Then in the fall we'd get to see another article like this about how she would have won the election if only the rules were different.

I've rarely seen such a piece of twisted drivel here on Salon outside the letters columns. If this is what Hillary's supporters are reduced to arguing, then she really should drop out. I've thought she should stay in, but this article makes a compelling case that she's got no hope and isn't adding anything to the process any more.

It is also amusing to hear proportional allocation of votes described as "anti-democratic". I suggest you go tell 99% of the other democracies in the world that they're doing it wrong. It'd even be a better use of your time than whining in print that your candidate is losing and has no hope of prevailing.

And if you're going to list the things Obama has done that seem like they're less than 100% on the up and up, you might want to include the many instances of Clinton doing similar or worse things, you know like agreeing about Michigan and Florida until she thought she'd benefit and then parsing her words to pretend that's not what she meant at all?

Shame she learned from the worst of her Husbands time in office. I have yet to see if she's learned from the best.

Wilentz has a Bushian, or if you like a Fordian view of democracy - you can have it in any color, as long as it's the one HE chooses. First, our time-honored winner-take-all system is profoundly UNdemocratic; if you live in California or New York or Utah this November, the outcome is a given and your vote basically doesn't matter. Second, caucuses are arguably more democratic than primaries, as they allow people to discuss and debate the issues of the day. Just because they don't feature in our presidential elections, doesn't mean they're undemocratic! Finally, skirting past a bit of selective poll-choosing, I'm wondering why a candidate should be chosen on the basis of whether an early survey indicates they may do better against the other guy half a year down the line. Surely it's in the interest of the Democratic Party to choose someone electable. But if there are serious doubts that Obama can win, surely superdelegates will abandon him in droves. There's nothing wrong with that, or with most of them backing Obama and putting him over the top - it's just another form of democracy, and in fact it's the one that this particular process is being played out under.

I'm going to have to print this article out and frame it. Thank you, Sean Wilentz!

This cycle is different than 1968 and 1980 and political pundits need to make it clear that in 1980, Carter had far more delegates than Kennedy, a situation that is not the case today when the two candidates are neck and neck. In fact, Clinton will likely have the popular vote by the end of it, as long as the Obama supporters are unable to suppress voters for her.

Also in 1980, people were disaffected with Carter, there was stagflation, and the Irah hostage crisis. So there is no parallel today.

Donna Brazile and Howard Dean and the rest need to chill out, and they need to let Michigan and Florida vote, and count the Washington primary voters as well. This is a democrazy.

To win in November the Democrats need to win the Electoral College, pure and simple. Sean's analysis is correct and Obama will not won the College and we will all experience W's third term. The point must be that the Democrats need to change their nomination process to look more like the general election (and like the Republican process is). It picks the candidate that can win the general election. Isn't that the point, to win the general election anyway?

The writer is assuming that a winner-take-all system makes sense. True democracy would be based on total popular vote. If that were the case, Obama would probably still win (even with Fla/Mich redos). A 700,000 vote lead is not chump change (as the writer implies). As Clinton's stock continues to plummet, her wins will become more narrow and Obama's positive margins will broaden. This will enable Obama to hold on to the popular vote...The bottom line is that the system is what it is. Clinton knew the rules, and she got torched for running a 15 state campaign. It's not the # of states that she's lost, (in this system) it's the margins she has lost them by.

Obama supporters like to crow that Obama really won Texas. Every time they say it, I resolve more deeply to vote for McCain if it comes to it. My parents, 86 and 88, had to make a big effort to get an absentee ballot to vote for HRC. No way they could attend a caucus. And they were scarcely unique. So Obama supporters puff and scream, Obama won Texas!! Every time they say it, I am reminded of the disenfranchisement of my parents--their votes did not determine the allocation of delegates--and I am reminded while I listen to Obama delegates celebrate their disenfranchisement. You can imagine there is no way I am going to vote for this in the fall. Perhaps Obama supporters figure they'll dead before long, so who cares? Maybe so, but I won't vote for that.

These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process

Party reforms resulting from the 1968 Democratic National Convention brought new rules, which opened the Democratic Party to broader representation from women and minorities. The new rules also changed the Democratic primary system to proportional winners, increasing the democracy of the process.

Thus, while the Repub's "winner take all" system delivers a clear nominee early, the Dems' fractional allocation system plods on and on, with its defenders bloviating on how "democratic" it is.

Fair enough! But then you can't screech it's time to halt when the fractionally benefitting candidate is only fractionally ahead, and all the states have not voted yet. You cannot dictate Hillary must quit and take those votes away because of your whacky fractional allocation win system!

In other words, The Democrats cannot have it both ways by first allowing voters to participate (with such extreme dedication to being represented) and then, when the going gets tough, putting a lid on the process.

After being brave enough to put forward the first viable black and female presidential candidates in the history of this country, the Democrats cannot panic or falter now. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama should drop out until a decisive victory can be claimed.

Call it "getting what you wished for"!

In a sane Dem system (e.g. what existed prior to 1968) HRC would be the nominee by now, and Barack might be begging for the veep position.