If you write such an artcle in the least you have to declare you are a Clinton supporter for us to understand the blatant bias. Michigan and Florida overstepped the rules by holding their primaries outside the time frames allowed by the DNC. In any contest, sports or whatever, the rules are there to be used! If Obama won do you seriously think Clinton would want a rerun of the primaries?

the five minutes back it took me to read this one-sided piece of nonsense, I'd be a richer person for it.

If Dwight Clark were an inch shorter, The Catch never would have happened.

If Jack Tatum hadn't tried to decapitate Frenchy Fuqua, The Immaculate Reception never would have occurred.

If a picture paints a thousand words, then why can't I paint you?

If Sen. Clinton and her team hadn't bought into the false notion that her nomination were inevitable, she'd probably be in much better shape, playing by the rules that all candidates were aware of before the nominating process began.

If Sen. Clinton were running a better campaign, she would have used the momentum she had from her March 4 victories to propel her to victory in Wyoming and a respectable showing in Mississippi, neither of which came close to happening.

If Sen. Obama could bowl better, he'd be white like me.

If Sen. Clinton has any sense of shame, that whole "celestial choirs will be singing" bit she did several weeks ago will haunt her all the days of her life.

If Sen. Clinton had been playing by the rules, her name never would have been on the Michigan ballot, and she wouldn't have been fundraising in Florida in the days prior to that state's faux primary.

If Michigan and Florida had played by the rules, Obama likely would have won Michigan, and Clinton would likely have won Florida, and everything would be as it is now, anyway.

Voting for Obama in the April 22 primary and the Nov. 4 general election will be the two proudest votes of my life. There are no "ifs" about that.

Playing fast and loose with the primaries, delegates, superdelegates and outcomes, whining about "stolen election results" and petulant hypocrisy in general by the Obamatons is precisely why I oppose his candidacy. They pretend to eschew "politics as usual" and then proceed to operate exactly so. The Obamatons do nothing but whine and bitch if they don't get their way...procedure and established rules be damned.

For those reasons, plus my unease at Obama's inexperience, I am going to do whatever it takes that is legal, ethical and moral to ensure his defeat. Then, in 2012, we can try again with a new candidate.

By 2012, I hope the D.N.C. will have learned its lesson and will drop caucuses, proportionally-distributed delegates AND superdelegates in favor of winner-take-all primaries only. Perhaps then we will have a sensible and intelligent method of choosing a candidate...and, those self-inflicted wounds in our feet will have healed.

The headline and teaser are enough to call bulls**t on this article. Personally I like Hillary, but this is the kind of stunt and attitudes that made me ticks Obama's box, not hers. If anything it shows (not for the first time, by far) that Hillary's people are often as defensive and single-mindedly determined that THEY are the ones as bad as the Bush admin. The only "fair" way seems to be their way. It's a peep into the contentious environment that will rule if Hillary wins.

What makes a winner take all system "more fair" than one of proportional representation of votes? Don't be stupid.

This is a real question: What was your point by writing that long post? I know you are a Clinton supporter but you sound almost paranoid.

Ana, you obviously have some educational background and you read. Come on now. You imply by your post that it's Obama's FAULT that he has worked the system so well. If you know about or read about politics, you should know how hard that is for an outsider and, compared to Clinton, Obama IS an outsider.

As for Wilentz, get real. I'd like to be 5 inches taller and have the ability to eat chocolate with impunity but I'm not. I work out daily and frequently need tailored clothing because I live in a world known as REALITY. I live with what is, not with what I want things to be. That's delusional?

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Wilentz's arguments, but everybody should see it for what it is -- not so much scholarly erudition as being in the tank for the Clinton campaign.

Hack, hack. Pardon my cough.

When I was a cub reporter, I covered election night with an old pro. He got me to understand how things work -- which results were important, which early lead was not big enough to hold through the night, how each district voted for the last 50 years, what had changed about the demographics. It was a light going on, and suddenly, I'd watch the numbers come in and see the drama in them through the old guy's eyes. And without exception, he was right. This 20,000 edge didn't last because the rural votes were coming in, and the margin disappeared as it always had for the last 25 years.

I'm afraid the same thing is happening here. It seems that Obama will win the nomination. But his candidacy is a lot more frail than it seems to his admirers. His wins have indeed come in places where a small bunch of activists can make a difference. He's won the deep south by a lot, and I can't believe he'll take a single state in the general, though I hope I'm wrong. He "won" Texas by losing by about 70,000 votes. And likely McCain takes Texas anyway. Just because he's their kind of guy.

I know that reading a map like this is weird and probably corrupt and insider and all, but it's also how you win. And the last time I remember hearing Professor Wilentz was "ruining his reputation" was when he was of the opinion that the Clinton impeachment was wrong, and all the conservative jackals laughed and smirked at him. And the last candidate who was so bitter about Krugman's criticisms was named George W. Bush.