Those two states -- first of all, at least Florida -- was moved up by the legislatures of their states.

But also, in 2007, there seemed to be a rush to move up primaries. This is unlikely to happen again in the future. Why? They moved up their primaries because people were desperate to get rid of Bush.

If Bush and his wrong/right track numbers weren't so low, there would be far less interest in the primaries and moving them up.

So "punishing" states for doing this, to prevent them from doing it again, is unnecessary, if the country has a President it is basically happy with. States won't desperately be trying to move up their primaries in an effort to throw the current bum out.

Clinton supporters keep arguing large states.

this is a bogus argument.

States like New York and California are going to vote for a democrat regardless of the candidate. But, to move away from the failed 10 state strategy and grow the party you need to include and run in states not concidered blue. We have Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico and possibly even Georgia primed to vote democratic. With the big state strategy of the failed runs of 2000 and 2004, we lose these states.

Competing in them will most likely turn them blue.

Praying that Ohio and Florida will give you a win is a 50 percent chance at best. And if you don't win them, don't compete in other states then, kiss the nomination goodbye.

Obama is expanding our map and our party. Clinton is running an old fashioned out of date strategy and her arguments are so out of date.

But she didn't. http://adage.com/article?article_id=126201

Funny, that undemocratic system was good enough for Bill Clinton. Perhaps Hillary Clinton needed a handicapp.

The end of my post should have read: Perhaps Obama supporters figure people like my parents will be dead before long, so who cares? Maybe they will be, but I won't vote for a candidate whose supporters are gleefully anticipating their death. HRC cherishes old folks, and I know that's not phony, because I have seen in person her reverence for older men.

This is the worst, most embarrassingly pointless and shameless piece of absolute crap that I have seen published on Salon in my many years of (formerly compulsive but lately much more sporadic) readership. If I hadn't already let my premium membership expire due to my perception of a free-fall in content quality, I would surely cancel it outright after reading this particular piece.

Perusing the letters, I see that it has all been said already, so I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus of outrage and incomprehension. Anyone involved with the decision to publish this should be ashamed of him or herself. Salon, has it really come to this?

I echo the general tenor of the substantive criticisms of this piece.

And having gleaned information about Professor Wilentz from reading the many criticisms of his anti-Obama piece in The New Republic, I'm wondering why Salon would allow him to write this piece without disclosing that the New York Times has reported that he is a longtime friend of the Clintons and that he has endorsed Senator Clinton?

I suppose it's okay for candidate's supporters to write analytical pieces (Maureen Dowd seems to be getting away with it on the Obama side). However, I certainly put less stock in what someone's saying who is associated with a candidate, and I think it's highly unprofessional not to disclose such a relationship so that I can have that information while I'm reading the piece. Your editors fell down on the job here, Salon.

If the rules of the game were different, Senator Clinton would be winning. But that would be a different game.

Everyone understood and agreed upon the rules of this game when it began -- including the Democratic leadership of Michigan and Florida, who ought to be drummed out of the party.

This article is like saying "Clinton would be winning at snooker," when it's eight-ball they're playing. Possibly true, but so what?

Senator Clinton's campaign strategy was based on the idea that she'd have the nomination sewn up on Super Tuesday. That strategy didn't worry much about whether voters in the rest of the country would have the opportunity to make their voices heard.

And in Maine, at least, the caucuses were on a Sunday afternoon, and turnout set records. How is that undemocratic or discriminatory?

Anyone who is actually interested in altering a tactical issue with the Democratic primary system isn't going to talk about changing it this year, in the middle of this election, in terms of Clinton and Obama.

Just reminding everyone. There are many Obama voters who would be just as open to tweaking the system as there are Clinton voters. But it just isn't a factor this year -- you win the way you're supposed to win (raise money, bring turnout, craft a good message) and do the math for the match that you're in. It's a test of campaign competence as much as it's a test of a candidate's merit. You need both to win the general.

The Clinton campaign has been troubled. Either they misstated expectations badly in the beginning (by putting her as the 'front runner' when it seems pretty clear that HRC doesn't wear 'front runner' all that well) or they spent their money in the wrong states. Who knows. But you only get one try at these things and that stumble has partly explained Hillary's poll-drifting. You can't call yourself the toughest campaigner and then let someone blow past you with more donors and better organization.

He pretends that both candidates didn't know how the current system worked, and would campaign exaclty the same way in his system of choice. It's just more Clinton camp whining, like how rural states don't count, states with Black people don't count, states that aren't on a coast don't count, and Michigan is a swing state but Wisconsin isn't.

This article could just as easily have appeared in the onion. Wilentz, like many (but thankfully not all) of the Clinton campaign mouthpieces, is well-into self-parody territory.

If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts on the ground when they hopped.