I likely would have won my office pool. Before the Final Four games, I was in second place. But after both my teams lost, I now sit in 11th place and have no chance of winning.

Except...

Unknown to my coworkers, I included the universities of Michigan and Florida in my bracket, even though neither made the tournament this year. And in my imaginary games that never happened, I won both!

So, clearly, the money, victory, and accolades are mine, all mine! Mwah-hah-hah-hah!

Also, I'd like to mention that when I filled out my bracket, I was being attacked by snipers and had to utilize corkscrew maneuvers so that I wouldn't spill my latte.

And speaking of latte, let's put this "Obama supporters are latte drinkers" nonsense to rest. I hate all forms of coffee. I like beer and football and coaching my kid's soccer and baseball teams.

I also desperately yearn to see this country get back on the proper course after seven years of insanity.

I voted proudly for Bill Clinton twice. I was also a campaign volunteer. The truth is, though, that Sen. Clinton has run a horrible campaign, and it's my fervent belief that Sen. Obama is the much stronger candidate in November.

Why do I think he's the stronger candidate? Well, let's see. Forty-two states and D.C. have already voted. Barack is 29-14. Hillary is 14-29.

Which team gets to advance to the next round in sports? The one that's 15 games above or 15 games below .500?

It breaks my heart to criticize a Clinton, but Hillary has left me no choice.

All I can say is that I would vote for Obama, but otherwise for Bob Barr. Not on my grave would I vote for that two faced warmonger.

"unusual number of pro-Hillary opinions appearing here"

Anybody reading all the letters would know this is a joke.

Actually, anyone reading all the letters would learn that, indeed, there is a large number of first-time letter-writers, apparently mostly from realclearpolitics.com where the original article was posted. That was a nice find by whomever pointed it out.

So, yeah, sorry — turns out to be true.

You sometimes seem to have useful things to say about discrimination and bigotry but being a spiteful partisan (and it really doesn't matter in favor of what) sort of undercuts that.

I'm not usually moved to post twice, but this essay by Wilentz is so bizarre and disingenuous that I find there's just more ground to cover.

But I'll keep it short: If this system is inherently and fatally non-sensical, perhaps former chairs of the DNC or heads of the party should have noted this and worked to reform it. For instance, Terry McAullife, now with HRC's campaign. Or the late Ron Brown, Bill's labor sec'y. Or Bill himself, as President and head of the party, who somehow managed to get himself nominated against stiff competetion and caterwauling about unelectability.

Let's not forget that the look and logic of the Democratic primary reflects what the Democratic party itself, at national and local levels, has determined for itself to be the best way to respesent the needs and interests of Democratic voters.

If Democrats across the nation have been wrong about this for decades, perhaps all of those party leaders, past and present, associated with the Clintons should have done something about it when they had a chance.

it s a very old european say

just my 2 cents

The premise of this piece is so ludicrous that it barely warrants a response. The nominating process was agreed to by all the parties at the beginning and it's preposterous to start reapportioning the votes near the end of the process in order to reach a different result.

Senator Clinton had every opportunity to adjust her strategy to fit the realities of the contest. That she didn't shows that she was a poor manager -- and probably not ready on Day One.

The system is what it is. This article is sounding like the Clinton campaign. Let's change the rules!!!!

Poor Sean, he just can't get no respect. Everywhere he goes he gets lambasted for his Dustie Springfield impression singing "Wishing and Hoping."

The right wing loves Wilentz though, they keep running around to blogs and posting his long refuted, "Obama played the race card first" mediocre column. He's even updated it for publication in the Philadelphia Inquirer!

Time to stop being a spokesperson for the wing nuts Sean.

Thank you for an honest, balanced article. I'm sure the Obamafiles are flaming in the posts, but your article tells it like it is. My own crude estimate is that almost all of Obama's current delegate lead comes from caucuses, about 125 from caucuses. We have the unusual benefit of an A-B test in Texas to demonstrate how un-representative the caucuses are: The Texas results. Clinton won the popular vote yet Obama worked hard to over-rule the voters and steal the delegates through the caucuses. Clinton won the vote by 5%, yet in the same state Obama won the caucus by about 50%! As for Obama's true values, we can see those are work in Florida. Obama had a good reason to fear a re-vote in Florida. Clinton got about 40% more votes than Obama (despite his multi-million advertising campaign and get-out-the-vote drives there). But it could be even worse a second time. Consider the major voting blocks and positions Obama took AFTER the Fl. vote: Seniors voted overwhelmingly for Clinton (Obama since said we should consider reducing Social Security pay-outs and upping qualification age, which would turn off that group), Cuban ex-pats (after Florida, Obama came out for normalizing relations with Cuba, which would infuriate the majority of that group), and Evangelicals (Pastor Wright). Obama's margin of loss with all these decisive groups in Florida would likely be greater now than the first time around.

tommy. the shiny arc of your man. hood. Will soon be a gutterball. unlike the Who, the delegates are not drug addicts and still possess free will. expect changes come convention time, unlike your shorts. see me, feel me, touch me, heal me? Tilt. mary