Q: 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?

A: Suppose the primaries were conducted like the election will be. That makes sense to me, if you plan to pick someone more likely to win. So, if that would have been the case, you assume that Obama would win if he had played his politics that way. That's a big assumption. You might be right, but I doubt it.

It's not a question of being cynical or not, it's a question of using a process more likely to produce a winner. I'd prefer to pick a winner, myself.

NOT A SINGLE OBAMA SUPPORTER has touched the nonsense that Obama got more delegates in Texas and Nevada, despite losing the popular vote. I think that stinks.

You want a primary process that emphasizes the ability to win in the general instead of one that selects by the majority of the party. You think it's more likely to produce a winner. I won't argue against that, though I personally prefer the proportional allocation method. Fester will touch the delegate nonsense in NV and TX. I agree it sucks.

But if you are placing such an emphasis on winning, why aren't you applauding his wins? His campaign was better able to micro-target congressional districts to maximize delegate yield and did a better job (so far) of attracting and energizing voter segments that would turn up for caucuses. That's why some Obama supporters think he would do well under different primary rules, and why they believe he will do well in November.

I'd mistakenly thought democrats didn't have so much in common, intellectually, with right-wingers.

I've come to a similar realization that we all share a lot of the same bad habits.

Wilentz so badly wanted Clinton to win that he has entered the realm of fantasy. No doubt he has convinced himself that his arguments are logical and non-partisan. So sad when someone, otherwise intelligent, embarrasses themselves this way.

My subscription to Salon is soon to come up for renewal. That this example of a D+ Sophomore Rhetoric paper made it into Salon makes me wonder....

I have to agree with previous posts that the editors should tell us why this piece was published at all.

We don't have the electoral system that Wilentz would like us to have. Maybe we should -- I can think of many other improvements as well -- but we don't.

In real world 2008, Obama's team are playing the same game by the same rules as Clinton's. Wilentz may wish it otherwise, but Obama is winning, fairly, under the rules as they are. So, apart from wishing things were different than they are, what's the story here?

In any case, to compare what either team is doing to the GOP's tactics in Florida immediately after the 2000 election is simply ludicrous.

Oh absolutely, Brad Pilcher! In fact, everything we need to know we actually learned in kindergarten. Following the rules should trump everything and losing the General Election in the fall should be considered mere piffle compared to sticking to the rules, however they might screw up the possibility of a winning result.

The Democrats don't really need to win the election. After all, this election isn't very important. It is just like any other old election.

The really important thing is that Barack Obama becomes the first black nominee of the Democratic Party for the presidency. That is all that should matter. Actually winning the presidency -- not so much.

(Maybe the superdelegates actually will save us from this fiasco. Nah! That would make too much sense.)

convoluted piece of garbage i have read in a long time. "if ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd ALL have a happy christmas." but you see, seannie boy, there are these things called "rules" and just because your candidate isn't winning, doesn't mean you get to change those rules and play by a whole new set of rules that favor said loser candidate. for instance, i realize that the ny knicks have one of the worst records this season, BUT, if you look at the number of free throws attempted, and divide them by the number of won tip-offs, and then multiply that by the amount of their payroll, well, hell, they should be crowned nba champs! dude, seriously, get a clue. read the editorial in the washpo where a whole new slew of "metrics" for hillary's "victory" are discussed. and by the way, your comment that there was a "stealth" campaign by obama in michigan is the most hypocritical thing i've read this year. to suggest that it was obama who was sneaky in michigan, when your liar of a candidate shillary left her name on the ballot after declaring that "it wouldn't matter anyway," is the height of cynicism. this article is bullshit.

Regarding Florida and Michigan, I remain stunned that many of you are actively supporting the suppression of votes. There are Democrats right now, on this site, in this country, who do not want to count votes in Florida. Let me put that in caps. THERE ARE DEMOCRATS WHO DO NOT WANT TO COUNT VOTES IN FLORIDA. Please, Obama supporters, as you read my post, say the following sentence aloud: "I don't want to count votes in Florida." Now go back to Florida in 2000 and remember which people were loudly screaming that same sentence. And I have not seen anybody mention the fact that Obama might win the Michigan and Florida revotes. If they were allowed to caucus, Obama would likely win those states. Yeah, and I'm one of those weirdos who like both Clinton and Obama because they are Democrats who have nearly the same exact set of politics. Yeesshh.

You say: "Wilentz may wish it otherwise, but Obama is winning, fairly, under the rules as they are."

How does actively seeking to prevent a revote in MI and FL constitute fair play? Or playing the "uncommitted vote" game in MI which Wilentz references? Or strong arming the caucuses in TX (there were games aplenty on the part of the Obama campaign here, I can assure you)?

An issue which relates to the topic at hand: just how does Obama begin to qualify as a "transformative" candidate any longer, given his campaign's demonstrated ability to play typically crafty political games (among other things)? This was one of those boasts made about Obama early and often by both his supporters and the MSM. But that one seems to have gone right out the window. A sound argument can be made that many of Obama's votes were won under false pretenses, something which tends to lessen their persuasive value in the current slinging match.