Contrary to the predictable uproar incited by this article, the author is not arguing that proportional allocation of delegates is a bad system. He's arguing that, in light of the Electoral College system that we're stuck with, the Democratic primary rules are not the best means of producing the most competitive Democratic candidate for the general election. Throw into the mix the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan - perhaps the most asinine thing the DNC has done in history (and that's saying a lot!) - and you have a set of rules that treat the general election in November as all but irrelevant to the primary system.

Obama's opposition to a revote in Michigan and Florida indeed belies his claim of being above the dirty political fray. And his choice to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan can only be seen as an attempt to curry favor with the early-voting states, and perhaps helped him to win the crucial Iowa primary. He took a gamble that the Michigan results wouldn't be counted, and so far it appears that the gamble has paid off. In any event, that decision represented a political calculation, not a lofty deference to arbitrary DNC rules. If it happens to come back to bite him, it is difficult to maintain that he would be subject to a gargantuan injustice.

This is clearly a one-sided article, but Salon features many one-sided articles, and certainly more than a few that have favored Obama. So Obama supporters should quit whining.

It's amazing that after the fact, the rules does not seem to matter anymore. It seems that in this regard Sean Wilentz is not bright just like Hillary Clinton. Why sign on to become a Presidential Candidate if the rules are not to your liking. This speaks a lot about governance and the rule of law with respect to Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

Wlientz's statement that caucuses favor students and activists at the expense of working people and the military is right on. Here in Washington the caucuses were won by Obama 66% to 33%. But the primary vote was much closer - 56% to 44%. That's a huge difference and proves that Washington State is not as pro-Obama as the caucuses might lead people to believe. A WA democratic party spokesperson said she though caucuses produced results that were "better thought out". To me, that sounded like a slap in the face to the blue collar workers that the Democrats need in order to win a general election.

If Obama wins the primary and then wins the election this fall, it won't be because he was a strong candidate - it will be because of the perfect storm of conditions working against the Republicans this year - Iraq, the economy, and the fact that McCain is too old, committed to leaving the troops in Iraq, and a poor speaker.

If Obama wins, too many young Democrats will learn exactly the wrong lesson - that intellectuals, young voters, and Black voters can win a general election without the help of blue-collar Democrats. I had been hoping that Gore, Dukakis, and Mondale would have finally taught Democrats the dangers of running candidates that only appeal to the far left, but if Obama wins this fall, any chance of the Democrats learning this important fact will be destroyed.

To me, Obama has a disturbing tendency to panic when under pressure. For example his statement, "I never heard those sermons" - what was he thinking? You can criticize those who brought up the whole Rev. Wright issue, but you can only blame Obama for lying (badly) for the sake of damage control. And his vote on Terry Schiavo was amazingly bad. As for his wife, anyone who says that she has never been proud of her country in her adult life, and says it on camera while her husband is running for President, is simply not the intellectual equal of the Clintons.

Judging by the reactions on this forum to Wilentz's comments that the Obama campaign is willing to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters in order to win, I think many of Obama's supporters are surprised to find out that he is, in fact, a politician just like any other.

My current favorite people are Nancy Pelosi and Pat Leahy who have discovered the value of fear-mongering in order to reduce Clinton's standing in the polls, in order to reduce the chances that super-delegates might vote in Clinton's favor. What amazes me is that people are actually buying in to the idea that a protracted primary contest will hurt the Democratic Party's chances in November. I guess if you repeat something often enough, most people will begin to believe it, even if it's a prediction about something so far in the future that you might as well be predicting next week's weather in Seattle...

There are definitely two different account books with contradictory logic that Mr. Wilentz employs in his calculations. When it suits his candidate of choice, obviously Senator Clinton, he bemoans the fact that Obama stands by the rules. But when regarding the rules that favor his candidate, the electoral college, which in fact suppresses the will of the people, or at the very least, the popular vote, he is all in favor of the prescribed procedures. His argument on the face of it is that Clinton is more electable. He argues that since Obama's campaign played a (as he admits minor) role in Michigan, and perhaps Florida, Clinton really won those states. But the simple fact remains that Obama was not on the ballot in those states. I repeat, in compliance with the democratic party's rules, OBAMA WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT. In addition, he is bringing a new voting block into the elections, young people who will also work for him during the election and African Americans who felt too cycnical about poltical process before this. His popularity has continually gone up. With Clinton no longer dreaming up every avenue of attack, (I hope soon) the demographics can and will change. Nationally Clinton is behind McCain. And no wonder, foolishly she has based her campaign on a premise, experience, that favors McCain not only over Obama but over herself. Unlike Clinton herself, but perhaps more like her than I used to believe, her campaign has been unscrupulous, dishonest, short sighted and alienating. And yes, I am a feminist but being a femininst, contrary to what many sexist men believe, does not mean one is in favor of any woman who runs for office.