The following is my letter to Sean Wilentz, posted on the Salon magazine website. Mr. Wilentz published a piece today in Salon arguing that in a "fair" primary system, Clinton would be far ahead of Obama in pledged delegates. By "fair" he means winner-take-all. My reply below the fold.
wilentz intellectually bankrupt
Mr. Wilentz:
First things first: you misuse "vaunted" when you mean "vaulted". As a history professor myself, this strikes me as a literally sophomoric error.
Second, whatever the drawbacks of "the system", Obama is ahead in the popular vote even including Florida and Michigan. I have counted and recounted the votes, using estimates for the caucus states where we know total attendance but not precise totals, and Obama is ahead by something like 140,000 votes, even if you give him NO votes in Michigan.
Including Michigan without giving any votes to Obama is blatantly unfair. CNN polling indicates that had Obama been on the ballot he would have won substantially more votes than the "uncommitted" slated did. MOreover, other polling indicates more people would have voted.
Clinton reneged on her pledge not to pull off the ballot in Michigan, a fact you conveniently ignore. She also campaigned more actively in Florida than Obama did, in spite of your disingenuous reference to Obama's "stealth" campaign there. If memory served, she visited Florida pre-primary and Obama did not.
The DNC set the rules - Florida, Michigan, and Clinton refused to abide by them. Moreover the will of a plurality of Democratic voters to date is that Obama be the party's nominee. You are a professional historian skilled at analyzing texts and I cannot believe that you are not aware just how disingenuous your article is.
I am aware from stories inside the Princeton History Department just how close to the Clintons you are, and how you get off on bragging about your connections with them, and on the trappings of presidential power you get to take part in - Bill or Hillary helicoptering in to visit, etc.
The vast majority of rank-and-file Democratic activists have absolutely had it with both Clintons. We are not part of the privileged circles where you have chosen to sell yourself. I have to believe that this story is driven by your own frustration that you will not have a Cabinet position in a Clinton presidency. My sense is senior Clinton supporters could TASTE the power that would be coming their way - they believed Hillary was inevitable. Now you cannot accept that it is not going to work out.
I protested the Iraq invasion on the streets before it happened. Women who protested with me received death threats. At this point Clinton chose to betray us by voting to support use of force in Iraq, strictly to preserve her political viability. IN the event that vote has destroyed her viability as a presidential candidate. Given your own opposition to the Iraq invasion, I find your continuing support for Clinton baffling and indeed inexcusable.
You are a disgrace to your profession and to the progressive movement.