In her latest essay the usually astute neo-neocon buries her latest important observation about Hillary, Obama, and the bass-ackwards Democratic primaries: I did a little quick math of my own by going here and reviewing the state-by-state primary results. If one adds up the total delegates to be awarded by primaries and uses a winner-take-all system, eliminating caucuses, Hillary leads by about 500 delegates. If you add in all the caucus states (almost all of which Obama won), she still leads, although by "only" about 150 delegates. In November the country will hold a general election for the Presidency. This is a fact that the Democrats seem determined to ignore in their rush to "be historic" by nominating a guy with a tan. The way they got themselves to this historic moment of letting their little heads do the thinking for their big heads is via their "sooper-genius" system of primaries that do not parallel the general election's winner-take-all system, but rather emulate the whiner-gets-some system. Of course, "whiner-gets-some" sort of sums up what the Democrat party has become. Perhaps it is best to just let it be. After all, why would the Democrats want to nominate a winner for President? It would be so out of character. Still, the least you'd think they'd do is nominate someone who was, in the final analysis, an American-in-full rather than just a paper-American like Obama.