You might not be aware that Salon changed the title of this piece.

Why? I can only suggest that the original title was too stupid for words, and that Salon's PTB got tired of being raked over the coals for it.

This, though, is how much editorial integrity there is at Salon: first, that they would public this article, which isn't even "opinion"--it's propaganda, pure and simple--second, that when their idiocy was pointed out to them, rather than admit it, their response is "Idiocy? What idiocy?"

If wishes were horses, HRC would ride. God knows what Bill would be doing.

While I appreciate the cordial, pleasent, professional dialogue Obama supporters have for Hillary, I abhor comments directed at Senator Clinton that are sexist in nature and dismissive in fact of her EXPERIENCE and SUBSTANCE!! Moreover, may I remind Obama surrogates that the ability to speak should not be the only criteria for office. My single question for Obama supporters is simple. To what degree has Senator Obama's political and religious beliefs FUSED TOGETHER WITH REV. WRIGHT?

Mr. Wilentz is a famous historian and intellectual, but a counter-factual analysis like this this is just another apology for Hillary's failure to run a clean, efficient campaign. It also suffers from what Kos has correctly called the "'diss 40 states" problem.

Mr. Wilentz is engaging in invalid reasoning when he holds Hillary's wins constant while disparaging Obama's. Hillary, Obama and all the others had an equal chance at the beginning of the campaign to construct a winning strategy based on the rules as they are. Obama has pursued a highly effective strategy that has put him in the lead. Hillary has not. If the rules had been as Mr. Wilentz proposes, Obama would have pursued a different strategy. What's to say his organization would not have outperformed Hillary's in that hypothetical world just as it has in the real world?

The idea that winner-take-all is the way to go is also overstated. The "system" that produced John Kerry was a defacto winner take all, but did it produce the best candidate? Many of us think not. Moreover, in its Hillary-centric premises, Mr. Wilentz sucks all dynamism out of the political race and system. For a Texas Democrat like me, Wilentz (and Hillary) take Republican dominance as a given and promise to do nothing about it. Obama changes the game, and in my parochial setting creates a hope of restoration of sanity where I live. Hillary doesn't.

I think Hillary Clinton is a good person and an effective politician, but it is increasingly clear that she sees no real difference between the Democratic Party and her ego. I also admired Benazir Bhutto, but I don't care to see Hillary imitate Bhutto in treating the Democratic party as an inheritable property, as Bhutto did in her will. The Democratic Party belongs to me as well as to Hillary, and her ego-centric approach is becoming more and more difficult to take.

Sorry, Mr. Wilentz, bad analysis.

this is just the "silly site" - Lets welcome all this new readers and sent them over to Glenn Greenwald where the "goodies" are - Come on guys - it's time to see the light!

Sorry to step on your analogy. didn't see it.

Professionals need to focus on "what is" rather than "the way they would like it". the latter used to be a tradmarks of an insane person. To live in a fantasy world you create, because it's safer.

Join reality salon/clinton supports/gop. No one is buying your gop garbage anymore. If you value your own jobs and credibility, please acknowledge reality. Or don't.

But those with zero credibility (and do not crave it) should not be be involved in the political process. they should be gossiping about celebs. Close down salon. All your writers can always get a job as us weekly or the national enquierer.

...the top vote-getter would probably have no more than 30% of the popular vote. Think about that for a minute. You hold this thing in, March or April, and it's all over until the convention, held no later than July 4th, where the real excitement begins. Parliaments deal with this sort of thing all the time. The top vote getter gets first dibs on assembling a majority coalition, then the second-place candidate, and so on. Or you could have a runoff the following week among the top two vote-getters. I fail to see how this would be worse than the status quo.

Lots of people in voted on Super Tuesday and earlier for people other than Clinton or Obama. Shall we ask them now who they'd rather have, or don't they matter anymore? Does either candidate dare? It's a screwed up system, but if Edwards supporters or Dodd supporters or Kucinich supporters or those of all the other candidates aren't going to get a second shot at this, I don't see why they should in Florida and Michigan. It's a mess, and damn that Howard Dean for standing his ground when he should have folded like a bath towel, but if he didn't put his foot down, the Iowa Caucuses would have been rescheduled for the fifth or sixth time (or whatever) to sometime in November 2007. People are forgetting that now.

TO WATCH THE HILARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN IMPLODING. Thank you to the DNC for proportional allocation of delegates. The faster we can get this fraud Hillary out of public office the better. She is a loser and shouldn't be anywhere near the White House for any reason. She and her sort of husband are a disgrace to our political system and should be put out to pasture NOW !!!!!.

Black people are use to rule changes. When whites said we were too dumb and uneducated blacks fought to get into schools and get an education. When we go the education whites told us we needed experience. When we got both we get told that the only reason we are in the position is because of affirmative-action. It does not matter what you have accomplished the status quo hate change especially when that change looks like the thing that many hate the most.

When players like Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays started to play baseball whites could not beleive the plays they made. Blacks who had played against them saw plays like that all the time and many said Jackie was just a average player in the black league.

When Bill Russell entered into the NBA the rules were changed so he could not block as many shots. When Wilt entered the NBA the rules changed again because the 3 second rule kept him from dunking everytime he got the ball. When Kareem entered college they stopped the dunk so others could compete.

Well we all know how Tiger has changed the game.

What we have now is the OBama rule. Bill Clinton has said the only way one can compete is to go negative. Obama is playing the game differently and brought in more young people, more money and more voters. But the political refs hate it so they want to change the rules of the game. Obama has played by the rules but Hillary's people hate it so they result to what they know, division Poliitics.

First, they said the only reason Barack is winning because he is black. That was the funniest comment. LOL! When did black become an asset in America. Understand affirmative-action was never for blacks, just like the threes second rule was not meant to help Wilt. Rule changes are to help keep the status.

Secondly, they said Obama is just empty speeches. That is Clinton speak for this man is not smart enough to run the country. His perfomance at Harvard,organizing in Chicago and his ability to win 11 contest in a row are just a result of whites caught up in the concept of voting for a black man. The reason all people went to see Jackie,Tiger,Kareem and Michael was because they made great plays. Whites,blacks and brown folks are with Obama because he is a winner and he is making great decisions.

When what is happening in the present does not work, they try to dig up something in the past. They say he went to a church that is racist. If the first tactic was the funniest, this tactic was the most pathetic.

All one has to do is really look at the ministries and the fruit of the church. The church he attends has ministries that have helped many people go to school, buy homes, get off drugs, clean up their neighborhood, owned their own buiness and take care of the least of these in our society. They have even produced a young man who would run for the office of the President of the United States. That is really unAmerican. LoL!

This church has not produce suicide bombers like Tim McVigh,or bombers who target abortion clinics or advocated voting for whites only. If the congregation was polled I would guess they have voted overwhelmingly for white Democratic politicians like Bill Clinton. How is it then that a 30 second clip has convinced the old guard that the Pastor and the chruch are anti-american and racits. This is old guard politics.

The old guard are living in 90's the only thing is it is 2008. Obama rules!