Aren't Democrats supposed to be pro-democracy? Winner-take-all is the least democratic system available!!!!

get over it. Some of us came here to read Wilentz's article because we respect his work as an historian and critic. When Dr. Wilentz becomes a regular columnist here, i will become a regular poster.

In this world where new people are not welcome and do not have the right to actively engage in political conversations, might we also conclude that because obama is a relative newcomer to the washington political scene that he has no place in presidential politics? i thought not.

The real story here is the amount of revulsion generated by this article, which I believe is not so much a measure of Obama's support among Salon readers as much as Salon readers' distaste for such poor writing. And poor thinking.

You're dead on. This article assumes a deficiency in logic, and ignorance of the current campaign, the history of the democratic party and of our country. It is an insult.

Two very specific rebuttals to points in the second paragraph:

It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all.

Which winner, and what is "all"? The Democratic Party's nominating process as a whole IS winner-take-all-- there's only one nominee. If "winner take all" is a principle, rather than just shorthand for running the primaries similarly to the general election, what's the justification for state-by-state winner-take-all elections rather than district-by-district, or city-by-city, or timezone-by-timezone?

If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections,

Then for one thing primaries in different states wouldn't be held on different days, which has done a lot more than the delegate-selection rules to shape how this primary season has worked out.

There's a huge difference between saying the system would be better off handled under different rules next time (I'm not convinced, but maybe it's true)... and saying that it's SO broken now that the existing results don't even count.

How should Democrats chose a nominee? This appears a central and unresolvable question this year. To Obama supporters -- in the popular vote, Obama and Clinton are virtually tied, particularly if one considers Florida and Michigan (which did vote). The numbers are something along the following lines:

TOTAL (w/o FL & MI - w/ caucuses and territories) 12,891,604 (Obama) 12,217,745 (Clinton)

TOTAL (w/ FL&MI, w/caucuses) 13,460,645 (Obama) 13,403,104 (Clinton)

TOTAL (w/o FL & MI - excludes caucuses) 12,535,451 (Obama) 12,058,560 (Clinton)

TOTAL (w/ FL & MI - excludes caucuses) 13,104,492 (Obama) 13,243,919 (Clinton)

There is no real dispute that caucuses do tend to exclude Democratic voters more likely to vote for Clinton -- not on purpose, but because of their design.

So, we don't really know who the actual majority of Democrats in this country want to run against McCain. The writer of this article raises the question -- should we chose the person who is preferred in states that will never vote for a Democrat in November or should we chose the person preferred by Democrats in states where a Democrat has a realistic chance of winning. Moreover, those of you who want to exclude Florida and Michigan from the process are just plain crazy. Does anyone really think a Democrat can win in November without winning Michigan and Florida? More importantly, do you think the majority of voters in Michigan and Florida will vote for the nominee of a party that intentionally shunned their preferences in the nominating process? I don't know how this mess will work itself out. I do know, however, that excluding Michagan and Florida is a recipe for disaster in November.

50+ new posters based on ONE article and we're not supposed to think that there are some shenanigans afoot?

I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday ya know...

there's only two explanations:

1) There are people here from both camps posting under different handles (mayhaps at the behest of the actual campaigns?)

2) Salon is doing it themselves to drive up hits.

either way, it reeks.

to all of you criticizing new posters

get over it. Some of us came here to read Wilentz's article because we respect his work as an historian and critic.

I don't think the original criticism (or at least any that I've seen in these letters that was worth responding to, and I'm assuming you don't bother responding to trolls) was a criticism of the mere presence of first-time letter-writers.

Rather, it was an observation that there are an unusual number of pro-Hillary opinions appearing here, and that they are overwhelmingly first-time letter writers to Salon. That means that they came here en masse from somewhere else. It's reasonable to speculate as to whence, and why.

When Dr. Wilentz becomes a regular columnist here, i will become a regular poster.

If you ponied up for a subscription I think your opinion on the matter would carry more weight. Personally, I'm all for more regular voices at my favorite rag, especially if they come with lots more readers.

Debaser - relax, man. It's not a conspiracy with new posters. This article was linked to Realclearpolitics.com, it is mildly critical of Obama and therefore is getting alot of attention. I know it's hard to welcome Hillary supporters to Salon, but hey, it's a free Country last time I checked.

xxoo

I wasn't aware that this article was linked elsewhere...thanks for the heads up.

It just seemed rather curious that there would be such a huge influx of new posters...i've been reading this site for eons (it seems like) and I've never seen such an influx.

*puts tinfoil hat back in it's drawer*

cheers

I'm pretty sure I got your name wrong but anyway, I don't believe Obama is blocking a re-vote in MI and FL. I think each state decided against a re-vote. I believe Obama is not interested in creating some formula to mix and match the votes that were taken early in the year and, short of a re-vote, keep the agreement that was made by all the candidates--including Hillary Clinton. I think you are twisting things around. Are you ducking sniper-fire, too? Named after Sir Edmund? Too busy wringing your hands about all the expecting mothers being turned away from Ohio hospitals? That blow job was a product of the vast, ringt-wing conspiracy, you know.

It is a mistake to trust anything your candidate says.

Am I wrong?