The democrats came up with this system all on they own, if they don't know how to run a primary I believe it is quite clear they are not ready to lead the nation.

...it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin.

What's the point? Really.

Speculating on what might have occurred if X were actually Y, using the counterfactual conditional, is something that historians have long been skeptical of and often downright hostile towards. It is testimony to Prof. Wilentz's extreme devotion to the Clinton candidacy that he has been so willing to make arguments that he should, as an historian, avoid. His last discussion of race in the campaign, published in The New Republic, also depended upon some extreme conditionals: as in, IF we ignore every nasty use of race by the Clinton campaign THEN we can conclude that it is, in fact, the actions of Obama that have increased racial tensions in the Democratic primary contest.

As Daniel Levine noted in his History Cooperative response to Martin Bunzl's defense of counterfactual history: "I suppose it all comes down to “If, if if. . . .If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a trolley-car.” We can do without counterfactuals, except as heuristic expressions, and if we can we should. "

Thanks, Sean.

So, your point is that Hillary would be ahead if each campaign ran exactly the same way under different rules?

If anything, the Obama campaign has shown more ability to adjust to the rules and win than Clinton's - despite her teams experience in prior Presidential campaigns. If it were a winner-take-all system, do you really think the Obama campaign would have failed to take this into account in strategy and tactics? They would have concentrated firepower, instead of having their staffers spread out across all those states that are ignored by Clinton. If she can't figure out the Texas two-step, how does she resolve complex issues in Pakistan?

It will be clenched, like angry teeth.

Sean spends the entire article looking in the rear-view mirror - Hillary would be way ahead if the Democratic primaries were winner takes all. But they are not, whether they should be or not, and all of the candidates knew going into this process that the Party's rules allocate delegates proportionately. If Iowa had been winner take all, how would that have affected New Hampshire? Maybe voters in NH would have been more impressed by Sen. Obama with a bigger lead in delegates. Maybe other states would have been affected differently. Certainly the candidates would have pursued different strategies - and maybe that would be good.

But to say now, in April 2008 that Hillary would be ahead if the rules were completely different from what they are is kind of silly. One can probably imagine a case where Obama would have won the nomination outright by now, if delegates were apportioned differently in some states. But one of the central elements of democracy is that everyone knows the rules before the contest begins and plays by those rules.

The quality of what Salon has been posting of late has fallen through the floor. Given Obama's consistent lead in the popular vote, I cannot conceive of any reason why Salon would post an article claiming a different system would be "fairer" because Obama would lose in it other than to generate controversy for the sake of controversy.

Ms Walsh: this is indefensible. Please make the drastic changes you need to make to remake Salon as a credible paper for liberals, or resign.

Gave us George Bush in 2000. So a primary/caucus system that mimics the general election could still produce a less "deserving" candidate. I see your point, but really its BS to think that one system is better than another. It simply produces another type problem-if a problem arises. Sean you really sound like you're anti-Obama, instead of offering us some real solid analysis.

Yes, if the rules were different, Hillary would be winning. What else ya got?

Obviously, I have not had time to read all of the letter, so I suspect that at least one person has probably already made this point. At the start of the primary season she had all of the advantages: Former first lady, starting her second term in the U.S. Senate, many of the party big wigs in her corner, a huge fundraising advantage over her opponents, the most name recognition.

If Hillary Clinton and her supporters wanted a winner take all Democratic Party primary, then they could have pushed for that. Instead, they went with the system that was in place and approved by Hillary and the powers that be within the DNC.

Counterfactuals can be informative, but only if as many potential changes as possible are taken into account. That has not been done in this article.

I love the posters who write, with, presumably, a straightface that Hillary Clinton would be more electable in November and use that pbelief as a basis for why she should be the nominee. I bet that these are some of the same people who said she would easily win the Demoncratic nomination back in October. Hillary Clinton is not electable now--why does anyone think the outcome would be any different in November?

A Final note on my other comment. Its embarrassing to me to see/hear Dems talk about 'the rules' as far as Florida and MI go. The most sacred right or 'rule' of a democracy is that of a citizen's right to vote - and have it counted. Elections were held, voters turned out in record numbers, stealing thier vote from them due to a procedural violation they had nothing to do with - its disgusting and makes me ashamed that any Dem thinks it OK.

If you don't think it was fair at first - tell me, what is the big deal in doing it again and seeing how it will come out? Let the freakin' votes be counted! Let the chips fall where they may.

And yes, of COURSE its more important because its close. I don't see any hypocracy in that (?).