So, after Texas and Ohio, the Democrats are no closer to choosing a candidate than before. Clinton won both states, and narrowed the gap a little between herself and Barack Obama, but it wasn't decisive. Neither, it seems, will be the remaining three months and ten elections of the primary season. Barring a mathematical miracle, intervention by Diebold, or one of the candidates being run over by a bus, this will come down to the convention.
Some Democrats are already decrying this, claiming that now that the Republicans have chosen a candidate, a prolonged primary will make the enemy the real winner. Instead, they think one of the candidates should drop out. But who? According to the numbers, either could win - so why should either surrender? Likewise, it's been suggested that they do a deal which will see them form a dream ticket (this I think is the inevitable outcome). But the question, as Clinton pointed out, is who will be on top.
There is an obvious solution to this "problem", of course: le the people vote. Let the democratic process run its course, and see who ends up the winner at the end of the day. Unfortunately, actual democracy doesn't seem too popular in a party which calls itself "democratic"; instead they'd rather throw it out the window in pursuit of some authoritarian desire for certainty.
