If it is anything, it will be a caucus. Florida knew the rules.  Its Bill Nelson's problem, and apparently the line that the Republicans did it won't wash because the Dems in the FL legislature voted the same way.  Dean is quite right and shouldn't be bullied.  It isn't as though the Dems have much of a chance in FL anyway.

The great news is that caucuses (that Obama will likely win or tie) will completely undermine Hillary's argument for seating MI or FL.  

A banner day.  Big Mo for Obama!  Hillary on the ropes.  To bad she couldn't close the deal when she had the chance.  Obviously, Hillary is not ready for prime time.

I think I saw a conributor on The Plank (or maybe the The Stump) suggest that Obama and Clinton each put up part of the money for a redo in FL.  Sounds like a good idea to me.  They both pulled in record halls this month.  Maybe the best outcome would be for the FL state party to put up $8M -- since, after all, they caused this mess in the first place -- and Obama, Clinton and the national party put up $4M apiece.  With a stern warning that this will NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

I disagree on this one Eve. I think Dean should stand his ground, tell Nelson to take a flying leap - it's called leadership and he has every right to exert his the power of his position here forcefully.  Nelson's state broke the rules and now they are paying for it, this is 100% their fault and their citizens should be outraged.  

Dean's right - it *isn't* Dean's problem, it's Nelson's and Dean should say so again - put the blame where it belongs.  

What is the point of having rules if powerful whiners can bully them into being overturned? Especially since this is clearly to save Nelson's behind - he doesn't want to take the heat for his poor decision making, he should have bullied the legislature months ago rather than Dean.  I have zero sympathy for Nelson.

They should do a mail-in vote in Michigan and accept the vote in Florida--not caucuses which disenfranchise large categories of voters. Millions of people actually went to the polls and voted. The primary was sanctioned by the state. Everyone was on the ballot. Obama was the only one who ran tv ads there.

But pccostello, in another thread here on The Plank  you're on the record supporting a caucus in Michigan.

This is very embarrassing for you. Why the quick flip-flop? How come you weren't ready on Day One on this issue? Did Howard Wolfson call with revised talking points after your first post? I hope they don't demote you to trolling lesser blogs.

Indeed.  The problem is resolved. The states moved their primaries before whatever magical date was deemed to make the primary schedule ridiculous and now they complain about the sanctions.The line may be arbitrary, but they knew where it was when they crossed it. It is not as if some absurd and long forgotten technicality has been invoked.  

Well, Doc, if someone doesn't step up and shell out in order to _fix_ the problem, it may well fester and have an impact on our chances in the presidential race.

Why don't you get Rahm to work his speed-dialer and hit up Soros Bing Geffen Lewis et al? Plus have Trippi work his online magic from below. It's really not that much money to raise, is it, for a national organization with millions of affluent and dedicated members? When the presidential election may be on the line?

Philosophically, why should states fund party primaries in the first place? Political parties are private organizations, not particularly different from religious denominational groups or issue groups. Should the public finance elections to the Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee, or the National Rifle Association's board of directors?

If state parties want to have primary elections, shouldn't we expect them to foot the bill? And in terms of the practical effects of the modern primary system, can anyone seriously argue that we've had better, less corrupt presidents since 1972 than the ones we had before 1972?

Howard  should just put his foot down and tell the Barack  folks that the voters in FLA/MICH have already voted. And  they made clear their preference for HRC. This talk of a "do-over" is errant nonsense

The only train wreck that is bound to happen will be if   Barack becomes our nominee

All Barack fans - please stop whining whenever you lose a primary.

BUT - if we do another vote, have no doubt that Penn will devise a strategy that will rout Barack. Penn is an undisputed genius

Here's an idea:

Have a do-over in Florida, use the caucus system, but *only let Democrats suffering from verifiable cases of Alzheimer's disease or other dementia participate*.

I want to see Grannies head-butting in church basements as they march their walkers from Obama banner to Clinton banner and back again, wondering what the hell they're doing there.

I want to see Floridians not only crippled by wasted brains but for whom *English is a second language* stumbling around high school gyms like anorexic zombies, then wetting themselves.

I want reporters and pundits and campaign staffers and talk-show hosts metastasizing all over the tube as they drone on and on about Cuban exiles and Lauderdale gays when suddenly Uncle Bernie plows his '89 Cadillac through the window of the Laundromat across the street at 10 m.p.h., then exits and, before walking away, feeds the meter.

I want a process that gets more painful by the day.

I want a process that never stops.

I want a process that leaves no one satisfied.

I want a process that makes us long for the days of Terri Schiavo.

In short, I want a process that serves up some hot and spicy, deep-dish, all-you-can-eat, take-no-prisoners, pardon-our-collateral-damage instant muthafuckin' karma.

Yes, If I were a Hillary supporter I would be sanguine indeed.  With Penn, resident genius, on the team, how can they lose?

I have the solution. Allow MI and FL two delegates each to be selected by lottery: one out of courtesy, the other so they will shut up. It's more than either deserves

"Howard  should just put his foot down and tell the Barack  folks that the voters in FLA/MICH have already voted. And  they made clear their preference for HRC. "

I don't know.  I think if "Uncommitted" had had just a couple more days to campaign in MI he would have pulled it out.  :> ]

pccostello:  You continue to be ridiculous.  Your strong support for Hillary has completely blinded you to any sense of basic fairness.  Is there a chance that Obama would have done better in Florida if he had been, you know, *trying* to win Florida?  Yes.  So long as that's the case, it's completely unfair to take the election results as is, considering that Obama was relying on the candidates' agreement not to campaign there.  And if you say, "all those people voted" one more time, I'm going to puke.  That would be like counting the outcome of a pre-season baseball game after the fact on the theory that nine innings were played.  You know that you're wrong on this, so just give it up.

Do I want an election in Florida that counts?  Absolutely, so long as there is a decent amount of time for both sides to campaign.  Do I care if it's a primary or a caucus?  No I don't.  I tend to prefer primaries even though I strongly support Obama and know that he does better in caucuses.  See that, pc?  See what it's like not to have every opinion based on your preferred outcome?  To actually have a principled viewpoint?  Why don't you freakin' try it sometime?  A tip:  You seem more like an honest person, and less like an intellectual whore, if every so often you acknowledge that not everything under the sun favors your horse.

Who should pay for a new Florida election?  Who pays for every election?  The states.  That's the way it's set up.  The DNC doesn't have a budget for fixing willful and knowing big state election fuck ups.  The DNC has clear rules, and, when it comes to holding elections, it's just common sense that they not be changed in the middle of the game.  Florida Democrats should be outraged with their state's leadership.  The state screwed itself, and it continues to screw itself.  There's a way to fix it.  Submit a plan for a new election, as Michigan intends to do.  It's not the DNC's job to reward bad behavior by paying for Florida's do-over, when it hasn't had to pay for any other state's election.  If someone like Tep wants to make the argument that departing from the rules in this case is necessary pragmatically and that such departure would be fair to both candidates (neither candidate should have to pay for it), I'll listen.  I'm not feeling it so far.  But please, pc, spare us the patent bullshit, for once.

On reflection, I think a lottery is an excellent solution. Additionally, each state would suffer a penalty not less than 20% of it's delegates.

tembrech, you really are funny. And if the situation were reversed I am sure you would feel the same way, right? That if Hillary kept her name off but Obama's was on you would be saying the same thing. Anyway, since you are so confidant that Hillary Mondale will win there, then why not. Let her prove once and for all that she can win there in November but winning there now.

The longer this nonsense goes on, the higher the chances that we will have President McCain in November. I have a lot of black friends and a few independents who have vowed to never vote for Hillary, and my elderly parents have vowed never to vote for Barack. It seems like the Democrats are basically screwed.

Why do Dems continue to do this? Every election since 1972 they've tried to fix this bizarre process, and it just keeps getting worse. If the election campaign is really a marker for what the winning administration is going to function like, why would anyone ever vote for a Democrat, no matter how attractive as a person?

hey there hildner - (OT) q for you. You maintained that BHO would do better and better with hispanics as they got to know him better. No snark intended, but care to explain what happened with BHO and the hispanic vote in TX? He doesn't seem to be getting traction with them.

t

williamyard wins post of the week right there.

Alternate solution: When the other states finish voting, and Obama still has enough of a pledged-delegate lead that he's in first place even counting the results from FL and MI, just let the delegations from those states take their seats and cast their votes.

And, in the meantime, ask the scofflaws in Michigan and Florida to grow up and stop whining about having to face consequences for breaking rules. My state followed the rules, at the risk of the nomination being decided before we voted, and in the end we got a real campaign here that the whole country paid attention to. There really is no reasonable response to MI and FL whining that their cheating didn't pay off like they hoped it would, while those states that followed the rules benefitted from following the rules, other than "Screw 'em." Those states made a deliberate choice to affect the race by providing "momentum" instead of electing delegates. There is nothing unfair about requiring those states to abide by the choice they made. So less whining now, please, and more gratitude later when the grown-ups decide to seat their delegations anyway after it's clear that doing so won't make any difference to the outcome.

Well, Tep, the pattern seemed to be that he was making inroads among the constituencies he was having trouble with, including working class and Hispanic voters, and that voters generally warmed to him over time.  I was disappointed with the Ohio and Texas results.  Obviously, he didn't do what he needed to do.  I don't know why, and it has me worried.  Honest enough?

thank you, counselor

jhildner, give it up, she is so convinced that no matter how ugly Hillary wins, that all Democrats and independents and Republicans will flock to Hillary in November. Every Candidate needs their true believer. I remember Walter Mondale a few days before the election say that the energy and enthusiasm of the crowds wherever he went let him believe that all the polls were wrong, that he would pull it out.

I voted for Reagan then (it was my first election) and I viewed Mondale as an out of touch political dinosaur. Needless to say, I wasn't alone. In so many respects Hillary is running Mondales campaign, only she needs to sink to lower depths than Mondale had to against Hart. Mondale won the Democratic base, and Hart the independents and young. Mondale did get the black vote, something HIllary is alienating more and more. The same arguments Mondale made then Hillary is now. He was the experinced candidate (remember he had a red phone ad too).

McCain will eviscerate her, shredding her experience argument in two. When her tax returns come out, and the millions the Clintons have made become common knowledge, he will also portray her as a rich socialist out of touch with common people. And if McCain chooses Condi Rice as his running mate, turn out the lights, it will be over in September.

It was blindingly obvious to me in 1984 how it would play out, and it is so now.

But Hart never offered any beef. Obama would be wise to profit from Hart's unhappy experience.

Cut:

Blackton.  Hillary is not going to win the nomination. You need another scenario.

Sorry, but I disagree. I've given money to the DNC in the past, and having the DNC fund a re-vote, especially when the states are at fault, is just bad use of that funding.

I suppose a case can be made that for the party good, it is the DNC's problem, but it's not a very strong one, in my opinion. If the states wanted their votes to count, they should have adhered to the rules.

Tep: bingo. He has to gut her, it won't hurt him in the general as it will delight Republicans that he did it, it might hurt his favorables, but in Pa (where in Philly we booed Santa Clause) it will only help. He can't be so prissy about getting her blood on his shirt.

I think the beef people are looking for is muscle.

If Dean caves in to Florida then what's to stop other states from ignoring the rules in future election years?  And enough with the "Obama ran TV ads in Florida" canard.  They were a few NATIONAL ads ON CABLE and there wasn't any way to carve Florida out of them.  Besides, the point isn't whether a few ads were run, but what the voters were told BEFORE the vote.  They were told that it wasn't going to count, so there's no way that either the Florida or Michigan votes can be pointed to as representative of the will of the people.

The Pennisular States are screwed and are trying to make themselves relevant.  Not gonna happen.

No one will pay for a re-vote.  Too much money and confusion.  

Hillary will not participate in a caucus.  She knows it's too hard for her to win.

So Hillary asks for another election knowing it can't happen.  She is cutting off the Caucus option.  She will tell people an election is ok, but a caucus is not acceptable and she will not participate.

Now the DNC and Obama have three choices.

1.  Pay for new elections and start planning them.

2.  Seat the MI/FLA Delegations as voted.

3. Lower the requirement for nomination and take MI/FLA out of the total.

As I have said before, DNC won't get anyone out of this mess and the States are not capable of fixing this.  DNC will have to lower the bar and let the last few primaries settle this.

It will be a minor historical footnote a year from now, but Michigan and Flordia wasted their votes.

What CRS9TNR wrote makes a bunch of sense to me.

A question re Choice #3 (lower the requirement for nomination): Was the # of delegates required to be nominated set before Florida and Michigan went their separate ways, or after? 'Cause if it's before, then hell yeah; it makes perfect sense. Otherwise FL and MI are further confounding the process because by essentially voiding their own delegates they're making it harder for someone to win a majority from those derived from the remaining primaries/caucuses.

And while I'm at it, I pull the plug on any FL- or MI-based superdelegates buzzing around, too.

I'm still not clear why a re-vote would be "too much money and confusion." Re. confusion, they've done it before. Just book the same facilities and get the same election day workers to do another take. Re. money, the candidates together have raised over $300m so far. A nut like Paul can raise a cool $4m _overnight_. We're a a wealthy country and this race, and these particular state primaries, matter enormously to the future of our wealthy nation. Why can't our party insist that, say,

--each superdelegate ante up $2,500... there's >$10m

--each side's well-compensated consultants kick back one-tenth of what they've raked in so far... there's another $1m or $2m

--the DNC asks for the mailing lists from each candidate, merges them with its own, and makes a direct appeal for $100 from thousands of Dems across the country. There's the balance.

The money isn't the barrier here. What is, exactly?

Our party is proposing to extricate our troops from Iraq without causing the roof to fall in, and we can't figure out how to extricate our own little institution from our botched first go-round in MI and FL? We can't manage to fund and stage a primary in short order?

What does this tell the voters?

What if Obama pulled out the checkbook and said he would pay for caucuses in both states?  He's got the money, he would get the moral high ground, and the caucuses are good for him.  And thus it would force Clinton to argue against a re-vote, too.

Deleting Florida and Michigan delegates would amount to a reduction of 313 pledged and 53 super delegates.  

I think caucuses resemble an affirmation of the crappy electoral college system.

LOL ejbenjamin, I think Senator Obama might well insist that the Canadian Governor of Michigan fund the re-vote from her own means.

There you go. That's the Yes, we can! spirit.  

I'm good for $200 to the democratic party to cover new contests in both states.  Are there another 100,000 Democrats out there who think a fare nomination process is worth that much?

What yard said. No way should FL and MI be rewarded for their delinquency. On a related question, when will somebody move and second abolishing the DNC altogether and coming up with a better idea?

I've got to love Howard Dean:  He and the DNC are  the sumbitches who abolished the "legality" of the FL and MI primaries, thereby disenfranchising a million or so Democratic voters, and now he has the balls to say, "That's not our problem.  We need our money to win the presidential race."

Hey, that sure is some masterful leadership the Dems are showing to every concerned voter.  If they run their own party that way, I can't wait to see how they run the country!    

Hmmm---the Repubs seem to have coped with the early primaries in those two states just fine.  Not a pretty contrast if you think adult leadership is a virtue.  

jhildner:

"Is there a chance that Obama would have done better in Florida if he had been, you know, *trying* to win Florida? "

Let's not forget that Clinton wasn't trying to win there, either. Furthermore, since Obama ran tv spots there and she didn't, it's arguable that she had more "not trying" going on. Anyway, Florida had a record turnout, so you can't pretend that people didn't show up.

I'd also like to point out that Obama outspent her in Ohio, by ALOT. And not just what he spent, either. He had unions spending for him, as well. He was really triying to win there. And she still trounced him.

Michigan is a different case, obviously, because Obama wasn't on the ballot. But having a caucus is not having a do-over. It's like if the Superbowl were ruled invalid, and the Pats and the Giants had to have a rugby match as a do over. ok, poor analogy, but you get the idea: it's just not the same, even though it's...sort similar.

Having another primary is a do-over.

Let's see, Howard Dean's bid for the nomination in '04 tanked embarrasingly.

So, tell me again why the Democrats chose him to head up the party?

You guys don't really and truly want the responsibility of the presidency, do you?

Woody,

As I actually did say somewhere else in these blogs, I try to be polite here, but you have to try not to be an idiot. My other post about the rumor of a caucus in Michigan, if you read it, suggested that a deal that did a caucus in Michigan and seated the delegates in Florida might be an approach to a compromise. Caucuses disenfranchise large groups of voters. Look at the current results in Texas. I am not in favor of a caucus anywhere. Amil ballot would be much better.

Check out this post on Obama's caucus "victories." althouse.blogspot.com/.../why-are-results-so-different-in-primary.html

As well-known Clinton family front man Christopher Hitchens wrote about the Iowa Caucuses before the first set of "inducements" had even been unboxed:

"But this is not what the caucus racket actually does. What it does is give the whip hand to the moneyed political professionals, to the full-time party hacks and manipulators, to the shady pollsters and the cynical media boosters, and to the supporters of fringe and crackpot candidates."

www.slate.com/.../2181008

I don't begrudge Obama for winning the caucuses when they have them.  I do begrudge the self-indulgent party idiots that actually think that caucuses are in any way a reasonable substitute for a real election.

Caucuses aren't just "arcane" - they are a disgrace, and they should be made illegal.

jadamsf:

"Check out this post on Obama's caucus 'victories'..."

Nice, impartial, objective, insightful analysis. Michelle Malkin Award nominee of the day.

Molly:

Yes, I understand that Hillary was likewise not trying to win in Florida either, in the sense that she didn't campaign there.  But ask yourself who benefits from less campaigning -- the known entity or the new guy?  Obviously, if Obama had not campaigned at all, he wouldn't have won anything.  The trajectory has been from Hillary having an overwhelming lead to Obama beating her in delegates after most of the voting.  He increases his appeal the more people get to know him.  Yes, he campaigned in Ohio, and didn't do as well as I was hoping, that's for sure.  But that hardly proves that Florida would have had an identical result with or without campaigning.  (Because that's what you have to show to argue for counting it now, absent a do-over.)

The question is:  Is there a *significant chance* -- not a sure thing, but a significant chance -- that Obama would have done better in Florida (wouldn't even have to win, as this is a delegate race) if he had campaigned there?  I say, obviously yes.  If there is a significant chance that the outcome would have been different if the state had counted from the outset, and there had been campaigning as a result, then you can't change the rules after the fact, and now say that it counts.  That's just basic fairness.

I don't think one regional or national cable ad buy, which the campaign was told, I believe, was within the rules, changes this analysis much at all.  It's certainly no substitute for actual campaigning within the state.

So, no sale Molly, sorry.

Do-overs -- primaries or caucuses, however they want to do it -- are fine with me, so long as there is adequate time for both sides to campaign.

As to caucuses v. primaries -- I like primaries because they're more inclusive, as in easier to participate, and I think it's good for the party to bring a lot of people in at the selection stage.  However, it's not a grave offense to democracy to hold a caucus rather than a primary.  The party can choose its nominee however it wants, and we see a mix across the states (including one with both).  It wasn't so long ago that nobody got to vote.  That's not a good thing, but you get the point.  There's less of an entitlement to access (even if there's some, due to our two-party system) to the nominee selection process than to voting in general elections.  My understanding is that MI was planning to hold a caucus as a backup if the early primary thing failed anyway, so, fine, a caucus is okay.  So is a primary.  Either one.  I certainly don't think it's required for the DNC or the candidates or anybody but the states to pay for them (although it may be smart to pitch in to avoid the problem of a "disenfranchised Florida" down the road -- not completely sold on that, but whatever).

buffaloboy, the arguments against party caucuses all apply to an even greater extent to any exercise in direct democracy. Such as, for example, New England town meetings and PTA meetings. Once you start agitating to outlaw those practices, we can take your complaints against party caucuses seriously.

It's worth remembering that political parties are not government institutions. This isn't the Soviet Union. Political parties are private membership organizations. There is in principle no difference between having the state hold and pay for elections to choose a political party's nominee and the state holding and funding elections to, say, a church denominations executive committee or the NRA's board of directors. No on is "disenfranchised" if a political party chooses to limit participation in party decisionmaking to party members, or even to people from certain states and not others.

Now, there may be practical reasons why a party should prefer the primary system to the caucus system. You might, for instance, be of the opinion that the presidents we've elected since 1972 have been better and less corrupt than the presidents we elected before 1972. As a Democrat, you might be of the opinion that the Democratic Party has been more successful in nominating winners since 1972 than we were prior to 1972. If you hold either of those opinions, then primary elections would be a good idea. But it is simply wrong to base one's opinion on the matter of caucuses versus primaries in the false notion that primary elections are the same as actual elections to public office. They are not.

rhube,

you are stretching comparisons beyond all reason. the comparison to a town meeting is entirely irrelevant--we are talking about disenfranchising millions of voters, not 100 people from a small town gathering in an auditorium.

the vast disparity in the number of participants and the results between the primary and the caucus in Texas is a very clear indication of just how distorting of the voters' will and undemocratic. Obama's calculated exploitation of caucus states has been.  Clinton won the primary with millions of participants; she lost the caucus held on the same day with about 1% of the number of participants. Which result more accurately expresses the will of voters?

There should be no new caucuses, as they just fuel the Clinton pity-fest. Some rich donors should step in and fund new elections in both states.

And, by the way, it is Dean's problem. He can be stubborn about it but it's ultimately self-defeating. Dean may think he's scolding the naughty children and telling them to pay attention to the consequences of their actions, but these naughty children can walk out, join the household next door, and then burn his house to the ground. Not saying he should necessarily fund the new elections but at least make a visible effort to resolve the issue.

pccostello, kind of makes you wonder where the "democracy" is in the Democratic Party, doesn't it?  

Hey, the Party of the Little Guy is all in favor of "the Little Guy."  Except, of course, when it comes to really important decisons like choosing a presidential candidate.  In that case, "the Little Guy" needs to be protected from him/herself by their altruistic betters in the Party Elite.  Long live the Nanny State!  

How on earth have the Dems morphed into the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight?  

If the only thing that matters is the will of the people, why don't we just nominate John McCain as the Democratic nominee?  He'd get nearly 100% of the vote!  The people agitating against caucuses seem ridiculous to me.  They ensure the candidate has the values of the party that is nominating them.  The primaries ensure the candidate is acceptable to the masses.  Seems like a perfectly fair system to me.  Don't like it?  Go start your own party and quit whining that Obama has been taking advantage of one of several paths to the nomination.

Actually, zacwbond, I think that Christopher Hitchens, as quoted above, put to rest the idea that caucuses "ensure the candidate has the values of the party that is nominating them."  

Instead, caucuses ensure "the moneyed political professionals, the full-time party hacks and manipulators, the shady pollsters and the cynical media boosters, and the fringe and crackpots" choose the candidates.  

Either you believe in a Democratic Party that believes in Democracy in its heart, or you don't.

dlrocdoc -- So I assume that you're catgorically opposed to superdelegates, as they don't represent any vote at all.

Rhubarbs,

In a legal/philosophical sense, you're right about political parties being private organizations that can run themselves however they please.  As a practical matter though, one of the two major party candidates will be the next president, and this is the first stage in the process of choosing our country's next leader, Just because the parties are allowed to use unrepresentative processes to choose their nominees doesn't mean that it's a good idea to actually do so.  The reasons that we should want greater democracy in the first part of the election process are the same reasons that we require it in the second part .  You know, that whole "government of the people, by the people, for the people" thing.

"The people agitating against caucuses seem ridiculous to me.  They ensure the candidate has the values of the party that is nominating them.  The primaries ensure the candidate is acceptable to the masses.  Seems like a perfectly fair system to me."

The argument is that "the masses" should count for more because, well, there are masses of them.

If the arguments against caucuses weren't so transparently self-serving, they might have a prayer of being taken seriously.  

Needless to say, if Hillary did well at them, then the sudden concern for poor working women with no babysitters (barf) would be non-existent.  My mother pounded on doors for Jesse Jackson while working full time, going to school and taking care of kids.  We didn't have two cents.  Where were her valiant defenders in the Democratic party?  

As it stands now, all of this faux flag waving, hand over the heart concern for what is fair to the working man - is just embarrassing.  

To use and whore-monger such noble sentiments for blatantly self-serving purposes is the hallmark of Clintonism.

Bill CLinton cleaned up at the caucuses. I honestly respect people who simply say - this doesn't work for my candidate and I want her to win - that doesn't even piss me off at all, the honesty is much appreciated.  But insulting my intelligence like this is just beyond my ability to stomach.  Just be honest.

I don't think either state should ge a "re-do" of any kind, but now that the Clintons are involved in any way, it's clear that rules are only for chumps.

The Kansas Democratic Party paid for the caucuses in Kansas, not the state.

Wandrey -- thank you.

jhildner, Yes, I think the superdelegates are an abomination.  I was listening to Geraldine Ferraro on the radio the other day explaining why she helped craft the existing superdelegate system, and why there were about 650 of them:  "Well," she said, "there are 435 Congressmen, and 100 Senators, and 50 State Governors, and then some former Democratic Presidents and Vice Presidents and former Presidential candidates.  That's why the number is about 650."  

The interviewer pointed out to her that actually not every congressman, senator, or governor is actually a democrat (some are actually elected Republicans!  Go figure!), so that accounts for only about 320 superdelegates, tops.

So, who the heck are the other 330?  Since some of these superdelegates are only 18 - 21 years old, they can hardly represent long-time party elders.  Instead, it's pretty obvious that a bunch are chosen using old-style nepotism.

Which means that in the end, when the superdelegates choose the candidate, the choice will be made by the equivalent of an European aristocracy:  you get to cast the deciding vote because of who your daddy and mommy are, and your family connections.

Yeah, sure: the meritocratic Party of The Little Guy.  The Repubs, who don't have 'superdelegates," look awfully democratic in comparison.  

dlrocdoc -- okay, fair enough.

dlrocdoc, if there were no superdelegates, and the candidates arrived at the convention with none in possession of the committed delegate necessary for the nomination, how would a candidate be chosen?

Presumably, the old fashioned way, with a lot of logrolling in smoke-filled rooms.  With the most influential and powerful party members (either the elected ones or the monied ones), making the decision.

That's how it was always done in the past.  But, all the reforming of that system was intended to make the system more "democratic".

Do you prefer the traditional way?  If not, what system do you propose that would best reflect the will of the primary voters.