It certainly appears that the Democrats need to revisit their nominating process, but it would be wrong, and stupid, to do it in the middle of the race.

The article is, as many have pointed out, a mostly conjectural and possibly biased piece written by a Clinton supporter. BUT, once point is indeed valid. Obama has won many states in the primary that he won't win in a general election. This is THE key point for the Democrats to consider in the future. Allocating large delegate counts to states in which they have no chance of winning in the general election is political suicide.

The Democratic Party has no obligation to allow non-Democrats to influence their choice of nominee. "Open" primaries are great for the news channels and pundits, but bad for a party that actually wants to nominate a viable candidate. The party primary process is not a part of our Consitutional system, and needs to be separated from state legislatures. The Florida Republicans caused the mess in the Democratic primary by forcing the early vote. The DNC should have said "F you" and held their primary when they wanted to.

This article seems to presume that had the process been a different one, then Senator Obama would not have altered his strategy. It is impossible to say whether or how things would have been different if the process was different, and debates about a hypothetical process are pointless. Further, arguing that because someone has won a big or "key" state (or a small one for that matter) it necessarily means that in a head to head competition with a member of the opposite party they will take that state not only is faulty logic, but it is flatly contradicted by history. Arguments like this only look desperate and grasping, and are as flawed as arguing that Hillary Clinton "won" a primary where Obama's name was not even included on the ballot.

If the Democrats don't like the process in place, they can complain to the powers that be - there are four years to tweak the system. But, of course, then, there will be new things to complain about.

Well, that's a little harsh. But when comments are willfully obtuse, when readers refuse to follow a logical argument, dismissing it as "emotional" (how, exactly, is this article emotional?), or refuse to read what Wilentz is saying about the system itself because the system has produced what they want and so (now) they endow it with spiritualist infallibility; I have to ask whether it's even worth trying to have a discussion in such a biased, Obama-besotted environment.

Back to the stories about his sonorous voice, his gorgeous smile, and those rays of light emanating from his head.

On what odd planet is what your "pastor" says more damning

than what you say? Snipergate should totally tank Clinton's campaign. It wasn't someone "misspeaking"(good

lord, what an Orwellian word--kind of like "what the meaning of is is"), it is the matter of a deliberate lie.

Why would anyone who holds truly Democratic values continue to support her? Does she get a pass from all

moral standards because "she is the first woman candidate"?

I know there are 275 letters already and this is unlikely to add much, but I could not resist expressing my disgust and disdain for this intellectually vapid, factually challenged and completely biased article.

The rules are the rules, who is Mr. Wilentz to determine if they are "democratic" or not? This is just bullshit of the lowest order to shill for the candidate he prefers (for God knows what reason since she is so blatantly and obviously inferior and a proven, baldfaced liar) with no logical or rational basis. His arguments are so silly and jejune and easily disproved that I won't take the time to either mock them or refute them here. I am sure others have done a more than adequate job of that.

If Salon must publish crap like this they need to look deeply into their own souls and prejudices.

I have put up with a lot over many (at least 7) years reading Salon and supported its diverse opinions and the right to, and wisdom to, publish them. I don't mind so much if Salon veers into rabid partisanship as regards to factions within the Democratic party during a primary season, although I also do not particularly enjoy it. That's politics. If I don't agree, that's my problem. But egregious pointless absurdities like the bad joke Mr. Wilentz has written tears it.

Goodbye.

You're kidding, right? The electoral college is not democratic, so why follow that model? Plus it does not follow that the candidate who wins the state primary will necessarily win that state in the general election. The more Hillary campaigns the worse she does. I think Obama will draw many more independents, Republicans and new voters in the general election. I personally have had much more Clintonism than I can bear, and will go with McCain rather than the entitled wife of the disgraced former Prez if, God forbid, it comes to that choice.

She PICKS the articles - and they are uniformly anti-obama. it isn't the usual adjective, but she is becoming a cranky old woman. what will she do when he becomes president? will she dry up Like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore? will salon be part of the disloyal opposition? or gracefully exit. i think that salon's finished with the current editor - too bad - i like Walsh, but she seemingly can't change with the times - boomer days are over!

HRC has seen up close and personal what being President entails; she knows the joys; she knows the sorrows; most of all she knows the ins and outs of local, national and international politics.

Barack Hussein Obama is a newbie to the American scene. He has no major accomplishments he can point to except his support for Wright; Wright is a racist, bigot and hater. He is a good talker even if he doesn’t say anything of substance. If I want to feel good I will take a Valium. After listening to a BHO’s speech I keep thinking, “where is the beef?”

I am a white retired male. Time we had a women running our affairs. America doesn’t need and untried rookie this time around. Send BHO back to the minors for more seasoning.