... none of the criticisms explains away the most relevant issue: winning the general election.

Well, some of us have addressed that, but with a thousand letters it's probably hard to wade through.

Winning the general election is the most salient issue, bar none. But Wilentz doesn't address it any more persuasively than his critics. All he offers is the (more or less) coincident facts that Clinton has won primaries in states that would also, were she to win them in the general election as well, give her the White House.

But there is nothing — nada, zero, zilch — that says that winning the primary election means winning the general.

Yes, Wilentz cites statistical evidence that shows that Clinton would win in a general election if it were held today, but the point is that it's not being held today — and it's hard to take general-election polling data seriously in April, before either party has even had a convention.

So it seems that the burden of proof is on Wilentz and his supporters to show how the evidence he cites is particularly meaningful.

I think all this article is pointing out is how the Democratic primary process differs from the general election and the conflicts that creates. It's a bit of a perfect storm in this particular election. Many here are in an instant froth because they read it to mean that Hillary is trying to change the rules and steal the election.

Both candidates are attempting to interpret the rules as it suits their purposes (I think that's called "politics"). But the Party must consider who is the strongest candidate and that is rather complicated right now, no matter how much you'd rather it weren't. Which is exactly why the super delegates exist and there is plenty of historical info out there regarding that.

I don't see that Wilentz is advocating changing the rules in mid Election as so many are so freaked out about, he is simply laying out the issues - they are complicated and worth considering. Stop being so frightened of every little thing. These are not earth shaking ideas to anyone who has bothered to consider it for five minutes.

I thought the article might be compelling until I checked the math. According to electoral-vote.com (run by an American computer scientist in Amsterdam), in the Electoral College right now McCain leads Obama 268-261, with Colorado (9) a toss-up. That's not a sure defeat for Obama. But McCain wins against Hillary 273-265, even though Hillary gets Florida. Why? Because she loses all of the "little states" with more electoral votes per voter (senators count more.)

electoral-vote.com uses a fairly sophisticated and intelligent algorithm to combine all the recent polls to construct its electoral college map.

Finally, all of this handwringing over "if you assume X, Hillary wins" is nonsense. Obama is winning because he got operations on the ground in every state -- even Alaska -- in an unprecedented grassroots campaign. He trounced Hillary in every caucus. This is because Obama didn't just assume anything, he figured out what the rules were, played by the rules (and used them to his advantage) and has all but won the election. Democrats should have learned how that works in 2000.

Sheesh! When are the Clinton people going to climb down from their cloud and face reality? If Sean is correct, then it is clear that Hillary is running in the wrong primary with the wrong party, and the wrong opponent.

She should have been running in the Republican primary which has a winner take all system. Then she would have been able to duke it out with a bunch of losers like Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and yes, McCain. As it is she is stuck with facing a winner.

"naively optimistic

I've been reading these threads off and on for a while now but have refrained from posting because my sensitive nature keeps me from wanting to be ridiculed for my support of one of the candidates. The level of personal vitriol is very disturbing. However, I am cautiously optimistic -- probably naively so -- that when the general election rolls around, all of the supposed democrats on this thread will rally around the democratic candidate and return us to the White House. Please prove me right.

-- theoptimist "

Where were teh clinton moderate "democrats" the last 10 years? While the rest of us were fighting the gop, what were you moderates doing? were you fighting bush and the gop's destruction of america? No. So you weren't there when it mattered.

So you provided no help, what did the clinton di fi moderates do during those ten years? YOU ENABLED BUSH AND THE GOP. You voted with bush and his cronies ( who had mabye one or two republcains NOT VOTE with their borg. they didn't have to. the gop had you clinton di fi moderates to vote for with them).

so you didn't fight them when it mattered. Rather you enabled them. So what side are you clinton di fi rockafeller moderates now, during the election? Are you siding with the movement or rush limbaugh sean hannity and the fascist gop cult?

But your still "democrats"? How so? If you are part of the OPPOSITION party, when are you going to stop voting and fighting with the gop? When?

Clinton and her sell-outs are not democrats anymore. You are now republcains. Not because I say so. But by yoru words and actions. If you don't want to be republcains anymore, I have an idea. Stop fighting with them instead of against them. Stop using their arguments. Quit fearing what they may or may not say. Quit blogging and talking to the dittoheads as the lone abitor of politics in america.

there is a new democratic party. Much of it is free from gop sabotage, but there are still old schoolers in there. One party people. Two sides of the ame fascist coin. I'll treat clinton supporters like freainds and democrats/progressives/liberals WHEN THEY START ACTING LIKE IT. I've been waiting 10 long years for clinton and her media to do something, other than bow to the gop cult. Still waiting.

Some of us won't wait forever. Steal the election gop, with your one party government. Do it. think about the future. If you do that next time we'll be talking about a thrid party (as both parties are under control of the gop). And I think the movement will be less interested in compromise at that point.

your scared of change now? Steal the election, gop (clinton propogandists included). Then talk to me again in four years. Your whining now, after full control all these years? Compromise. Majority rule. Only elementary school children get everything they want all the time. Grow-up gop. Your time is up. you had your chance (clinton included). You wasted it. Now back in the basement for a generation