...then the Obama campaign would probably have invested more in collecting ponies.

I have heard variations on this theme before. It is the equivalent of saying that if the Giants had been playing baseball instead of football, all of those touchdowns wouldn't have mattered.

Doesn't it occur to you that if the rules had been different, the Obama campaign might have developed a different strategy based upon those other rules?

What was the point of writing this article?

Title: If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead

Subtitle: Under a winner-take-all primary system...

So, the article immediately assumes that a winner take all system "makes sense."

I assert it does not make sense.

There, countered your argument.

Feeble.

Using loaded and subjective adjectives like "eccentric" and "convoluted" isn't valid logical argument, either.

And let's not forget that Wilentz is arguing for an electoral system that gave us Bush when he didn't win the popular vote. He claims that it "makes sense" and is more "democratic" than the Democratic primary system. (Which lets the states decide how they want to divvy up the delegates. Whoda thunk that a system that lets the people decide how to do things would be UNdemocratic.)

If the world were different than it is, things sure would be different around here!

Since we're voicing opinions, I like proportional awarding of the delegates since it more accurately gauges and reflects the true sentiments of the voters. Remember how lots of us complained about the overly simplistic labeling of red states and blue states, as if Bush winning a state by 51 to 49% made it red? Give me proportional awarding of the delegates any day over a system that fails to properly reflect real differences within the electorate.

And if I were the super-duper delegate whose vote was the only one that mattered, Obama would've won long ago.

Come on.

> The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee.

It is not as if this decision came out of the blue. Florida and Michigan chose to disregard the national party in setting their schedule. Could either party expect to retain control over the nomination process at a national level, were states to be given free reign?

> Like it or not, we will choose the president under the indirect and fractured democracy of the Electoral College.

Oh the burdens of our constitutional system of government, whatever are we to do? To bad there isn't some mechanism for changing the way things are done. (sarcasm)

> According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination.

Oh come on - all successful politicians seek do this sort of thing. You could make a solid arguement that any candidate who is incapable of using rules and circumstance to their advantage is going to have trouble getting things done in Washington.

I'll agree that the clumsy way in which American democracy works leaves much to be desired. However in my opinion, should Clinton lose the nomination to Obama, there will be a silver lining to all the smoke and mirrors.

This is actually the only logical argument ever made with regard to the election of Senator Clinton.

And possibly a winner take all system could be tossed in next election to solve the problem of a drawn out primary season (or we could just have a national primary day...or we could just leave the system alone, since obviously the other systems would favor establishment candidates with big name recognition).

So the bottom line is, there are ways to count Clinton in the lead, none of which really matter in the long run.

The Pennsylvania primary will be an interesting one to watch...I have started to think that Senator Clinton's actions are only hurting herself, so her running until she is forcable driven from the race at the convention doesn't really bother me any more.

I hope Obama can pull Pennsylvania out, just to end Clinton's misery and humiliation...but if it ends differntly we'll just have to humor the woman for a few months...as her base erodes.

The down side is ofcourse McCAin's free pass for the next few months...but this is the system we have, and since Hillary is looking to harden her supporters with any argument she can muster, then so be it. Obama will run out the clock, secure the nomination and the nation will watch Senator Clinton eat a mouthfull of crow as she is sent on a Vote for Obama tour to convince her supporters to support the Senator from Illinois.

Obama has handled all of Senator Clinton's attacks with skill and so far they have had little effect. So let's just sit back, let the Senator feel her oats, and let this thing wrap up in Denver in a few months time.

I don't read Camille Paglia's articles on Salon, so this article has got to be the most moronic, ill-informed piece I have ever seen here. Salon should be ashamed to put out this tripe.

Dude, you don't deserve to be on the same cyberpages as the great Glenn Greenwald.

I needed to look no further than the title, "If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead." Say what? Is the author really arguing that an electoral college approach, which, lest we forget, handed Bush the presidency when Gore won the popular vote, "makes sense"? Really? Man, the stench of desperation in the Clinton camp is making me woozy.

Just a quick question regarding your very insightful comments about the fiasco that the Democratic nominating process has engendered: why blame Obama? Like any good politician, or most regular people in similar circumstances, he is doing his best to prevail in this admittedly flawed run-up to the Democratic Convention. I must believe that if the tables were turned, Clinton would do exactly the same thing! Though the last paragraph of your piece notes this, the bulk of your article seems to fault Obama for taking advantage of the system and the misplaced momentum it's provided him, rather than the party officials who concocted it. Honestly, either candidate would be foolish, and not much of a politician, if they were to behave otherwise. FYI, I support both candidates equally.