My biggest problem is the ultra-un-democratic caucuses. If Obama wins the primary by winning almost all caucuses, then he he has an un-democratic win.

I've already quit the Democratic party. I've decided that Democrats choose their candidates in the most stupid way ever, and in doing so, almost always choose the WRONG candidate. St. Obama, the ordained one, is the WRONG candidate.

Besides that, I think if we have Democrats in the White House and in Congress and if anything goes wrong with the war, WE own the war. It's best for Democrats if a Republican wins the White House again, while Democrats have large majorities in Congress. Then, and only then, will the media, etc. not pin the diaster that is coming in Iraq and other places on the D brand.

I support your ideas about the popular vote, but here don't we get into a sticky wicket about Florida and Michigan? Hillary is ahead if you include them, but I am not sure if that is the case if they are excluded.

Ms. Clinton had a pretty impressive Super Tuesday, and I don't think she lost her strength overnight. The Obama wins since then can just be chalked up to superior caucus organization.

An encouraging sign for Clinton: William Kristol once again declares her dead in the NYT.

eriposte:

Please hold onto your seat. We both know that there is an underlying pro-clinton slant but this is a really good article. It points the ominous problem that is awaiting us depending how the delegate count works out. We must bear in mind that both Clinton and Obama are politicians and will favor the rules that allow them to receive the nomination. I am not going to say that I am going to abandon the party if things don't go the way I think they should go. I like Donna Brazile; but I think that her comments were a bit shall we say “un-thought-out.” Where would she go? The Republican Party?

I just think that we all should take a step back and see how things play out with super delegates as well as the mystery of what we do about FL and MI. Again Eriposte this is a good article.

Bob H,

Yes, Kristol's declaration is good news for Clinton fans since he's always wrong.

As for MI and FL, I predict their delegates and votes will ultimately count. Sen. Obama himself told Floridians last year that he will try to get their delegates seated - so it would be hypocritical and counterproductive of him to change his mind in the end. MI has already awarded delegates to Clinton (see the news over the weekend) and the question of seating will need to be worked out. There is no way that the DNC is going to tell the massive number of voters who voted there that their vote doesn't count. More voters voted in MI and FL than in many of the other states combined.

The system is horribly undemocratic. Caucuses are undemocratic. Superdelegates are undemocratic. The disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan is undemocratic.

There isn't any way to tweak any of these elements are make it "more" more democratic.

I think everyone should just play by the rules as they were set out at the beginning. Change them next cycle. Anyone seeking to change some but not all the rules is likely doing so to promote a candidate, not fix the system. The Obama folks don't like superdelegates. Big surprise. The Hillary folks don't like caucuses. Wonder why?

Shorter Eriposte: Obama sucks.

Anyway, about this comment in particular, this is factually challenged for MI:
There is no way that the DNC is going to tell the massive number of voters who voted there that their vote doesn't count. More voters voted in MI and FL than in many of the other states combined.

I agree the delegates will get seated. However, "massive" numbers did not vote in Michigan. Less than 600,000 voted. The number of voters who turned out for the election was particularly anemic this year, even for a primary. Yes, more voters voted here than many states, especially when combined with Florida. But that's because Michigan and Florida are top 10 states for population. But "massive" numbers didn't turn out in MI, and it wasn't some glorious victory for Hillary here. She didn't even get 55% on a ballot that had practically only her and Kucinich. Nearly 40% voted for nobody. They're talking about holding a caucus on top of the primary, basically a do-over, it's a real possibility.

Oh, and another thing, eriposte -- the state party at this moment deciding how to allocate the delegates doesn't mean it's settled. It just means that Hillary supporters in Lansing are still trying to throw the delegates to her.

I am not sure what Donna Brazile meant by her statement...

I am. I saw her explanation of it when she said it. Too bad there is no transcript available...just the YouTube video accessible with a 20 second search. God damn it! Vetting these quotes is so damn difficult. It must be hard to be a journalist these days, if we were in some fashion talking about journalism and accuracy of sources and statements, etc. Indeed, it's just a hell of a lot easier to quote the misquote misquoting the statement.

I take the comments to mean:

"If candidate A has a significant lead in pledged delegates and the superdelegates reverse that and make candidate B the nominee I consider that non-democratic (and non-Democratic) and will leave the party."

If caucus are so un-democratic, why haven't we heard much about that since, oh 1972?

And re: Michigan and Florida -- where were also the concern about their delegates when the DNC stripped them? I must of missed that.

I basically had no horse in this race until recently and its things like these that prompted my decision.

But then Sam Donaldson said what if one candidate has more popular vote and the other has more pledged delegates? Then what should the superdelegates do? Donna Brazile didn't have an answer. And when the question was asked, that was the case,though I think Obama is ahead on both now.

If that were to cause Donna Brazille to leave the party, that is certainly a positive thing that can be said about the contributions of superdelegates!

A whore is a genderless term that means a person who sells themselves for money. Therefore, saying goodbye to that worthless whore Donna Brazille would be a good thing.

A whore is a genderless term that means a person who sells themselves for money.

You bet. Just jump out there and say Hillary Clinton is a whore for lobby money and see what happens.

Hey, you're just like HRC! When things aren't going our way, let's just change the rules! Need the delegates from states everyone agreed were off the table? Heck, let's seat them! Can't win if the superdelegates vote based on the delegate count (what the candidates have been battling for, basing their spending, strategy, efforts on)? Heck, let them vote based on popular vote? Why not? In Clinton World, Rules Don't Apply to Her Highness, Apologies are Never Made, and Cheating Is Okay as Long As You Win!!