Warning: this is an uncharitable, venting rant.  I am angry, and to give you an idea, we are headed to Rude Punditville.  Stop right now if you don't want to read it.  Awhile back, I wrongly made a premature case for how Hillary Clinton needed to be talked about in order to give her supporters an easy transition into the fold.  I was wrong.  Some things trump.  So if you don't like harsh language or are a tenderheart, click away now.  I don't even particularly want this to be rec'd, just on the record.

What follows is a totally incomplete list of people who must speak up immediately and clearly, or it's on them too.  Silence + standing endorsement equals ratification.

In no particular order:

Paul Krugman.  Krugman, you weaselly motherfucker, you better ask for some forgiveness without the slightest goddamn snide remark.  

Tina Fey.  Tina, you exhorted voters to elect this goddamn horrorshow.  You have terrible judgment and you need to apologize for what you tried to bring about through your advocacy.

Like the Blowout Principle is the mathematical undermining of the Slate delegate calculator, the Closed/Open Principle is undermining turnout predictions for the remaining states.

A couple weeks ago, I wrote a diary that attempted to predict turnout, but it wasn't a full analysis.  I believed it a sounder model than those predicters who were merely throwing spaghetti at the wall, because I tied the turnout to congressional districts and past performance in the 2008 primary cycle, distinguishing between closed and open/semi-open primaries and comparing like to like.

Still, I began seeing different numbers and methods around the web.  Over at Open Left, fladem tied predictions of turnout straightforwardly to 2004 GE Kerry performance.  PA turnout was pegged at 75% of 2004 Kerry GE turnout, based on an average of 64% of Kerry turnout in primaries and 80% of Kerry turnout in primaries post-Super Tuesday.  I wanted to take a closer look because some 2004 GE states were battlegrounds and others were not.

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin'.

Seriously, this is just ridiculous.  Over at Salon, Sean Wilentz puts forth the basic argument is that if we could change the rules in mid-election, Hillary would be ahead.  But you can't change the rules in mid-election, and had the rules been different in the beginning, there's no telling how each campaign would have laid out their strategy.  

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.

(Cross-Posted at myDD)

Sean Wilentz created a big teapot in a tempest around here with his New Republic piece Race Man, in which he blames Barack Obama for all of the racial division in the Democratic primaries. This article has become a rallying point for many Clinton supporters in advancing this claim, partially because no one else has taken up the cry. At the time I, and many others, pointed out that it was poorly documented, relied on argument by assertion and circular logic, and in no way proved its point. Since that, the article has largely fallen into obscurity except among people who occasionally trot it out along with other tired charges.

But now Wilentz is back, with a much more succinct and updated version of the same attack, Obama was the first to play the race card. The New Republic piece at least had the virtue of being poorly circulated outside the blogosphere, but this piece ups the ante by reaching for wide circulation in a state with an upcoming primary.

There's just one problem- he's biased.  More of that towards the END of this entry.

Why I support Hillary Clinton
for President of the United States

Hillary is the only living representative of the 60’s movement in national politics. She represents the 60’s era, and all the cultural change that came with it. It was a cultural change that ranged from Woodstock to the music of Bob Dylan, from the civil rights era to the rise of the first anti-war movement, from the Berkeley free speech movement to the rise of feminism. She represents all these things in the minds of the Republicans who hate her so much.

Hillary has taken the place of Jane Fonda, who was the poster child for reactionary hatred from 1972 to 1992. Since "Hanoi Jane" had largely disappeared from public view by 1992, she was no longer a satisfactory rally point for direct mail fund raising. Hillary was seized upon as a replacement for Jane Fonda. Hillary became the visible embodiment of everything that reactionaries reject about the transcendent political movement of the 1960's.

This is for those Hillary supporters who are who are just appalled at the slander that's been tossed at Bill and Hillary Clinton over race during this campaign.  And for those who support Obama and are going to post a bunch of nasty comment here - all I ask is that you read the entire piece before you do so.

Put aside everything else - does it make any sense that the Clintons would "play the race card" if they wanted to win?  Could there be anything stupider one would do in a Democratic nomination contest?  Think about that for five seconds, and then read the piece

Have you read the astounding article by Sean Wilentz in The New Republic?  His loyalty to the Clintons is legendary, but this piece is beyond the pale.  He actually attempts to prove that the reason Hillary is losing is that the Obama campaign played the race card against her.  

To neutral observers I ask:  who is drinking the kool-ade now?

BEWARE: THIS DIARY IS PRO HILLARY. IF you are leaning Hillary or undecided AND you don't have the time to vet the candidates as thoroughly as possible, be happy and take a short cut...let others do the work of painstaking analysis and gathering of facts (as long as those facts check out).  Let other gurus help you decide who deserves your vote.  Don't sweat it.  We know the names we can count on.  There are truth tellers out there who can't be bought.  They've sounded the alarm before. So I'll indulge in some free association and  toss in a few names.  No research paper here...just some thoughts you might find helpful...and some links to check  out yourself. All of them do a great job of summarizing the facts and presenting cogent arguments.

I haven't written my weekly update yet but I wanted to get this out.  I'm sure others have written about Making the Case... for Hillary Clinton. By Sean Wilentz but it needs to be read by all Dems.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/...

About Sean Wilentz by DemocratSinceBirth at DU

"Wilentz took his B.A. at Columbia University in 1972, before earning another B.A. at Oxford University on a Kellett Fellowship and his Ph.D. at Yale University. His historical scholarship has focused mainly on the early years of the American republic. His major study to date, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln,

Read on for some tidbits from the fellow who wrote "The Worst President in History?," for Rolling Stone.

Note to O'Reilly Viewers on Faux News: see, we have nice things to say about our Fearless Leader.  Call me, Bill, for an appearance on your show.

The nation's premier association of professional historians, the American Historical Association, in conjunction with Princeton University, has decided to right an historical wrong and will confer the degree of PhD or, Doctor of Philosophy, next month upon President George W. Bush.  

What prompted the AHA to recognize one of its own?  Mr. Bush's incisive analysis of the lessons learned from the Vietnam War spurred this prestigious society to announce this award.  

Noted Princeton University historian, Sean Wilentz, who had characterized Mr. Bush as the worst president in US history last year, condemned his fellow historians for their premature judgment, promptly withdrew his objections, and endorsed the AHA's action.  Professor Wilentz admitted that he had been "misquoted."

    For your Sunday reading pleasure, Rolling Stone magazine has a couple of articles that should be getting play all over the MSM - so of course you'll be lucky to hear anything about either of them. Princeton historian Sean Wilentz has put together a look at how the Bush presidency stacks up against other really bad presidents. This is worth looking at if only for the historical perspective. There are too many good quotes to pull out here. Definitely a must read. The Worst President in History? One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush
     If that weren't enough, Rolling Stone sets the Wayback Machine to1999 and reminds us we were warned.
All Hat, No Cattle We warned you! Look back at our 1999, pre-primary assessment of George W. Bush  (more)

This fall is really shaping up to be the season of important new books in US history. Gary Nash has a brand new synthesis, The Unknown American Revolution, a comprehensive and highly readable survey that properly puts small farmers, artisans, blacks, Indians, and women at the center of the story. Sean Wilentz has just published a massive tome entitled The Rise of American Democracy: From Jefferson to Lincoln, which looks to be of interest to kossacks because of its sympathetic treatment of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, the founders of the Democratic Party.

A third recent, important, and highly timely history book is Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution: A Biography. Some of us remember Amar from the Bush v. Gore case, when he briefly became a talking head commenting on the history of the electoral college. According to his amazon reviews, however, he has long been known as one of the more popular professors at Yale Law School. In America's Constitution, it appears he has put together a definitive revisionist look at how the Constitution was approved.

More on the flip...