Not to me it isn't. That would go in the category of not nominating anyone because people might have bullshit reasons for not supporting them (see: Obama, Barack and West Virginia, or, if you're a Clinton supporter, Iowa).
I just don't think it's biased against her. The idea that it was took root during the 11 primary sweep, when it's really hard not to give positive coverage to the candidate who's sweeping the primaries.
The popular vote is a clever way of saying "caucuses don't count", since turnout is necessarily lower in caucuses. Some caucuses don't even keep track of total voters; once they establish the proportions and elect delegates, the process is over.
The day that all states use primaries, the popular vote will be useful. Until then, it's a metric like "number of states won" - it doesn't mean anything.
She's the one that spent the past four-months whipping her followers into a frenzy. I've seen her tactics - she posts a piece of alleged hatemail and says "this is what you're fighting".
Two days later and I'm arguing with someone over how I can support a candidate who calls his opponent a cunt. I'm like "what????" and it turns out that the person I'm talking to is referring to Taylor Marsh's hatemail. Checked her site for the first time in a couple of weeks and she's still at it. I don't think her followers will let her back off.
And I assume you've seen her site. It's a clearinghouse for anti-Obama rumors - she finds something, and her supporters mail it out to right-wing contact lists they have. This happens ALL THE TIME.
Mailing Hannity now!
Don't need her, don't want her. Won without her. Can't have her anyway even if she was useful at this point, the damage is done. Her followers will abandon her if she takes her boot off Obama's neck.