I'm troubled by this article. I have always respected Sean Wilentz but it seems that in this case he has resorted to some pretty iffy rationales. I'm troubled that he would pen such a piece, which seems to be more a brief to the Clinton defense than a thoughtful analysis of the vagaries of the campaign. Moreover, what about Salon's editorial standards? Do their editors just print EVERYTHING written by contributers like Wilentz, or do they exercise any judgment about the soundness of the arguments? Do they ever send pieces like this back to the author for revisions, or is this site just a public bulletin board for the campaign's respective screeds.

Are you? Perhaps you need a reboot.

to change the more-fair primaries to accommodate the less-fair general. I'm referring, of course, to the winner-take-all concept, not the other issues. I acknowledge that caucuses, while fundamentally more democratic than primaries in their focus on persuasion and information, present a challenge to democracy in terms of attendance.

Whoa, I just realized this is the same Sean Wilentz who wrote the self-contradictory piece in The New Republic about racially divisive politics.

Wow, the man is 2 for 2 in completely self-serving, inconsistent and HACKY arguments for Hillary Clinton.

Hey, Dr. Wilentz: How is your memory? Can you remember the exact time when you first decided to become a sellout?

Because that's what you are, and apparently much of the top editorial staff of The New Republic agrees with me, along with just about anybody with a whit of intellect.

Salon has had article after article fully favorable to Obama and very few for Hillary. Your claim is ludicrous! One or two little articles which seem friendly to Hillary doth not a pattern make. And don't forget, there are many, many Democrats, liberal to boot, who prefer Hillary over Obama. Our point of view has been drowned out.

And he's written a series of blatantly anti-Obama articles (this one is only the most recent). I won't even begin to get into what self-inflicted harm he's doing to his reputation as a (once) respected academic--I'm just wondering if Salon is going to give equal time to a writer who's pro-Obama.

Wilentz spends the length of his article wishing the stars would align and for his candidate in a way he judges would be more favorable to her. And he concludes that tripe by condemning Obama for not agreeing with him.

What a steaming pile of garbage. I'm ashamed Salon ran this.

Without taking on your whole post, I think the following excerpt clearly invalidates your reasoning:

"If Obama wins, too many young Democrats will learn exactly the wrong lesson - that intellectuals, young voters, and Black voters can win a general election without the help of blue-collar Democrats."

If Obama wins because of the factors you cite (and there is no way of knowing whether that will have been the case or not, unless the NSA is really working overtime), then it won't be a fact.

I feel your pain in that regard, but facts will be facts, and if that one isn't available to learn, it will be because it turns out to not be a fact. Would that it were otherwise. Maybe it will be. There's still no way we'll be able to know.

I am absolutely *astounded* to read an article on Salon pointing out flaws in Obama's campaign. Keep it up and I might change my mind about not renewing my subscription.

Florida and Michigan remain a conundrum, and it's disingenuous to suggest that either candidate's suggestion for solution, including following the prescribed rules, is fundamentally more unfair or politically calculated than the other.

But I stand by my original suggestion:

1. Seat the Florida delegates according to the January vote. Cost: $0. Benefits Clinton.

2. Redo Michigan using caucus. Cost: much cheaper than a primary. Benefits Obama.

3. Superdelegates vote their conscience.

This should be floated by Obama, who will be considered princely, given that it primarily benefits Clinton. But it is democracy in action, and his gesture will win him votes.

He proclaimed George Bush the worst president ever.

that this article is so laden with partisanship on behalf of Clinton, because there are some nuggets of insight in there regarding future nomination race decisions.

The ads shown in FL were national ads. They were not just FL ads, so get off that tired non-argument. It's meaningless to argue that everyone's votes should count, because this election is based on delegates. Get it? I've lost track of where HRC is this week regarding what counts in her world, but the reality is, it's based on delegates, plain and simple.

And as to your comment: "Like the entire BO campaign, it's a faith-based opinion with nothing resembling evidence backing it up," I have given ou facts, where are yours?

That Clinton will win the democratic primary..also, I predict that NASA will put a man on Neptune next week.

When you accused Obama of having played the race card, I was willing to consider that. If it were true, It definitely lowered Obama in my eyes.

But, reading what you just said wrote: nonsensical, partisan hackery... I see that you're just a Clinton hack.

Totally unafair to the other candidate.

I will no longer trust what you write becaues you are a hack.

But I'd still suggest a cut in the number of delegates in each state. There needs to be a penality for non-compliance with the rules.

Wilentz comes dangerously close to suggesting that only voters in purple states should choose the party's nominee, since their votes count so much more in the general election. Talk about disenfranchisement! Thank god I live in Ohio--at least I'd get a vote under a Wilentz ruling.

Agreed this article was a waste of bits, but for other reason.

What the author REALLY misses is that in any competition the competitors craft their strategy to the RULES. If the Democratic primary were like the Republicans', Obama would probably have spent a lot more time and effort in places like California, Texas, and other big states he could compete in. He might have foregone NY state altogether. All those donations would have let him be very competitive in the big states where advertising can have greater impact than caucus states.

In other words, the idea that the voting percentages in primaries/cacuses under the present proportional allotment rules would have been the same voting percentages under winner-take-all rules.

Why do so many journalists lack in basic reasoning skills???

One last note -- it's not even clear what the purpose of the primary process is. Is it to (1) select the nominee with the strongest Democratic voter support, or (2) select the nominee with the best chance of winning electoral votes? I believe that the current rules reflect the philosophy of the party that it's better to nominate a candidate that Democrats like and agree with, rathern than one that is most likely to get elected. This seems good and right, as the Dem party is supposed to be somewhat idealistic.

-JTS