The problem with allowing the popular vote to count in Michigan and Florida is that Obama never got a real chance to compete there. Both he and Clinton agreed not to campaign- an agreement which meant that, when the state's votes were tallied internally, Clinton (who had an established network of connections left ove from her husband's presidency) had a massive lead which she otherwise would not have had.

Therefore, it is NOT fair to say that Clinton won those states, fair and square. It is easy to win when you are the default cabndidate and no one runs against you.

And only the big states count, or the battlegrounds, but not states Obama wins. Polls matter too, but only when they favor your candidate.

We get it, life's unfair. Your candidate should have won.

Well, she didn't. (But she might have if she'd taken the race a little more seriously - hope that doesn't keep you up at night.)

I was going to come and post a letter about how stupid this article was, but about 200 people beat me to it. Good job guys.

Very interesting that almost every response is pro Barack and anti Hillary. Clearly this article didn't have its intended effect. I don't hear any minds being changed. Barack is ahead, but it's still anyone's game; he hasn't sealed the deal yet.

Granted the article makes some interesting points, but the crux of everything that Mr. Wilentz is trying to say relies on things being exactly what they are not.

We have system with a predefined set of rules. Everyone knew the rules going into the primaries and for Mr. Wilentz now to start whining about whether these rules are fair is moot. The system is what it is and we will elect a candidate by the same system which we have used before.

I find it curious that Wilentz could make arguments for Michigan and Florida voters being disenfranchised when he is promoting the winner take all system of some of the Republican primaries. It would seem obvious to most laypeople, and therefore much more so to erudite political writers such as Wilentz, that a system awarding delegates in a winner take all format goes in direct contrast to letting the voters' voices be heard. If 55% of a given state want Clinton and 45% want Obama is it fair that the voters of this state be represented with 100% of their delegates going to Clinton? Doesn't this disregard entirely the 45% of the voters who voted for Obama? Isn't this disenfranchising people by ignoring the choice of nearly half the votes?

Perhaps I am just not as informed as Wilentz.

Furthermore, I continue to hear people try and force Florida and Michigan, but we knew from the very beginning what the status of their primaries was going to be. Would Wilentz find shame in Senator Obama's campaign tactics if his same approach were applied and these states were expected to benefit him? It seems Wilentz is making the same kind of selective decisions of which he is accusing the Obama campaign.

And I think we should also take a deep collective breath and, as intelligent Democrats, ask ourselves whether big states such as NY, CA, NJ or MA could reasonably be expected to go for McCain in a general election. I believe both Obama and Clinton are capable of carrying these big states. I think it is more reasonable to talk about swing states such as Missouri, Oregon and Ohio. These will be some realistic battlegrounds. I mean, unless Mr. Wilentz has a plan for the Democrats to carry the big state of Texas in the fall. Then, he might have a point.

For now, however, it seems all he has are half-baked complaints hissed from between gnashing teeth - never a good way to try and make a case for anything other than one's own bitterness.

when you can use a more precise measure? I'm referring to winner-take-all, of course. I mean, if the goal is to see who most people want, why not just count by person? I always wondered why high schools used A, B, C, and D instead of 92, 87, 98, or 64. I mean, a 98 is better than a 92, right?

"If the rules weren't the rules, but some other rules were the rules, then Hillary would win."

I'm still onboard will the winner-take-all dunk contest, for the nomination AND the presidency... you know, while we're wishing for different rules that'll never happen.

Here's the short version of this article:

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. If the rules were different, then the results would be different. Therefore I am going to try to invalidate the reality of the situation, because it doesn't suit what *I WANT*! WAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

That's this entire article, in a nutshell. (Except the article is a lot longer.)