Good post.

"But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant? Might it be because the rules, and not the popular vote, now benefit Obama? And what about Texas, another state where Clinton won the popular vote but has not been awarded the majority of pledged delegates? Once again, for Obama, the rules are suddenly all-important -- because the rules, and not the popular majority, now favor him."

After reading this paragraph, I had to reread the preceeding parts of the article - where exactly had Wilentz shown that Obama had *not* treated the rules as "all-important", only to change course when they favored him?

Wilentz seems to offer two examples of Obama flouting the rules when they did not suit him. First, there is the matter of his advertising in Florida against DNC directives. Second, he suggests that Obama's proposal to split the Michigan and Florida delegates is an extralegal, illegitimate "bold power grab". The first example is a technical, minor violation at worst while the second is simply absurd.

Obama's national advertisements which did play in Florida were no doubt a technical violation of the no-campaign pledge. But is there any evidence that Obama actually intended this as a back-door way of campaigning in Florida? And easily explained as an effort to campaign in other states but due to network policy, unavoidably broadcast in FL too. Again, yes a technical violation, but hardly serious, and hardly an effort to campaign seriously in the state by back-door means.

Obama's proposal to split the delegates 50-50 is, in my opinion, a bit weak - I'd like to see him offer to seat half the delegates from FL at least, which would be consistent with the original DNC rules. But a "bold power grab"? The status quo is the DNC ruling that neither state's delegates count. A 50-50 split would change this status quo not at all. So where's the power grab? Instead Obama is offering a fig leaf that might assuage any hurt feelings among MI and FL voters come November - again, perhaps a bit weak and transparent. But certainly in no way a self-interested flouting of the rules. For better or for worse, in this case the rules already work to his advantage!

Really, Prof. Wilentz... if you want to argue that the current system is undemocratic and should be changed, fine. If you even want to argue that because of that, Obama should concede delegates in Texas and Nevada to Clinton out of a noble impulse to hold up "democracy" over the current rules, then you're being incredibly naive and silly, but fine.

But you have no argument at all that Obama is sticking to the rules only when it suits him, if for no other reason than the rules actually *do* suit him. The candidate who offers "principled" positions based on tactical considerations, claiming that all the remaining states deserve to vote because "the people's voices must be heard!", while also suggesting that superdelegates (and even pledged delegates!) should overrule the people's votes, is not Obama.

You have restored my faith a little bit by having the courage to put an opinion piece on your web site that does not fawn over Barack Obama.

I have read the predictable responses from the Obama die hards, but there is actually a lot to think about in this article.

Asking or demanding Hillary Clinton to quit when the race is so close is the ultimate in undemocratic, and has really caused me to lose respect for people like Chris Dodd and Patrick Leahy.

I have been writing for weeks that the current system is flawed. The Democratic Party hierarchy has been deeply disappointing in their handling of the Michigan and Florida results, and the caucuses are practically worthless if we really want true democracy. I have always been a hard core Democrat, but that may change if they do not reform the primary system.

Bottom line is that the superdelegates will decide this race. They will decide it for Obama or they will decide it for Clinton. Neither candidate has garnered sufficient delegates to be the nominee without the superdelegates. Obama has no right to them, just because he has a minuscule lead that is the result of a profoundly flawed system.

Thanks for writing a great article that makes many clear and direct points about the audacity of this election. Obama, though he portrays himself as being above these politics, is very hypocritical in the way he has tried to stymie the election process. He's a huge disappointment, and because he is so hypocritical, and because his supporters are pack of annoying liars, there is no way that I would vote for him. He is shooting himself in the foot by not listening to FL and MI.

Instead of criticizing the swift and furious response of Obama supporters? Like

1. that Obama successfully tailored his campaign to the existing rules and would have done the same if the rules were whatever Wilentz wanted them to be?

2. that a "winner takes all" format is decidedly NOT democratic and kind of a cynical approach to aspire to?

3. that the article had an over-the-top partisan tone that "accused" Obama of trying to win in precisely the way his candidate would if she were in the same circumstances?

It just seems kind of evasive that you'd focus your comments on the passion and volume of the disagreement rather than the content.

I think Obama should find a way to seat delegates from FL and MI.

First, Salon cancels the Blog Report - one of the primary reasons that I was attracted to Salon in the first place.

Then, Salon starts publishing bullshit like this. Seriously, what the fuck? This article basically says that if the primary elections adopted an electoral college system, HRC would be the presumtive nominee. Fuck that. The electoral college is one of the most fucked up institutions in American politics. How else can you have a situation where one candidate wins more votes and another wins the election?

Salon has become little more than a mouthpiece for the HRC campain (sic). By that measure, Salon will be out of business by the time Obama wins the nomination.

Dear god, I'm gonna have to start reading Slate every day.

It was nice while it lasted...