Sean -

Might it also be possible "if" the Democratic nominating process were run a different way then the Obama strategists might have run a different campaign. No offense but the failure of the Clinton campaign was not the system but the management. She had the most recognizable brand name in politics and she and her campaign failed time after time to capitalize on it. The campaign made assumptions about "it will be over by Super Tuesday" and had no plan for when it wasn't. Penn was allowed to follow his micro-trend theory long after it was proven it wasn't working.

You don't win by saying if the rules were different or the filed was in better shape we'd be winning. You win by adjusting. Hillary didn't adjust and so she now finds herself behind.

Perhaps I'm too simple, but Sean Wilentz seems to suggest that Clinton is behind in the popular vote but if the system made sense would get the nomination. Am I missing something here?

So Obama's side is castigated for being a stickler to the rules? The rules were in place before the primary season began. Florida and Michigan flouted the rules, and were punished. Had they wanted their states' votes to count then they could have adhered to the rules. Although Florida was iffy, Clinton won in Michigan because she was the only one on the ballot. Obama and the others followed the rules and she did not.

What Mrs. Clinton's forces are suggesting is similar to a case in which spring training in baseball does not count, but, retroactively, if your team, by putting in its best players, has a good spring then, lo and behold, let's now count those games in the final standings. Sorry, Hillary, but, regardless of the author's thoughts, rules are rules and cannot be changed in the middle.

Seriously, did someone hit Wilentz on the head with a stupid stick?

So, we play a game of basketball, and I lose by 3 points and the other team has scored 15 points on long range bombs. So I say: "Well, if 3 point shots were only worth 2 points I would have won."

True enough. But if 3 points shots were only worth 2 points, my opponant probably would have not tried to shoot from behind the line and would have looked for easier 2 points shots.

Put another way, if the rules were different the game would have been paid differently.

Now, if you assume that campaigns dont' matter, that they don't affect votes at all, I guess Sean makes some sense. But if you believe that campaigning does matter, isn't it fair to assume that the candidates would deploy their resourses differently. That they would take different shots?

BO is likely to lose Pennsylvania. Under a winner take all system he might well skip the state totally to focus on, say, North Carolina. But because this is proportional, it makes sense for him to try to narrow the gap and play for the delegates. Thats the way the system works.

Assuming the results would be the same if the rules were different is just silly. This also applies to Florida and Michigan. Any doubt that BO would have done better in Michigan if, say, he had been on the ballot? As for Florida, HRC won bigger there than anywhere that wasn't home turf for her. Why? No campaigning. Who knows what would have happened if the candidates had engaged there.

You know, if you look at something from enough angles you can find a way to say you are ahead. So back to a sports metaphore - if I am leading for 58 minutes of a football game, and the opponant overtakes me on a final drive, I can always say that I really won because I was ahead for most of the game. The rules say different, but what the heck.

This is like the "electoral college" theory being pushed by HRC's camp. But of course if this was the game Puerto Rico would't get to vote, would they? And the small states would get more pull than the big ones, per capita.

Lets all just take a breath. There is a contest in place, and there are rules. And whoever wins by the rules, wins. And if HRC wins because the Supers vote for her, she wins. As long as we dont' change the rules late in the game we are fine. No one on the BO side has said that the rules re the Supers should be changed. Just like HRC they have argued what factors Supers should consider in making their decision, and thats fine. But this is not the same as admitting results of elections that were deemed invalid at the outset.

Get real.

Even though Obama supporters think Hillary wants to change Rules it is Obama and his campagn breaking all the Rules in this election. This is my first time voting and participating in the elections and what I have seen from party leaders at local levels is just plain fraud to get him the delegates. I am from Texas and yes we had the famous two step process which has been a nightmare to say the least and complete murder of democracy to say the truth. How I know, I have been a member of Rules comittee prior to the county convention and also the tabulation comittee at the convention. Was the Precinct Secretary for the precinct convention. There has been breaking of Rules left and right through out the process in 95% of the precincts. There are major cases of voter intimidation, disenfranchisement and breaking of convention Rules. As part of the tabulation comittee, we were asked to tabulate the result from precinct convention instead of county convention where hillary supporters were disenfranchised, initmidated and so Obama was in Lead. The challenges by Clinton supporters were thrown out on trivial bases but major precinct convention rules were broken to seat Obama delegates. This is a major fraud where the wrong result is declared knowlingly by a Precinct secretary. It is so undemocratic that I am disgusted with democratic party and feel like throwing up to see so much corruption upclose. I know most Obama supporters will just ignore this or find some excuse but I just want to say that nothing what I have written is a lie. I was very excited to vote in this election when I got my citizenship and would have had not problems if Obama was winning fairly but the truth is that this is not true at all. If there is any justice in the God's book then he will not win the nomination and that is all I can say. I am sad to say that lot of democrats are going to be very upset here in Texas after the elections because what Obama camp and the democratic party has done here in precinct and county conventions is not fair at all and by no means played by the Rule. Obama campaign has broken too many Rules and Hillary Campaing has not. I have seen it first hand so I know Obama is really a two faced, double talking politician of the worst kind.