This is how the system works, and this is how they've been running them for a couple decades now. It may not the best way of running things, but it surely isn't Obama's fault.

Obama and Hillary have no choice but to follow with the rules the DNC established. To think that "transformative politics" means that Obama has a magical way of changing the way the system is set up, is just silly.

The premise too that a "winner takes-all" is somehow more democratic than a proportional vote is also a bit ridiculous. Even if winner takes all may be more like the general election, that doesn't then mean that it is the better way to choose a candidate and would be an accurate representation of how the general election would go. They are completely different contests.

I am also tired of people trying to blame anyone but the states for breaking the DNC's rulings. Everyone going into the election knew what would happen if Michigan and Florida moved up their contests. The candidates, the states, the party. They did it any way and the results were exactly what they were told would happen. And now people are trying to spin this however they can, even though we knew what would happen way before votes even started coming in.

The claiming electability based on the primaries is just something both campaigns use to garner votes but it isn't how voting actually plays out. First you have to consider the whole general election coverage/debates/smears, the quickly changing will of the people(as seen through this race), you have to consider independents and republican votes across the board, you have to consider that maybe these polls are reactionary during the divisive time (that creates articles like Sean's), and will most likely still settle towards the chosen democrat. I mean most of the state elections were very close, and to think that having one candidate or another will completely wipe out the large numbers turning up at the polls for an entire state is short sighted.

If this article was a real look into the workings of the party and how we choose a candidate, this would be fine. Or maybe ideas on how to change the process. Instead we're just getting Sean Wilentz's view of a hypothetical situation where his candidate might be winning, and how the other candidate is wrong for not living in his imaginary land.

This article's premise is based on a ludicrous assumption that, if the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, the Obama campaign would have pursued the exact same strategy they employed in the current system and thus, be behind Clinton.

The Obama campaign devised its plan knowing full well the proportionate share system of allocating delegates and mobilized to take full advantage of it; they knew the rules of the game and implemented a winning strategy. If the rules were different don't you think they'd have implemented a different strategy?

The fact is, both campaigns knew the rules going in and the Obama campaign implemented the best strategy for winning.

How many are on this page alone? How about the twelve pages before? What about the whole thing?

Now count the number of first-time Obama supporter posters. Are there any? Any at all?

Do you have your numbers? Congratulations! You win!

I love how this article changed from over the weekend when it was headlined something along the lines of "If reality were different..." At least that mindbogglingly bizarre headline was based in the reality that things aren't different.

This new headline? Like the article itself, it can be summed up in one phrase: "What is wrong with you people?"

The biggest problem with this article is the premise behind it. If the Democrats had WTA (similar to the Republican primary system), Hillary would be winning. It turns out that the Republicans, though they claim to be gleefully enjoying the contest between Obama and Clinton are very nervous of the groundswell of support and coverage that these two candidates are getting. As we speak, they are changing their primary system to be more like the Democrats. Point two, Obama leads Hillary by more than 700K+ votes. Throw in the votes from Florida and Michigan and he still leads by 100K, even though he didn't get a single vote in MI because he wasn't on the ballot. Now lets say that doesn't happen and instead there is a revote. There was a poll taken about two or three weeks ago in FL and MI. Hillary and Obama were neck and neck in MI. Hillary was ahead in Florida by 10%. And this is without out the surges that Obama has been getting when he campaigns leading up to the primary, as the voters get to know him.

Unfortunately, Hillary wants to have her cake and eat it too when it comes to the votes. She wants FL and MI votes to count and claims that Barack does not want that. And that superdelegates should vote for her in PA if she wins that state. Yet, she and Bill have publically and privately told the superdelegates in other states in which Barack has won that they need to vote for her anyways and has gone as far as hinting that pledged delegates change their votes for her, even though most of their votes have been determined by the will of the people in the Democratic party. So, whose votes should count? And should the popular vote count? If not, does that mean we (not just Democrats) should be satisfied with the outcome of the 2000 election? This is a slippery slope and a precipice that the Democrats not dare cross.

Point three. I was one of the 20%+ voters in New York state who voted for Al Gore as President in 2000 yet cast my vote against Hillary. To see in the final tally that Gore had ~78% of the vote in New York, against a much more worthy opponent versus the ~57% that Hillary drew against the Republican sacrificial lamb in a highly Democratic state, should provide some sort of indication of the political barriers that Hillary must overcome in order to win a presidential election. She has not and is not drawing many Republicans and Independents and there are people like me who will just not vote for her because of her political history in the White House and in the Senate (she did not deliver on any of her promises made in 2000). It's time to give someone else a chance.