According to TPM's front page, Mark Penn has said the following:

Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.

That's right, every state that holds a Democratic primary is insignificant.

You see, it doesn't matter who Democratic voters choose. Not in California, Illinois, New Mexico, Kansas, or Virginia. Because that process, the democratic one, isn't really well-suited to picking the best candidate; the candidate who'll win in November. And don't we want the best candidate? Of course we do! And so does Mark Penn.

Mark Penn sees, and this really is merely the logical endpoint of his recent comments, that elections are imperfect devices. They measure what people WANT more than what they need. What Mark Penn is damn sure they need. And what's that, what do we need in a candidate? Who can be sure? Who can know a mind as brilliant as Penn's? All we can say for certain is that what's best for America has a one hundred percent correlation with what's best for Mark Penn's wallet.

But don't let that distract you. The guru Penn has led us to where -- had we been clear-thinking as he -- we were always meant to go. The land where elections don't matter, where the voice of all states everywhere, Hillary supporting or Obama supporting, are irrelevant in the quest for a Democratic nominee. All that matters is electability, and primary voters can't be trusted.

Yes, it is the logical endpoint of a masterful argument against democracy. We have finally reached it. It is finished.

Let's hope the Hillary 2008 campaign is the logical endpoint of Mark Penn's career as a Democratic strategist.