Obama should stop blocking a revote in Florida and Michigan. A nominee chosen by the voters is a more credible nominee than one chosen by superdelegates. This is just common sense.

There is something about these obsessed and myopic "Hillaroids," that eerily reminds me of those imported busloads of Carl Rove's, "Stop The Recount" hell-raisers in Dade county, 2000.....Does anyone else get that feeling?

Salon, you've really lowered your standard with this sore-losing Mr. Wilentz's self-serving spin of utter garbage. He should be confined to writing for the "esteemed" (Just kidding,) "Herald Tribune," purveyor of the article from which he so desperately derives his Fla-Michigan theory. Funny to read that article now, after the mockery we have all seen Ms. Clinton make in the face of her prior remarks concerning respecting the pledge and ignoring those two states. Now of course, since she needs them for any possibility of a victory whatsoever, she has quite changed her tune. But that's typical....As typical as her views on NAFTA in fact. And blaming Obama for CNN & MSNBC airing campaign commercials? In fact, it was Hillary who ran directly to actually appear IN Florida in person for a sudden fundraiser, just long enough to pose in front of a palm tree right before the election (which wasn't supposed to count).....GOD I'm SO sick of this type of politics.

And that's exactly what has driven me from objectively considering Hillary, right into the arms of Obama.

The article by Sean Wilentz would carry more weight and be more believable, IF he were not a proclaimed Hillary supporter. Seems to me that an academic of his reknown would at least state that in his article and then allow the weight of his debate carry the arguement. Didn't happen here where his style can lead one to believe he is just stating facts of the system....hmmmm.

I've counted 35 post from new posters...roughly half for Obama, half for Clinton. (for some reason the Obama ones tend to be premium members)

Something is rotten here...what are you up to Salon? This is curious to say the least.

I've been a long time reader (back when Allen Barra did your sports column!) but man, if it turns out that you're stoking fires here with fake posters I'll seriously have to think about finding somewhere else to get my lefty news...

It is extremely unethical for them to run the piece with no preface regarding Wilentz's position as an avowed Clinton supporter.

Uh... Do you think they really needed to add that? He kind of speaks for himself, there, loud and clear.

"Is a supporter of X" doesn't, in and of itself, seem like a sufficient criticism of someone's argument against Y. In fact, it might be a tautology. (I don't really remember.)

Obama's strategy is to win. Hillary's is to whine and complain about the rules. If this were winner take all (not whiner take all), Obama would play harder in the "big" states. So while he spent very little time in California, for example, Obama would have focused a much larger amount of his time and treasure chest there. And if he pulled California, one other Super Tuesday big state and then NC, he'd be on top as he is now.

What-if's are fun... if you forget key elements like Obama plays to win, not to whine...

Careful Salon, you are messing with the Holy Shroud of Obama and his flock. They are likely to threaten you with "I'll never read your 'crap' again unless you agree full heartedly in the Obama Savior". As for me, well done! Finally a reality check on a clear democratic system failure where a caucus of 200 available warm bodies with flexible work schedules decide the Presidential candidate on behalf of the millions of hard working, elderly or disabled know-nothing schmucks.

And let's not kid ourselves, the entire article is one gigantic hypothetical, is that it requires Obama be the fixed point while everything else around him is allowed to change.

Why is Wilentz allowing himself to change the entire structure of the current Democratic voting process, allowing Hillary to react to things differently -- and not affording the same luxury to the Obama camp? Obama chose his strategy for winning the presidency based on the CURRENT party process.

Were the process different, there is absolutely no indication from this article that he would have worked things in the exact same way -- relying on caucuses, focusing on the smaller states, going for meager victories to keep things competitive; he likely would have approached the campaign from a completely different perspective.

To me, this is a strong enough problem with the article that it renders its entire point moot. I'm not sure why this merits Salon's usually excellent top-o'-t'-fold coverage.

I completely agree with kfm9321's comment about why obama supporters posting on this site should not be afraid of legitimate arguments in favor of clinton.

However, I would be tougher on this bunch. Given all the vitriol they have directed toward a distinguished Princeton professor (read: intelligent, thoughtful, reasoned, fair-minded, experienced), it would be safe to say that obama supporters here fall into roughly two groups:

Group #1: So drunk on kool-aid that they believe there is no room for or reason to engage in a healthy debate

or Group#2: They simply lack the reason, judgment, fair-mindedness, and intelligence required to understand what it actually means to debate and its importance in a democratic society

So much for that college degree, folks!

This is something that the superdelegates will have to weigh, especially if Clinton ends the primary with momentum.

Her electoral strategy is more solid than Obama's. In fact, her single biggest mistake was in underestimating his success in a primary.

Ironically, since Obama is not able to win the primary outright, the consequences might be a weakening of the party.

It is extremely unethical for them to run the piece with no preface regarding Wilentz's position as an avowed Clinton supporter. Unethical and dishonest. How very sad.