The facts of Barack Obama's victories (over one-third coming from caucus votes, only one electoral college delegate rich state won, far too many victories in states that will vote Republican anyhow) stand starkly in contrast to the desire most Salon readers have - that a Democrat take office to fix the mess the current President will leave. It is a truly a shame that men and women of good character and honest intent cannot see what will become glaringly obvious in the later part of this year: Obama can't win. Reagan Democrats, who are vital to our victory, have shown that they will vote for Clinton - but, sadly, they won't vote for Barack. It is my hope that the enthusiasm and vitality that people bring to the Obama campaign is later used to settle, once and for all, the incredible unresolved racial tension in this country that will, in large part, doom his campaign.

This may be the dumbest thing written about the 2008 election.

If the rules had been different, i.e. winner take all primaries, Obama would have run a different race. A smart candidate, like Obama, looks at the rules, figures out how best to win, and then devises a strategy to accomplish that goal. To assume he would have run exactly the same kind of strategy had the rules been different is stupid. No other way to put.

If it were winner-take-all, Barack Obama would have campaigned in New York and California for a year not Iowa and New Hampshire. Look at the polls in those two big states, now. I can only conclude that your argument is that if nothing in the world made sense then Clinton would win.

More than a year ago, the DNC, lead mostly by backers of HRC, established the rules that would govern the process of nominating its presidential candidate. HRC and Obama then put in place strategies to win the nomination in accordance with those rules. Based on those rules, Obama has built a lead that is now insurmountable. The premise of your letter--that under a different set of rules, HRC would have wrapped up the nomination--is foolish. Don't you think that in a winner-take-all primary system, Obama's team would have adopted and implemented a different strategy? Thus, it is only fair to test the performance of each candidate against the system that was in place and under which each was bound to operate.

were obviously made for each other and virtually guarantees a loss in the general election.

Why is Obama against a re-vote in MI and FL?

Why did Obama campaign and support for the uncommitted candidate in MI?

Why did he break the rules in FL and advertise there.

Why is he for rules when they favor him and against the rules when they don't?

If Obama had ethics he would act ethically but why after Obama slips and falls in the mud, so many people are convinced it is the next best thing and so fall in line to slip and fall into the mud as well?

Alrighty then we are suppose to agree with this silly recess argument that Hillary would have won at tetherball if she was ready, the sun wasn't in her eyes, her shoelace didn't come untied and the boys had been nicer. She is one of those playground bullies that whines until the rules are changed so she can get what SHE wants. She'd still be a cheater and not very popular and at lunch she'd have to hunt to find someone to sit with. If you can actually believe any of the gobblie-gook in this article and say yeah it all makes sense to me...then are we saying that we just throw the whole primary season out the window and the 76 million already spent and just start over? That sounds like a simple little idea! What dear sir do you have in mind? Sounds like a spoiled brat kid that you see in the grocery store throwing a hissie fit when they don't get their way. So we should just all give in and let the little darling have her way and then everyone can happily return to their lives. I don't think so. Sorry Hillary rules are rules. Games start and then they finish. Stay in the race if you like but lose you will. Whine, stamp your feet,hold your breath, throw a freakin tantrum, you dear Hillary still won't win. Take the red second place ribbon and pin it up on your kitchen bulletin board and get over yourself.

This is a completely fallacious article. The Obama campaign has done a good job a playing with the rules as established. If the campaign was done with "winner take all" primaries, Obama could have also campaigned differently, and perhaps there would have been a different outcome. This scenario is just as plausable as the ludicrous one put forward by the author. If the rules were different, there is no was to know what the outcome might have been at this date.

Personally, I think it a good thing that delegates are not being selected on a "winner take all" basis. This enfrachises far more voters and districts, and better pushes the idea that there are key constituencies in all 50 states.

However, I am of the opinion that a mix of caucuses and primaries is not beneficial, and that it would be better to only have primaries. That said, one playes by the system they have, not the one they wish for. Obama's campaign has done that well, and one should not cry about the rules because one didn't figure out how to use them as well as their oppponent.

The premise of Mr. Wilentz's article is nonsense. Contending that Clinton would have won the nomination if Democrats chose their nominee under a winner-take-all primary system is meaningless, even on a theoretical level. In the same way, it is meaningless to say that Gore would have won the presidency in 2000 if we selected our president based upon the popular vote.

There are two reasons for this.

First, candidates formulate their campaign strategies based upon the system that actually exists, not upon the system that they'd prefer it to be. There is every reason to believe that the candidates' campaign strategies -- where to spend their advertising dollar, where to make personal appearances, what parts of their messages they choose to highlight, etc. -- would have been entirely different had the rules of the nomination been different. Would Obama have spent more money, more time, more energy in California under a winner-take-all system? Almost certainly. Would that have made the difference? We simply cannot know.

Second, the actual system in place affects voter conduct and turnout. Consider, for example, Massachusetts -- a solidly Democratic state in presidential elections. If I'm a Massachusetts Republican, I know the chances are slim to none that my party will capture Massachusetts. Similarly, if I'm a Massachusetts Democrat, I know my party likely has the state in its pocket. In either case, I'm less likely to vote, particularly if I find myself busy on election day.

The Democratic party chose a system that awards delegates proportionately. Both remaining candidates knew this and presumably formulated their strategies based upon the system that actually exists, and not he system Mr. Wilentz feels "makes sense."

Oh, and by the way Mr. Wilentz, if the nomination process "made sense" -- that is, if the nomination were awarded based upon a national popular vote -- Obama would still be ahead. Right?