"Sean Wilentz is a Yankees fan. I am a Red Sox fan. Perhaps Sean Wilentz could write that the American League championship should go to the team with the most hits instead of the most wins, which would have made the Yankees rather than the Red Sox the real champions last year."

Um, no. The correct way to analogize Wilentz's argument to baseball would be this: If games in the regular season were determined by the team with the most hits, but games in the post-season were determined by the team with the most runs.

I'm an Obama supporter, but any critique that requires a misrepresentation of the opposing argument is unappealing.

Had 'uncommitted' exceeded 'Clinton' in MI, I think it would be pretty reasonable for Obama to say "MI held a referendem (sp?) on HRC and gave her a thumbs down." Where else would a delegate designated as 'uncommitted' go at this point?

As far as what Obama would do if things had fallen in his favor in MI and FL, if you don't think his position would be different then you have a lot more faith in politicians than me -- and I support Obama. Moreover, those Obama supporters who say "Oh, evil Billary did this on purpose!" are deluding themselves (though not as much as when they think "Obama can be competative against McCain in Idaho!"). Had MI and FL actually counted, or even partially counted, I'm pretty sure that she still would have beaten Obama, and maybe gained some momentum too. Her presidential dreams are pretty much dust now, though, so it really doesn't matter.

All this huffing and puffing seems pretty silly to me, especially since it doesn't seem like Obama would lose that much nor Clinton gain that much if MI and FL were seated at the convention. From my jaded perspective, it seems like people just want something to get all fired up about so they can flame each other in forums like this.

In the Michigan Democratic primary, Clinton received 328,151 votes (55.3%), while 237,762 voted 'uncommitted' (40%). If Clinton had received fewer votes that 'uncommitted', then I believe you could safely say that she lost. It is pretty easy to imagine most if not all of those 'uncommitted' delegates shifting to Obama at the convention.

As for Florida, you are wrong: Obama was on the ballot and received 569,041 votes (33%). Clinton received 857,208 (49.7%).

(Source for numbers: New York Times)

Despite all the passionate arguments made by both sides, I feel pretty confident in asserting that if Clinton had lost Florida and Michigan, then Obama's supporters would be pressing to have the delegates seated (presumably, MI delegates not for Clinton would move to Obama since their candidates are out) and Clinton's supporters would be asserting that "rules are rules." All because the Dean and the DNC wanted to flex its muscles. (Halve the delegates like the Republicans? No way! That makes too much sense.)

On the positive side, now I have a ready made example to explain the difference between arguments based in theories of 'law' versus 'equity'.

1) Obama's popularity;

2) Clinton's popularity;

3) the Democratic Party's popularity; and/or

4) Repulican deviousness.

Glad we got that settled.

Tragically, we live in a representative democracy. If your rep isn't responsive to your district, then, theoretically, the district's voters could choose to elect someone else. It appears that they do not. Your district has the power to hold the rep accountable, but does not. Or, alternatively, your concerns are not representative of the voting citizenry. Who knows?

Our government is more or less accountable to the people. It was also designed to change direction very slowly -- a reasonable goal when the last big experiment in democracy was Athens’ topsy-turvy failure. Unfortunately, America re-elected G.W. Bush over Kerry, so basically we eff'ed ourselves. A sobering thought for those who would rather see McCain in office than the Democrat they don't like as much as the Democrat they do like.

Obama never would have done that! Those are just MSM lies! Why do you hate America?

When I was in law school, I worked on a public interest project to help homeless people clear tickets and warrants for minor, non-violent, victimless traffic tickets, infractions, and various minor misdemeanors. We worked out of the city attorney's office and had access to computer programs that could check criminal records so that we could make sure that the applicant qualified for the program (example, no felony warrants) and to find records for all outstanding tickets and warrants to be cleared. We were told that if we checked any one else's criminal record (e.g., Gov. Davis) we would be fired. I was in law school, so I didn't want to screw up my moral character application, but I sure wanted to check up on politicians, profs, etc. I can imagine that someone who is not very bright and not sufficiently scared of punishment would actually do it -- without any crooked, Nixonian reasons for doing so.

Yes, everybody knows that the Germany declared war on the US first. Did you just write to give trivia? I guess I'm not getting your point.