Wilentz is entertaining, but he seems to assume that Team Obama, once it starts playing by the rules that will determine who wins the general election, either can't or won't change its strategy. If the Democratic primaries were winner-take-all, he can't fairly assume that Hillary would have won the big states. Clearly, Team Obama studied the rules and worked out a 50-state strategy when they decided to take a shot at the nomination. Team Clinton didn't. If Team Clinton had diverted resources to compete in all 50 states, that would have meant fewer resources in the big primaries, so the results might have been different in those primaries. When Obama takes on McCain, no doubt his crackerjack team will work out a strategy that can win, one that will distinguish between must-win states, can-win states, and would-like-to-win states. I expect he will win all the big primaries in the general election that Clinton won in the nomination contest, especially if he's smart enough to ask Hillary to be his Vice-President in return for a substantive role in certain areas of policy.

This argument reminds me of my kids when they were little, when I'd hear them arguing with their friends: "It's not fair! Your foot wasn't touching the base all the way! I said safe before you tagged me!"

The rules were made before the election. All the candidates knew what the rules were. Clinton has been in elected office for many years and married to an elected officer for many more -- if she didn't like Democratic party rules, where were she and her husband on the issue before 2008?

Mrs. Clinton's supporters all need a time out, or they're not going to be able to have dessert at the grown-up table.

Wow, finally someone finally sees the light. I am so very tired of hearing the self-righteous Obama supporters acting as though Hillary is a Mike Huckabee.....

She is a strong candidate and should have at least equal media coverage. I realize she has made some mistakes in the campaign but if anyone thinks that Rev. Wright and the videos are not going to influence the general election, they are living in dreamland.

She has won all of the states we must win in November to take the White House. If he can't win in the primary how will he win in November.

I love the concept that if the rules were different a different result would ensue. That's absolutely right. If the Second Coming occurs now and we're told to do things differently, the results would be different too.

This article is absolutely pointless.

I'm sorry, but this article is absolutely preposterous. It essentially rakes Obama's campaign over the coals essentially for running too good of a campaign. Because he understood how to properly navigate the convoluted Democratic primary system and appeal to small donors so that his campaign war chest would be flush with funds for the primary AND the general election (unlike Hillary, whose campaign is hurting for primary funds even now), he's somehow gaming the system? It's incumbent on Obama's campaign to give Florida and Michigan a free pass for breaking DNC rules when ALL of the candidates agreed in writing to abide by the DNC rules and decisions long before this presented any sort of advantage to Obama's vote count? Obama's disregarded "the rules" in Nevada, yet Hillary's flip-flop on Michigan and Florida (now that they can benefit her) despite clear, unambiguous DNC rules she agreed to both verbally and in writing is not worth noting?

This is propaganda, pure and simple. The very premise is silly because Obama would have had to run a very different-structured campaign had Democrats used a "winner take all" system, and thus applying the results of his current campaign makes no sense. In fact, the "winner take all" system all but ensures that name-recognition "electable" candidates and early states have an unfair advantage, thereby virtually wrapping up the proceedings before the process is even halfway through (Hence, McCain's current free ride). So very democratic, that. The "popular vote" canard also is laughable because it deletes the caucus votes from that popular vote total (only primaries are part of the current metric), thereby omitting those caucus states ENTIRELY from the process, while demeaning caucuses as being "less democratic" in the same breath.

The absolute worst lapse of logic here is transforming current state-based general election polls into indicators for the November electoral results. In April of 2004, with a united Democratic Party behind him and a nomination cinched, John Kerry led Bush in both Florida and Ohio in major polls, just as Hillary currently does against McCain. Kerry didn't win EITHER state come November, and Hillary has neither a nomination locked nor a unified party behind her. The point is, primary season state-based matchups have NOTHING to do with what will happen 6 months from now in the general election.

It's fine to criticize the Democratic primary and caucus system, but those are the rules as they stand now, and Obama has played the game like a pro and reaped the reward of leading in every objective metric (popular vote, states won, delegates). He had nothing to do with creating these rules, or with moving Florida and Michigan's primary up, or with Clinton putting all her eggs in the Super Tuesday basket. Meanwhile, he's fighting a two-pronged (McCain and Clinton) battle, weathering scandals (Rev. Wright), and somehow continuing to gain support in polls and superdelegates. He deserves a bit more respect than this nonsense.

Mr Wilentz would have us believe that the if each state held a winner-take-all primary that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee.

He ignores the fact that campaigns choose their tactics to maximize their chances of winning each state given the rules of the contest.

Had every contest been a primary, and had every contest been winner-take-all, it seems likely that the Obama campaign would have taken a different approach in California, New Jersey, and possibly every other state. It may or may not have worked. We'll never know.

One thing we do know: understanding the rules and how you can use them to your advantage is often the difference between success and failure in school, in sports, in life, and yes, in politics.