I'm really stunned you guys published this article. It amounts to nothing more than a pro-Clinton propogranda piece, chock-full of hypotheticals and unsubstantiated attacks on Obama's campaign. Until now, I'd felt that Salon had been fairly neutral in this debate, but now I'm going to be looking at your articles with a more jaundiced eye.

This article is as absurd as, if only whites were allowed to be candidates, then Clinton would be the nominee.

Why can't people follow rules? or change the rules before the game starts.

Absurd article.

Here's the heart of the matter unexamined by Professor Wilentz but is clearly implied in the headline.

The Democratic nominating process was supposed to be a coronation march for Senator Clinton culminating Super Tuesday when all residual opposition to her nomination would simply fade away.

That did not happen. Senator Obama was able to combine the self-evident intelligence and thoughtfulness, the fresh message of hope and change and an American political landscape sorely lacking in the former and paralyzed on the latter and the charismatic personality (including substantial rhetorical skills) and the ability to raise gobs and gobs of money on the internet.

And suddenly Senator Clinton, lacking a Plan B to the coronation march, was scrambling to catch up which she has failed to do.

What has been her strategy in this matter? Firstly, she has sought to diminish Senator Obama's candidacy by extolling the virtues which she seems to share with the mainstream media of the ancient right-wing war hawk who has emerged from the Republican selection process.

And, secondly, as indicated by the title of Professor Wilentz'

article, Senator Clinton has decided that the campaign rules that suited her just fine when the coronation march was launched now must be changed must be changed to accommodate her failing candidacy.

The first matter brings into question Senator Clinton's commitment to the Democratic Party. Does she accept the four more years is a small price for America and the World to pay if it positions her to pick up the pieces as the Democratic front-runner in 2012?

And the second matter brings into question the genuineness of her commitment to small-d democracy. Democracy is about process not outcomes but Senator Clinton's candidacy spits on the process because it does not produce a satisfactory outcome. That is what Florida in 2000 was all about and it is what the Clinto campaign has become.

If the system were winner-take-all, Axelrod would have engineered a winner-take-all strategy and Obama would still be far ahead. Enough with this sour grapes idiocy.

You seem to be saying that Obama exploited the current system to his advantage. Shame on him! I thought it was about winning not whining. If Clinton had a 50 plan instead of a 20 state plan, If she had ran her campaign compentently, If she hadn't misspoke so many times, If she hadn't voted for the Iraq War, If she had actually opposed Nafta from the start openly, If she actually fired Mark Penn before we got to the critical union voting state of PA, If she hadn't known about Mr Penn's many compromised positions from the start, If she had taken a stand on Fla & Mich when the DNC penalties were announced instead of saying "It's clear their votes aren't going to count for anything", then maybe she might have a leg to stand on. Instead you want us all to believe that she's being cheated and get caught up in the fairy tale, make believe, If only I had a do over. She's responsible for her lack of support and a trip to Fantasy Land will not change that.

And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

A system that provides states with few people to nullify the voters of states with large populations is touted as a system that makes sense! It made sense in 1787, when it was crucial to the ratification of the Constitution and the electorate was made up of white middle class males, but it doesn't now. Remember, the electoral college theoretically can take a one vote plurality in each state and DC and turn it into a "landslide" 538 to 0 victory.

It's a bit overreaching to proclaim the Republican electorial method as a model for democracy. But even IF the Democratic rules were such that Sen. Clinton could walk away with all the delegates (at this point) from the states she has won, it would not change the fact that she is losing the popular vote. I can't find a problem with having the candidate that wins the most votes be the nominee. For that matter, I can't find a problem with having the next president be the winner of the popular vote.

it's, "Whiner take all!"

Mr. Wilentz article is interesting - but very much of academic interest only. This game - as any other game - is played by a set of rules and the players naturally adjust their strategies to fit the rules. They try to win the game by using their strengths and protect their weaknesses in accordance with the rules, using their energy where they see the best outcome.

Now, any new set of rules that is proposed after the game and which would have produced another outcome just isn't very interesting. The players - in this case Obama - would naturally have played differently had the rules been different. Under a winner-takes-all regime Obama would of course have focused more on the big states and won some of those, and certainly campaigned in Michigan and Florida if those states were going to count.

Mr. Wilentz arguments sound very much like a sore loser explaining why his - or her - team lost, but would have won if just the rules had been different. Trying to change the rules after the game is played is unfair and naturally not acceptable to those who have won based on a superior strategy.

It is very telling of the blindness of most commentary on this article that the least addressed issue -- and least defendable by Obama supporters -- raised by Sean Wilentz is this paragraph:

"Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama's supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be "fraud proof." (Obama himself, it's important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.)"

If there is a contention between Clinton and Obama whether FL and MI should be counted in the nomination campaign, why not have a re-vote? It has been approved by everyone but Obama. Obama is afraid to have a re-vote because he would most likely lose, and it is more important for him that he wins than to allow full democracy and individual American votes to count in this Dem. competition.

It bodes badly for Obama in the General Election to not include FL and MI in the nomination contest...he will ultimately lose them in the GE and therefore lose the Presidency...and have no one to blame but himself and his campaign strategists and laywers.