for 20 years; the disgraced Tony Rezko; and with the self-proclaimed Pentagon terrorist, William C. Ayers.

Why are many Americans not outraged and why are the medial not reporting these in more detail?

Historically, our fathers and mothers fought for the freedom we all enjoy today. Bigotry and hatred has no place in America and Mr. Obama has clearly not come clean about his relationships with Rev. Wright.

Again, thank you for taking this issue which is germane to our freedom to vote for the next president. I am sure if average Americans see what I have read in the past few weeks, they will be equally shocked! For your information, the web site is:

http://www.obamaunveiled.com

Thank you for reporting the truth!

With all due respect, all of your arguments about why Clinton should be winning involve changing the rules after the game has been played. While this is most evident in your arguments involving FL & MI, as well as the way you want to redistribute delegates in NV & TX these are not your most compelling arguments nor are they the ones likely to swing the nomination.

You suggest that we should consider the primary election as the general election is tallied, with a winner-take-all system. The first problem is many people do not like that system and feel that should be changed to a simple popular vote. If we are changing systems let's skip the 'electoral college' idea and go straight to majority rules. Oops, Obama still wins. So, let's consider the 'electoral college' winner-take-all system for the primary. You are absolutely correct, Hillary would be way ahead if we go back now and consider the states that way. However, what your suggestion fails to recognize is how resources would be allocated if the Obama camp knew ahead of time that delegates would be distributed under this system. He won six primary states with at least 60% of the vote according to CNN. Out of respect for your dislike of the caucus system, I will not consider caucus states in my arguments here. Hillary has won only one state by that margin. I think it is safe to say Obama could have comfortably pulled resource from these states, still won them, and used those resources to potentially win the big states of CA, where he lost by 9 points, and TX where he lost the primary by 3 points.

In order to argue that Hillary 'should be winning' you are replacing one convoluted system with a different convoluted system. The difference is the one Obama is winning is the one set up ahead of time while the one Clinton is winning requires changing the rules after the game.

Why not settle this by looking at the popular vote? Let's have a winner take all national election. Obama is winning that, too.

5 more first timers....what is going on!?!?!?

Salon should make them pay for advertising space. I thought this site was serious about journalism. I suppose I was wrong.

Geez, where to begin with this article? Here are a couple examples of foolishness:

1) Yes, I understand that we like to write headlines to be provocative, so people are more likely to read the article. But, please. The fact that Hillary would be winning if the rules were different does not, obviously, mean that she SHOULD be winning. Who SHOULD be winning is a question that's in the domain of pure opinion.

2) The fact that Hillary beat Obama in several big states, does not, obviously, mean that Obama can't beat McCain in those states. It's all but inconceivable that places like California and New York will end up in McCain's column, no matter who the Democrats nominate.

3) It's ludicrous to suggest that the results for Michigan and Florida be counted as is. Obama did not appear on the ballot in Michigan, and your suggestion that a nation-wide ad buy that happened to also play in Florida is the same thing as campaigning in Florida is ridiculous.

I'm not opposed to printing articles that are strongly slanted toward one candidate... but Salon and the author should expect to hear about it.

Margaret Campbell, a Montana state legislator, plans to declare her support for Senator Obama, of Illinois. She becomes the 69th superdelegate he has picked up since the Feb. 5 coast-to-coast string of primary elections and caucus votes.

In the same period, Senator Clinton, of New York, has seen a net loss of two superdelegates, according to figures from the Obama campaign that Clinton aides do not dispute. That erosion may dim Mrs. Clinton’s remaining hopes even more than internal campaign turmoil, which led to the ouster on Sunday of the campaign’s chief strategist, Mark Penn.