Shorter Sean Wilentz:

If we completely changed the nomination process, then Hillary Clinton would be the nominee.

I can’t believe Salon actually published this article; it’s absolutely ridiculous.  For example:

According to CNN estimates, Clinton has about 1,242 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1,413. Most of that total is based on the peculiar way that delegates are apportioned in 2008. Some of it is because Obama’s backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush’s camp used in Florida in 2000.

Crucially, Team Obama doesn’t want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let’s note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama’s current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far — a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point — and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,024 needed to win. Add those states’ votes to the totals, and take a sober look at Clinton’s popular-vote victories in virtually all other large states, and the electoral dynamic changes. She begins to look like the almost certain nominee.

The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee. Two democratic options are available to clean up the mess: Either relent by including the existing Michigan and Florida results or hold new primaries there.

Let’s all ignore Wilentz’s totally off-base accusation of Bush-like tactics, and focus on his complete misrepresentation of the situation behind the exclusion of the Michigan and Florida delegates.

Long story short: in 2007 the DNC voted in favor of a primary calendar that placed Florida and Michigan towards the end of the primaries.  The DNC then pledged to penalize any state which moved its primaries in defiance of DNC rules.  The Clinton and Obama campaigns agreed to abide by the rules and not campaign in either state.  In defiance of the established, agreed-upon rules, Florida and Michigan moved their primaries, thus losing their delegates.  When the primaries rolled around - and Clinton found herself the “underdog” - she opted to also violate the rules, and place her name on the ballet in both Michigan and Florida.  She “won” Michigan unopposed, and after a brief period of campaigning in Florida, she won the state with a commanding lead over Obama (whose name was on the ballot but had not campaigned).  Now that she’s losing, her campaign and supporters want the Michigan and Florida primaries to count.

Do you know what sounds like to me?  Cheating.

It’s ridiculous for Wilentz to blame the DNC or the Obama campaign for the disfranchisement of voters in Michigan and Florida; his blame should be directed towards the Florida and Michigan State Democratic parties, who apparently decided that rules are for chumps.

And it’s even more ridiculous to insist that either delegations should be seated; they weren’t fair contests.  Clinton didn’t win so much as she proved that she has greater name recognition.  To seat the delegates (as is) is to make a mockery of both the DNC’s authority and the very idea of a “fair election.”

The article gets better though, with Wilentz asserting that - since Clinton won the larger states: Ohio, Texas, Florida and presumably Pennsylvania - she would ipso facto win in a general election against McCain. 

I don’t know if Wilentz noticed, but these are Democratic primaries which measure the support among Democrats for each candidate.  Winning a primary doesn’t guarantee a win in the general.  Or, to quote Stephen Colbert:

Barack Obama has a big problem here. Sure, he’s winning a lot, but they’re just little states, like Maryland, Washington and Illinois. Hillary, Hillary is winning all the big states and everybody knows that if you win the big states in the party primary, you automatically win them in the general election. For example, did you know that the Democrat who won the Texas primary went on to win Texas in the general election in every one of the last eight elections? Therefore, Hillary will naturally win Texas in the general election. Now I’m not saying that Hillary Clinton doesn’t face some challenges, after all, John McCain won Texas in the Republican primary, which means by the same logic McCain will also win Texas in the general election. And folks, thanks to electronic voting, that might be possible. As for the states that neither Hillary nor McCain won in the primaries, I assume they will simply cease to exist. Now, the Obamamaniacs out there are saying, “Oh but Stephen, he won 26 states to her 16; he’s leading in the popular vote.” But, it’s not how many votes you get, it’s the geographic boundaries that contain those votes. Getting ten million votes in one state is way better than getting twelve million votes split between 2 states.

Wilentz’s closing paragraph is pretty fantastic too:

In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren’t really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is — not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics.

In case you haven’t noticed, this attitude is pretty common among rabid Clintonites; anything which hampers Hillary and helps Obama is bad and undemocratic, while anything which contributes to a Clinton win is totally fair and shouldn’t be tampered with.

Yes, I know there are a few benefits to an extended primary season, but God how I want them to end.

Update:  Apparently it wasn’t against the rules to put one’s name on the ballot; regardless, it’s ridiculous to argue that the Michigan and Florida delegations - elected without real campaigning from any of the candidates - ought to be counted in full for Clinton. 

I was talking to Alice about this earlier this afternoon, and the entire effort by Clinton and her supporters to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates smacks of insincerity.  Clinton wasn’t in the least concerned about democratic fairness when she was projected to win, yet - now that she’s losing - caucuses are “unfair” and it is integral that the (almost completely uncontested) delegates are seated.  The whole argument is total bullshit, and they know it.