And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

You seem to be saying that Obama exploited the current system to his advantage. Shame on him! I thought it was about winning not whining. If Clinton had a 50 plan instead of a 20 state plan, If she had ran her campaign compentently, If she hadn't misspoke so many times, If she hadn't voted for the Iraq War, If she had actually opposed Nafta from the start openly, If she actually fired Mark Penn before we got to the critical union voting state of PA, If she hadn't known about Mr Penn's many compromised positions from the start, If she had taken a stand on Fla & Mich when the DNC penalties were announced instead of saying "It's clear their votes aren't going to count for anything", then maybe she might have a leg to stand on. Instead you want us all to believe that she's being cheated and get caught up in the fairy tale, make believe, If only I had a do over. She's responsible for her lack of support and a trip to Fantasy Land will not change that.

If the system were winner-take-all, Axelrod would have engineered a winner-take-all strategy and Obama would still be far ahead. Enough with this sour grapes idiocy.

Here's the heart of the matter unexamined by Professor Wilentz but is clearly implied in the headline.

The Democratic nominating process was supposed to be a coronation march for Senator Clinton culminating Super Tuesday when all residual opposition to her nomination would simply fade away.

That did not happen. Senator Obama was able to combine the self-evident intelligence and thoughtfulness, the fresh message of hope and change and an American political landscape sorely lacking in the former and paralyzed on the latter and the charismatic personality (including substantial rhetorical skills) and the ability to raise gobs and gobs of money on the internet.

And suddenly Senator Clinton, lacking a Plan B to the coronation march, was scrambling to catch up which she has failed to do.

What has been her strategy in this matter? Firstly, she has sought to diminish Senator Obama's candidacy by extolling the virtues which she seems to share with the mainstream media of the ancient right-wing war hawk who has emerged from the Republican selection process.

And, secondly, as indicated by the title of Professor Wilentz'

article, Senator Clinton has decided that the campaign rules that suited her just fine when the coronation march was launched now must be changed must be changed to accommodate her failing candidacy.

The first matter brings into question Senator Clinton's commitment to the Democratic Party. Does she accept the four more years is a small price for America and the World to pay if it positions her to pick up the pieces as the Democratic front-runner in 2012?

And the second matter brings into question the genuineness of her commitment to small-d democracy. Democracy is about process not outcomes but Senator Clinton's candidacy spits on the process because it does not produce a satisfactory outcome. That is what Florida in 2000 was all about and it is what the Clinto campaign has become.

This article is as absurd as, if only whites were allowed to be candidates, then Clinton would be the nominee.

Why can't people follow rules? or change the rules before the game starts.

Absurd article.

I'm really stunned you guys published this article. It amounts to nothing more than a pro-Clinton propogranda piece, chock-full of hypotheticals and unsubstantiated attacks on Obama's campaign. Until now, I'd felt that Salon had been fairly neutral in this debate, but now I'm going to be looking at your articles with a more jaundiced eye.

It is unfortunate we still have people like you in this generation when things have to move on and forget about old politicians like Clintons. We are looking at new ways of getting things done. Not old politicians that plays politics of bitterness. Who could put down the reputation of others in other to get what they want. The way Clinton is doing. Crying, telling lies and host of others. You know it and I do not need to say it all here.

I am shock to know that when a woman's husband does a job, the wife automatically has the experience. So as a medical doctor, my wife should be able to carry out operation because I discuss it with her.

It is time to face realities and tell Clinton to accept it in good faith. There is nothing new in Obama defeating her though he is an under dog but he is the person that the general public want. He has more people contributing to his caimpagn fund and widely distributed across the country. She should give the young man the support he needs to winner the republicans for the general election.

Wilentz testified before Congress for Bill Clinton during the impeachment, giving testimony that the NYT said was a "gratuitously patronizing presentation." Sound familiar? Maybe you should look outside your own comfort zone.

Wilentz blames the DNC for the stand-off in Fla & Mich. The blame must be on the political parties in these two states. They violated the rules. What was the DNC to do? Agree to what these two states wished and surrender any power over the state committees? Why then even have a DNC? With regard to the votes in these states, in no way can it be assumed that the Clinton-Obama breakdown in Michigan would be the same as the Clinton-uncommited breskdown. If both candidates would have had their names on the ballot and would have campaigned there, Obama might well have won. In Florida, if campaigning there would have been allowed, Obama would have done better than he did. In every state, the more Obama campaigned, the better he did. At the start, Clinton's name was much better known than Obama's. The whole process, with primaries/caucauses scheduled earlier than ever before, favors the initially best known candidate. A better system needs to be developed. If there is to be a "super-Tuesday", it should be held much later in the primary season.