Should be:

... according to which Obama is guilty by virtue of being too pragmatic in conflating electability with democracy;

I am confused as to the author's focus on the delegate count and the accuracy with which it represents American democracy. Barack Obama's current lead in the delegate count is 4.3% (1637 to 1502), which is highly comparable to his 2.6% lead in the popular vote (13,355,209 to 12,638,123, figures according to www.realclearpolitics.com). Using the author's proposed framework, Hillary Clinton's delegate lead would be 15.5% (1,743 to 1,257).

Is the author's thesis really that a Clinton delegate lead of 15.5% more accurately reflects the 2.6% popular vote lead of Obama than does his actual delegate lead? Sadly, it appears that the answer is "yes" via something like the logic of Florida 2000--that the expressed preference of voters is subservient to the electoral system. Except that in this case, of course, the electoral system is producing a winner consistent with the popular vote.

Sean Wilentz' is an interesting, insightful examination of some important details, but its selectiveness is one of its chief weaknesses. Nowhere in his article is this clearer than in the conclusion to his argument, where in two successive paragraphs he argues that:

Obama has tried to reinforce his democratic bona fides by asserting his superior electability...The polls, however, show otherwise.

and then that:

According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination.

So according to Wilentz, the Obama campaign should be judged by two distinct and mutually exclusive criteria:

* a moral criterion, according to which Obama is guilty by virtue of being too pragmatic in conflating electability; and

* a pragmatic criterion, according to which Obama is guilty by virtue of not being pragmatic enough in assessing his electability.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Wilentz' criticism fails on two counts, both related to consistency. One is the aforementioned attempt to use a preponderance of small criticisms to imply a preponderant failure — even when many of the small criticisms contradict one another. As another example of this rhetorical fallacy, consider the following argument: "I didn't take your car, how would I know where your spare key was, and anyway you weren't using it."

The other way in which it fails is that, of course, many of the same accusations (disingenuity as to what constitutes greater "democracyness," a desire to win above all else, etc) may be leveled at the Clinton campaign, or, indeed, any political campaign. Those who run for office without focusing on winning have a tendency to lose. It's to the Democrats' great benefit that they have two extremely aggressive campaigners to choose from in 2008 — instead of the usual zero.

But entirely aside from Sean Wilentz' study of the trees of the Democratic primary, he's missing the forest. The same argument he makes about electability math was made against Dean's "50 state" strategy in 2006, Bush in 2000, the radical Republicans in 1994, and Clinton in 1992. You must, the argument goes, guarantee your winnable states and then shore up the swing states that lean your way. Radical inroads into the other team's home turf are not practical and not possible.

Yet in every one of those cases — and by contrast to the careful, stolid campaigns of Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, and Dole in 1996, to name a few — even though the conventional argument appeared to make sense, it was wrong. Within the Democratic party this debate has been ongoing for over 15 years now, between what you might call the Whigs — process-oriented, interest-based, systematic strategists — and the Tories — those whose support for candidates is on a case-by-case basis, specific to single individuals whose personal gifts represent a strategic calculus unto themselves.

One can certainly argue for or against either of these viewpoints on their merits, and certainly any winning campaign must be an intersection of candidate and cold calculation. Wilentz does a fine job of constructing a theoretical defense of the Whiggish perspective. Seriously, flaws notwithstanding it's some of the best writing that Salon has had on the subject of the Democratic campaign.

But the fact of the matter is that politics is science, not math — and no matter what blackboard proof you offer, in the laboratory of modern American presidential politics the Tories win every time. Period.

Thank you for writing this article. I have been wondering why no one in the press has jumped on the fact that Obama, a Democrat advocating for change, want to exclude votes from two populous states. (The states also have high averages of balck voters, which makes his opposition to counting their votes even more puzzling.)

After the 2000 presidential election, many voters felt even more disenfranchised than before. If the entire state of Florida could be compromised, then perhaps any vote (alll votes?) could be compromised. The Democrats took up the anthem "every vote counts, and every vote gets counted" in 2004. Have we completely abandanoned that objective? I haven't. No one I know has. Everyone wants their vote to mean something.

Ok, so Michigan and Florida broke the rules with the elections. That doesn't mean that the appropriate response is to disenfranchise all of the innoncent voters who were simply fulfilling their civic duty. The fact that Obama doesn't want those votes to count means one thing: he is not a serious advocate for the disenfranchised, for changing the system. He is a rigid rule follower--when it suits him--at the expense of democracy. I am glad that Salon has taken note.

Salon is SO committed to Hillary - Well, HIllary IS a woman, right Joan. So lets keep changing the rules until Hillary can win.

As Bill says, they keep picking on a girl. Fire up the feminists, hey Bill.

Or as Joan says, Hillary couldn't have lied about sniper fire.

The rules are put in place. The Clintons agree to them. They can't win under those rules...

so lets change the rules.

Salon, you have become disgusting.

It's interesting which letters get starred. If you're just reading the starred letters you'd get the impression that letters praising the courage of Wilentz and those criticizing the article have been received in roughly equal numbers. It's like the editors are desperate for letters which validate Wilentz's argument and resent that the educated readership previous editors have for years cultivated can expose the propagandistic tone of, and faulty logic in, this piece effortlessly.

The contempt the Salon editors under Walsh have for their readership astonishes. I agree with the commenter who said that the strengths of Salon have become Greenwald and a couple other things, things which, in any case, would exist without Salon. Ms. Walsh, if you think so little of the people who visit Salon, for whom, or what purpose, do you imagine you write?