...after 500 + comments already posted, most of which I won't be able to wade through, BUT, let's speak to basics.

#1) Both candidates knew the rules of the primary system going in

#2) Clinton's campaign had the clear advantage under this set of rules, having campaigned TWICE before in the primary system

#3) The Obama campaign has fared better under the rules without cheating

Therefore

Why the complaining that it isn't fair?

Really, I don't get it.

First of all, I want to thank you for your article, Sean. This is the first time I have seen such a clear and correct assessment of the actual race, and I pray the DNC reads this. Just to be sure, I am sending it along to Dr. Dean.

Obama is very good at turning this system on its head, and frankly I am reminded of James Baker's constant mantra after the disaster of the Fla. Primary:

“The votes were cast, they votes have been counted, Bush won.”

Obama's minions of hysterical, fainting supporters, and their PARENTS (Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver, and Bob Casey) remind me of the Bush campaign workers pounding on the doors of the counting room demanding an end to the count. Obama does not represent the voter, or Democracy. He represents a Bush style campaign, negative, nasty, and false.

HE has driven the discussion by repeating EVERY slur ever uttered by Ken Starr, Karl Rove and their ilk, while claiming to be "positive". This man is not to be trusted.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth. He has created this myth that he is positive, when in fact he and his campaign has called Clinton the “Sen. From Punjab”, has talked about the “blue dress”, and called her a liar. How is that positive? He claims HER programs, even claimed to have “passed” a bill she co authored with a GOP Senator.

I really think all this rush to anoint Obama is based on fear: is he going to be hit with ANOTHER scandal we don't know about?

I am always so surprised by the Obama line that the only votes that count are GOP cross over votes in small states like Iowa or Wyoming, which has 500,000 people living there, with only 59,000 registered as Democrats, for example, or other GOP states where the registered voters for the GOP simply outnumber the Dem voters, and are impossible to win in November. Should Wyoming count MORE than Ohio? Wyoming with 59,000 DEMS, 7500 Caucus goers, of which maybe 4000 voted for Obama? So he "won" with 4000 or so votes? Get serious.

My husband was in TX. as part of her volunteer legal staff, and he saw, and reported so many violations of election law, and voter interference by Obama people in the caucuses in the Latino/Black areas. In many cased the cops were called because Obama people had locked out Latino’s and refused to allow them to vote. If Obama supporters’ had control of the sign in ID Obama voters never had their ID checked, while Clinton’s were challenged and refused entry, which is why he won. Is THAT how the first black candidate should win? Voter suppression and interference?

A few thousand beleaguered DEMS with a boost from GOP cross overs who will NOT vote for Obama in November is not a win. It is an interesting factoid that will no doubt be studied, but it is not a way to win against McCain in November.

Obama doesn’t like to play by the rules. As you pointed out, and as Howard Dean knows, Obama ran 30 days of campaign advertising BEFORE the Florida primary, not Edwards, not Clinton, ONLY Obama. That was in clear violation of the "rules": NO campaigning either in person or by TV/Radio advertising, which Obama did on cable. He admitted it at the time, but said he "didn't know" that was campaigning. Right, like all the other things he "didn't know". I think we need a president who DOES know. He got 19.6 in FLA and 40% in MI as “other”, but he wants 50%. Is that how you want a president to think? Like Hugo Chavez?

ALL of us have the right to vote. If Obama thinks winning the nomination by voter suppression is the best way to win, then he does not deserve to be president or even a Senator.

Not all of us are so impressed by him. I think he will be a nice snack for the GOP 527 attack machine, with good reason, because he has so many issues, his "judgment" on Rezko, his "judgment" on his Church, his "judgment" on sending his advisor to tell Canada that he was just blowing smoke on NAFTA, and his lies about passing a Bill on Nuclear leaks when in fact "he didn't". It would have impacted his biggest donor, Exelon, who bundled over $500,000. in money for him. Don’t forget, Obama voted with the Cheney forces in Congress to pass an Energy bill that benefited Exelon.

Obama will be run by Kennedy and Kerry who see in him a young, inexperienced guy they can tell what to do. Like Bush, he will have to backed by others who have their own agenda as both his Cabinet and kitchen cabinet, and we have seen how that works.

We have to have a president who can stand on their own, with a solid record of achievement, and the confidence of the military. Clinton has that, Obama does not. Like it or not, Obama is not going to win in November, and if by some chance he was able to use his race to do so, he would find the reality of being president far nastier than the bubble of the campaign trail.

It is really a shame when a historian ignores the present to present an alternative present which is more in line with one's fond wishes.

I agree with other posters here who made the point that if the game was different, Obama's strategy very well may have been different. If the game is baseball, he would not have played football.

Moreover, Michigan is NOT a Clinton win! If Obama was aggressively campaigning there I think there is no way Hillary Clinton would have won.