Hillary knew she'd need to compete and win in both caucuses and primaries. She knew that delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated because they violated the rules. She knew that delegates would be awarded proportionally.

Hillary knew all of this before a single vote was cast, and she still failed to outperform Barack. Guess what that makes her? A poor campaigner. Do we really want a poor campaigner going up against the GOP? I don't think so.

Lateagain: I'm not an original poster, but I'm willing to respond to your comments. Just so you know, I'm an Oregon voter, and I don't like Obama or Clinton. For me, the only true Democrat in the race was Kucinich, so I'm not a Clinton partisan when I respond here. (That being said, of course I'll vote for whomever the nominee is.)

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?

Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with Obama coming up with a strategy based on what the rules actually are rather than what they could be. In some ways, this is just a silly argument, but I have a partial response to this in #2.

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

Sure, I could agree with this. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of the electoral college and simply use the popular vote (which at this point, Obama would win). But a proportional delegate system isn't necessarily any better. I personally don't think giving delegates in disproportion to votes is far, but that's what we in Nevada with the rural vs. urban system. Also, let's say Obama wins ten small states 63%-37%, and each of those states has 10 delegates. A proportional breakdown gives Obama 6 delegates in each state and Clinton 4. That gives Obama 60 delegates and Clinton 40 in these states. But Obama really should have 63 and Clinton should have 37. Is rounding fair? I don't think so. I have a hard time understanding how you truly fairly split delegates. It seems to me you have to prioritize some type of voter or analysis to distribute partial votes, and this is inherently unfair to some group. Thus, while "winner takes all" is not proportional (and therefore, to you, unfair), I don't think proportional splits are really ever fair either. They both have their problems.

The point the author was trying to make is that what happens in November is a "winner take all" system. If you are a Democrat and you want to give the nomination to the person most likely to win in November based on the rules that are in place in November, you might give some pause choosing Obama. I certainly like Obama more than McCain. He's a great politician and an even better speaker. But the author made two points that Obama supporters simply refuse to consider:

1. Obama would be losing the delegate count to Clinton if we were using a winner take all system in the primary. Getting 35-45% of the votes in big states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida won't help him if McCain wins those states.

2. Obama has won several states the Democrats have no chance of winning. And the truth is that he absolutely crushes Clinton in those states, yet either Democrat will lose in those states in November.

What does this mean? Basically, Obama has had to win twice as many states as Clinton to have a 200 delegate lead out of 2600+ delegates. He crushes her in some Democratic states, some swing states, and some Republican states. Then he makes a respectable showing in the 14 states Clinton has won, which, in a proportional delegate system, prevents her from catching up. That's great for him. What's bad for him is that it won't work in November. He will have to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida -- not just make a respectable showing, since you get zero electoral votes for coming in second.

Clinton's argument, whether you believe it or think it is bull, is that she will have won Ohio and Pennsylvania (and she'd say Florida) and would win Michigan in a revote. Thus, she can win the states the party needs to win to get anyone elected. She'll say that it's great that Obama got the 16 Democrats in Wyoming excited and the 145 Democrats in Montana excited and the 72 Democrats in Idaho excited but that neither she nor he has any chance of winning those states in November. She'll say that both she and Obama will win all the Democratic states, and that McCain will win all the Republican states, and that, in the primary, she will have won more swing states, and that's what it takes to win in November under this winner take all system.

You can hate the argument, but if the media talks about this every day leading up to the convention, I think a lot of Democrats will be upset if superdelegates don't affirm Obama's delegate lead AND they'll also be upset if it appears, via the swing state votes and the national polls, Clinton appears to have the best shot against McCain.

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?

I agree. Clinton would be doing exactly the same thing. That's why I say this: I completely understand the dislike of Clinton, but when Obama supporters admit that both candidates are willing to engage in the same type of negative politicking we all seem to hate, why does he get a free pass? It seems to me Obama supporters liken him to David and Clinton to Goliath, so he's allowed to fight dirty because she's going to, but then Obama supporters also get to love him because he's so different from her. That just doesn't make sense to me.

it is that the will of the people swing overwhelmingly in favor of Barack Obama and not Hillary Clinton. Can Salon please stop the Clinton appeasement and realize the writing is on the wall:

Barack Obama will be the nominee on the Democratic ticket for president in 2008.

Let's stop fudging these numbers and moving the goalposts in favor of Hillary Clinton already. But alas, I forget that the Washington establishment and the mainstream media and the Republicans all want Hillary, so those three votes count more than the millions who have spoken and turned out and contributed time and funds.

The Republicans run winner-take-all. But we are Democrats, and dammit, we reflect the voice of the people no matter what the establishment wants. Joan, I'm sorry to reign on your parade here, you almost reached the status of pundit but you hitched your wagon to the wrong candidate. Better luck in 2016.