Hillary Supporter Wilentz Should Stop Talking, Writing

It's hard not to feel a little bad for Paul Krugman and Sean Wilentz, Princeton's two Big Time academics who seem hell-bent on going down with the Good Ship Clinton when the real party's somewhere else. Wilentz, a famous American historian, has moved on from spitting at Obama for playing the race card , but now is saying that if the Democratic party had completely different rules, and the primaries were counted one way and not another, Hillary would obviously win and therefore she should:  

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257.

Because, uh, if the primary rules were completely different, Obama would've had the same campaign strategy?

 The case for Hillary Clinton's electability [Salon]