Right. There are two pertinent questions.
(1) How much total pollution does driving a set distance generate, and how easy is it to reduce this pollution?
For gas cars, the pollution comes from burning gas, and it can be reduced by increasing ICE efficiency and by burning renewable sources like ethanol or hydrogen. Both are quite limited since ICE efficiency is limited by heat engine physics and has been optimized quite effectively already for around 100 years, and alternative sources require non-renewable energy and/or a limited resource like agricultural land to produce.
For electric cars, the pollution comes from producing the electricity. In most countries, this is 90% or more from burning fossil fuels. It is often said that this is much more efficient that ICE's, but he difference is quite marginal: modern cars operate at up to 35% or even 40% (diesel) while power stations operate in the low 40% efficiency and the electric engine is around 90% efficient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency, http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=107&t=3 and http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100628191919AAh0mSc), although gas cars have further losses in gear and transmission systems that electric engines can avoid. However, shifting to less pollution source power is easier as there are almost limitless energy sources (solar, water, wind, waves etc) that do not produce direct pollution and do not compete for e.g. agricultural land. Even nuclear is a viable option based on how you compare carbon and related pollution to nuclear pollution, including risks like spills and meltdowns (damage x probability).
The ease to switch to non-fossil fuels is really the only viable argument for total pollution.
Of course, a real calculation should estimate all indirect inefficiencies such as fuel transport and amortize all non-unit costs such as the pollution cost to build and maintain the car and the infrastructure around it including oil wells, power stations and even the extra road maintenace because of fuel trucks driving on the road. However, this probably won't change the argument that the main gain of electric vehicles is the flexibility to switch power sources.
(2) Where does the pollution go to?
We can weight pollution by location. For global warming this is not so important, although carbon dioxide near a sink (forest, ocean) might be absorbed quicker than far away from a sink, but in general a greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas. For health considerations however, it makes a huge difference for pollutants like nitrogen oxides and micro particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_emissions#Main_motor_vehicle_emissions). In a dense city they cause much more trouble than over the ocean or in rural areas, both because of concentration of pollutants and of people.
For this equation, electric wins hands down by shifting the pollution from the population center to the location of the power plant.
tl;dr TFA completely misses the point by focusing on comparing current pollution to current pollution, ignoring the environmental benefits of shifting pollution from cars to power plants, which are both less harmful by being out of the way and by offering a feasible path to clean energy sources.