That was amazing! I just read page after page of republican trolls leaving nasty anti-Hillary anti-op/ed missives! Oh wait, no, that was a bunch of progressives???

Wow, walk like a duck, talk like a duck...

Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure I saw Wilentz at the nearby dog park over the weekend, and was going to suggest he chill with the anti-Obama rhetoric, for fear of completely destroying his reputation among this generation of historians. (Although by now, it's in tatters regardless.) If I'd known a further installment was coming, I'd have taken the plunge.

-- KcM

What kept you from giving the august Professor a piece of your mind, not that anyone would care what an Obamatroll thinks outside the precincts of the latte counters of Starbucks or among the dorms of Hampshire College or Berkeley? Nothing in his argument is disputable, unless you think that hearing the truth just is too much for your overly sensitive Obama-infiltrated mind. I am sure the good professor would be more than happy to document all that he claims that you so haphazardly allege is unsubtantiated, without any evidence to prove YOUR point. Obamabots have a hard time processing any criticism of their idol, preferring to blather on how awful it is that anyone could ever point out facts that don't fit their talking points culled from media puppets. The general election is going to be vastly different than the delusional world of a caucus meeting.

Obama running the race the way it is, rather than the way you wish it would be.

Plus, you are blaming Obama, for Florida and Michigan breaking the rules and getting punished by the Democratic PTBs for it. Yeah that makes a looot of sense, after all, the rules are the rules except when they disadvantage your candidate.

Now, the major hole in your logic is assuming that the race strategy would have been the same if it had been run under a "Winner takes all" ideology. Obama's campaign would run a different race entirely, with a far greater focus on the big states. Hillary would likely have adapted her strategy accordingly too.

Only in the US would a system of proportional representation be deemed as "eccentric".

The most significant structural flaw in our presidential selection procedure is the winner-take-all system of state contests in the Electoral College.

A system, that despite dire conservative warnings about tampering with the intentions of the founders, is about as far from what they intended as we can possibly get.

Any system so flawed as to allow the candidate with fewer votes to win election is clearly in serious need of repair.

So naturally the solution to any shortcomings in the Democratic primary process is to replicate the worst quality of the general election system.

And frankly, Mr. Wilentz reveals himself to be little more than a shill for Senator Clinton's campaign when he tosses around charges like "Obama's backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush's camp used in Florida in 2000."

I hardly think the the mess regarding the Florida & Michigan delegates is the fault of Obama or his backers. It is the result of both states ignoring party rules despite being warned of the consequences.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think that really compares with twisting the legal system to prevent legally eligible voters from casting ballots, Sean. Though frankly, at this point I'd favor seating the two flawed delegations as is just to get the issue off the table; it's really not going to make a difference.

There are a great many improvements to be made in both our nominating and election processes. Hell, just managing to count the votes cast with speed and accuracy would be a nice beginning. Making sure that no legal voter is ever turned away from the polls again would be even better.

But what is proposed here is nothing more or less than reworking the rules at the end of the selection process to achieve a desired outcome.

And THAT, Mr. Wilentz, is precisely what the Supreme Court did in 2000, and something we must never allow to happen again.

lighten up people. the letters here are brutal, one dimensional, defensive, and dimwitted. the same way rush's "dittoheads" toe the party line, regardless of merit, the obama fanboys are operating beyond logic, fairness, and even democratic self-preservation. and i say this being a bit of an obama fanboy myself.

just because you like barack (the cool kid) and think hillary is a bit of a pill (like the chick from that movie "election"), there's no need to ignore the facts. even if the author sort of does himself.

i for one am glad he highlighted the fact that while barack might have a lead in the popular vote, against hillary in the primaries and even mcain in the general, the sad fact is we haven't reformed the ridiculous electoral system yet, and under that system, all other things being equal, he'd have a disadvantage in the general that hillary would not. as it stands, all things aren't equal, and polls are notoriously fickle, so anything can happen, despite early predictive polls. but the truth is we may all be drinking a bit of our own kool-aid, swept away by the cool factor of the new kid in town while ignoring the cold hard facts of the electoral system.

the way the democrats do the primaries (basing delegates as a percentage of the popular vote as opposed to winner take all, not the caucus thing) is actually a MORE fair and democratic way of doing an election, because it gets us closer to allowing the will of the people to determine the outcome. sure it's not like direct voting, but it's a HELL of a lot better than someone winning california 51/49 (a statistical tie), yet getting all 55 of their electoral votes. in such a case, it looks as if everyone in a state voted for one guy and no one voted for the other, when in fact it is 180 degrees from the truth.

the problem with the democratic primary system is, as is often the case with democrats, the system is more fair, more rational, and more progressive, but not more effective. it might be giving us a false positive, and leading us down a path in the election labyrinth from which we cannot unwind ourselves in the fall. the reason that this measurably more fair primary system won't lead to a better result is simply because it's not practical. it's theoretical advantage is evaporated because the exercise is not writ on paper, it's duked out in the real world. and in the real world, the general election is based on a fracked-up system of gerrymandering that we've been hobbled with since men wore wigs, and until it changes, democrats need to get real if they wanna win in november. we should nominate NOT the person who can win a slim majority of the overall vote, but the one who is best suited to leverage the eccentricities of the electoral system. by this standard, maybe hillary should be the nominee. it's a tough call either way, but it seems a little nuts to choose a course for the general election where we KNOW the numbers will be against us.

so like i said, thanks to the author for bringing to light some important, possibly game-changing ideas. the problem i see with the article is the double standard he assigns to the MOTIVES of the obama campaign's tactics. it should go without saying that all campaigns should be allowed to act in their own self interest, so i don't understand how they should be punished for focusing on rules that will help them come out on top. and certainly the democratic national committee screwed up in the way they handled FL and MI. but come on. making comparisons between the obama campaign exercising their right to pursue self-interest with the nefarious machinations of the original mayor dailey's crooked chicago machine as they manipulated election after election is just sophomoric, sensationalist writing. it's also bullshit to fault/blame obama's campaign for being sticklers for the "artificial" rules of the primary, when it would be hillary leveraging a different set of artificial rules for the general election (the electoral college itself) should she make it that far. and finally, let's remember that the obama campaign IS ahead in the popular vote, which means it's not nuts for them to think they are resonating with american voters, and doing the right thing in trying to put their candidate into the general. ultimately, it might not bear fruit for the party, but you can't knock them for fighting the good fight. the winner-take-all system of the general election is what's undemocratic and broken, not the obama campaign's motives or ethics.

that's all for now.