If Sean Wilentz weren't trying to crown a particular candidate as the party's nominee and applied some objective analysis, he might actually make a worthwhile point. I am not going to defend the Democratic Primary process as perfection, but a winner take all system effectively causes the nominee to be heavily weighted to the selection choices of California and New York and will give us a quick nomination contest and a losing candidate. That's certainly what it did in 2000 and 2004.

Wilentz does not address the problems inherent in a winner take all election process: that it would reward name recognition notwithstanding organizational capacity to move beyond Mark Penn's foolish 17+1 state strategy that might, rarely, produce a winner but will never produce an effective supporting governance structure (like a majority of senators with some gratitude for your presence on the ticket).

I do not understand this vested interest in Clinton's candidacy. Every time I read an article like this I realize how far from democratic ideals the movers and shakers in Clinton's camp would really like to take us. It's an election not a coronation. And the coup de grace: If Clinton had used a modicum of advance planning she would be the nominee notwithstanding her weakness in the GE. She didn't; it's her own and not the system's fault. Get over it.

Moving Super Tuesday to February 5 and putting some major states on the ballot at that time clearly favored Clinton. She had the opportunity to deliver a knock out punch by winning convincingly (by more than 15 points) in California and New York and she didn't. What that should clue Wilentz and other Clinton supporters into is that as a candidate Clinton has serious weaknesses. Thank goodness we have a primary process that has put candidates to a serious test of their mettle. This is good, not bad, Mr. Wilentz.

The premise that winning more big states in the primaries is what matters in the GE is belied by looking at the electoral map showing the distribution of states won by the parties respectively in 2000. Of the top 10 states by population, George Bush "won" states ranked 2, 4, 7, and 10 (Texas, Florida, Ohio and Georgia). Gore won the other six -- including California (1), New York (3), Illinois (5)Pennsylvania (6), Michigan (8) and New Jersey (9)).

In other words, Gore won more "big" states. It's true that turning around one of these big states would have yielded a different result. It's also true that turning around any number of smaller states would have changed the result, including any of the following: Nevada (4 votes); Virginia (13); Colorado (8); Missouri (11); North Carolina (14).

In other words: you can lose a couple of big states and still win if you can figure out how to win in Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri or North Carolina. THIS IS HOW THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN WINNING SINCE 1968: BY WINNING A LOT OF LITTLE STATES. IF DEMOCRATS WANT TO WIN CONSISTENTLY THEY HAVE TO TAKE SOME OF THESE SMALLER STATES AWAY AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT BY PRETENDING THEY DON'T EXIST.

How many times and how loudly does this have to be shouted before Hillary Clinton, Sean Wilentz and the DLC start listening? I LIKE Hillary Clinton but I can't stand her strategy whether it wins the nomination or not.

When was the last time a male medical student felt like he had to justify dating a waitress? LW may have bucked social expectations far enough to study science and get into med school, but it sounds like she has internalized them as it relates to her dating life.

If we are talking about taking this relationship all the way to marriage (otherwise, why worry?), LW should realize that what dooms many if not most women professionals from being as successful as they could be is the insistence that they must marry up, or at least across. Who you choose to marry, whether he supports your career and stays home with the kids or picks them up from daycare because he has a steady and somewhat flexible schedule is going to matter even more to your career than getting into a prestigious residency program. That person doesn't have to be someone with a limited education (and there's no guarantee that a lower educational level would be the better choice in this equation) but he has to have the willingness to make room in his own personal and professional life for your achievement.

That LW is hung up (to a much greater degree than a man in her situation would be) about how her social peers perceive her choice of boyfriend is not a good sign. The message: it's your life, not your friends'. If it works for you it will work for them.

There are two issues that I have with Obama's particular points. I think, first, that we have to acknowledge that the voters at issue are registered Democrats, and therefore, not necessarily voting social issues because they are more important than economic issues. As between Obama and Clinton, there is almost no daylight on social issues, so I think Obama was a bit off-key on that point, though it probably does come into play in the GE. In voting, voters are differentiating between two choices, and there are many voters who vote on the basis of their social values because they see no meaningful differentiation between D and R politicians on economic issues.

The second issue, is that I would not have used the word bitter, because it made it sound as many voters really see no redemption. Although I can tell you that I have met many people (including my relatives) who really are very bitter, the truly bitter frequently would not be voting at all. The words I might have used are cynical, betrayed, alienated and very, very dispirited.

But he hit one thing dead on: That politicians come around looking for their votes and routinely making promises to this class of voters, and then go to Washington without looking out for them, at all.