You know, fiction is a wonderful literary genre, but it should be clearly labeled. Otherwise, readers might think that somebody actually believes this.

Whaaa… Clinton would be winning if we used the Electoral College system … whaaa. Ignore that fact that the winner takes all Electoral College system sucks and should be replaced. Ignore the fact that in Michigan only Clinton, and some other minor candidates were on the ballot. Clinton beat Kucinich (at least Kucinich made an effort to be removed from the ballot) and Gravel so she won and she deserves those votes. Ignore the fact the Michigan and Florida were warned what would happen if they voted early but did so anyway. Ignore the fact that people will vote or vote differently if they know their votes count. I personally will go out of my way to cast a protest vote, but I am not the average voter. Clinton would be winning if we let rules mean nothing … whaaa.

Caucuses are unfair??? I am most puzzled by this statement. I would agree that they do take time. But are we not in the mess we are today because people do not take the time. Democracy is not free. So if we ask our citizens to god forbid, not spend the few hours that they would spend watching Lost or America Idol, but instead to give a cr*p about our country, that makes a caucuses unfair. (Drag your kids along, may be they might learn something about how THEIR government works from something other than a textbook or a classroom.) If not watching TV is too much of a cost to bear then lets make elections a holiday.

Quit your crying. Some people want Clinton to drop out because they are in favor of Obama. Some people want Clinton to drop out because instead of trying to rise above Obama she is taking pages out of the Republican play book to tear Obama down. The 3 AM commercial was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. Hasn’t enough damage been done to this country through manipulation of fear? If your answer is that is what the Republican would have done. My answer is “exactly.” We should be better. But the terrorists would use “enhanced interrogation techniques.” We should be better. But China and India are not going to cut their green house gases. We should be better.

That it's not a winner take all system? assuming this guy doesn't work for the clinton campaign then he should be ashamed because this is pure clinton spin. playing by the rules which govern the process, Obama is winning. as far as the idea that he can't win the general , what is that based on? NBC news says that the number of "safe states" for Mccain is LOWER if he runs against Obama. why do you assume that Obama cannot win Ohio or Pennsylvania in the general?

why is it that Red states aren't supposed to matter in the primary, but blue states are? do you really think that Obama won't win Ny, CALI, and NJ in the general. why is NJ considered a "big state", but not Georgia, Illinois or Missouri?

this idea that winning a primary state means you will necessarily win it in the general, and if you lose in the primary you will lose it in the general, is completely transparent Bullshit. if both parties hold contests inan given state, then there is obviously going to be a winner from each party. duh. McCain won the primary in New York and California- does that mean that he will win there in the fall?

Why is Salon giving this talking points-clutching shill such major play?

If the system were truly fair, then it requres a revote in Michigan and Florida. The Obama camp was willing to compromise on revotes.

Florida rejected such an idea and the national party refused to force the issue. So what this author is arguing for is to replace one unfair system which all the candidates agreed upon with another idea which unfairly benefits one candidate.

It is very dishonets to claim Obama is disenfranchising when it was the Democratic National Committee who made the decision and demanded the candidates go along with it. More importantly the Michigan and Florida did this to themselve and in Florida it was a REPUBLICAN legislative ploy which violated the rules.

If Clinton were advocating an evenhanded fix, she'd be in the right - but she's not, she wants delegates which were not chosen fairly.

I'll agree the entire primary system is broken and absurd and Michigan and Florida should have been allowed to participate.

But to claim Clinton would be winning if this was a popular vote is pure speculation AND another barely concealed attack on Obama as if he was cheating by winning votes legally.

Great clarity without all the magical thinking. Please, please if you are not convinced about the idiocy of the Rules, watch the C-Span video of how the DNC made the decision to strip Florida of it's delegates. This was a travesty in justice and political thinking.

The Democratic party contrived and gyrated with the rules and made the classic planning mistake, they did not plan for the worst case scenario. Thank you Dean and Brazille. What they basically now are spewing about the rules reminds me of the basic right wing value: Zero tolerance with no justice.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=200652-1&showVid=true

Apparently Salon has decided to come out foursquare in favor of Hillary, even if they have to adopt her most dishonest and transparent arguments to do it.

What a piece of junk this article is. The author might as well claim that only the earliest states in the primaries should be counted, when her name recognition was the primary factor in a huge field of candidates.

Hillary's done. The only question now if whether she'll continue to destroy the party for the sake of her personal lust for power by ordering her supporters to vote against Obama in the general election.

She should be kicked out of the party like Lieberman. Hillary is pro-Iraq War (never mind her lies claiming the opposite now), and that's enough to put her in the other camp for me.

Her stated health care plan is probably better, but she's lied about everything else, so I figure she's lying about that, too.