Sean Wilentz (of the New Repulic, writing in Salon) has a real headspinner of an article that comes to the brilliant conclusion that if the rules of the democratic primary "made sense" then Clinton "would be winning." His argument:
Why Hillary Clinton should be winning:
Under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the nomination by June.
Why does this matter? You could click through and read the article itself, but I think a simple thought experiment resolves the question nicely. Just put your logical thinking hat on and ask yourself, given the Wilentz theorem
If the Rules Made Sense, Clinton Would be Winning
does the converse
If Clinton Were Winning, The Rules Would Make Sense
also hold true? You know it does! Let's all email Professor Wilentz and see if he agrees.
Who knew that the decision to exclude Michigan an Florida was "an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee"? Another Rule that does not Make Sense, I guess.
Who knew that "Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall." I thought the Rules (such as the front-loaded primary schedule) were designed to insulate the Sure Thing against any Upstart competition. Turns out according to Wilentz that they were custom made to hobble Clinton (a/k/a the Democratic Party, apparently).
Who knew that Obama's "stealth campaign" to get voters to vote for "Uncommitted" rather than "Hillary Clinton" after "voluntarily" removing his name from the Michigan ballot constituted electoral shenanigans on par with Bush v. Gore? I certainly didn't.
Who knew that, "According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination"? I thought that was the Clinton campaign on which states counted, but I was wrong again.
This argument is really the icing on the cake:
Obama's totals thus far have come in great part from state caucuses nearly as much as from actual primaries.
That surely sounds like a sentence written by a man with facts and logic solidly on his side. No matter how many times I read it, it keeps sounding like "Obama is doing even better in the primaries than the caucuses." But that can't be right, can it?
PS: Does it ever occur to these guys that, if the Rules were different (winner take all, MI and FL count, etc.) maybe Obama would have, I don't know, campaigned differently?