Maybe it's that I'm paying more attention this year.  Maybe it's because the two candidates have been going at each other like antagonistic characters in a lesser Looney Tunes feature.  Maybe it's the length (dear GOD, the length!) of this primary season.  But does it feel like the race for the Democratic nomination has been particularly convoluted, counterintuitive and tedious this year?  Has it always been so?  Did I miss something in years gone by?  

I agree that this is a pathetic way to pick a president, Michelle.  And, if the Democrats manage to louse up what should be a cake walk to the White House, there is no conclusion to be drawn but that they deserve to lose.

This is incredibly painful to hear. How can we let this insanity continue until the end of August??? How can this be good?

Hey - its earmarks writ large, everybody hates the other guy's, but mine  - eminently justified.

Thanks to the hammer for this legacy.

Another reason to hate Ohio.

drdannyu, the 2004 Dem primaries was sunshine and light compared to this morass. Never underestimate the Democratic parties ability to make sure there is no such thing as a sure thing, except the ability of Democrats to lose sure things.

"what's to stop superdelegates in every state from withholding their support until they can provoke a bidding war between the candidates over who will shower their states with the most jobs, roads, subsidies, federal contracts, and, of course, ponies, ponies, ponies for everyone!?

What a pathetic way to pick a president. "

Oh, you mean by having a real convention instead of a coronation?  What a pathetic grasp of the party system.  I mean, why have conventions at all?  In that case, who needs parties?  Just have primaries, run, of course, by the media.

I bet the superdelegates that have already announced are starting to wish they had held out for the ponies.

Hating the buckeye state? Has it come to this?

Biden for President! Super delegates, go for it.

This is what parties are for, indeed. But does it have to be so ugly? The Republicans don't HAVE "superdelegates". And they have winner-take-all primaries. And a great winning percentage.

I don't have anything against politics. What I hate is politics that seem designed to fail. Since before 1972 the Dems have been trying to figure this out, and have only succeeded in making matters worse. George Meany described the new crowd of academics who began "reforming" the Democrats' selection process back then, "The look like Jacks, act like Jills, and smell like Johns."

What ever happened to just figuring out the best way for your folks to win the election?

Agree with Robert, the goal should be to win elections and the Democratic party has done a bang up job of creating systems that make this harder in many respects.  

The "best" candidate does  not always win and so trying to find the "best" is a fool's quest.

The goal should be to find a candidate that 1, represents the party principles 2. maximizes the votes from your own party, (increase turnout) 3. attracts undecideds and independents and 4. is non-polarizing to the opposition (read HRC guarantees a coin flip in the election)  encouraging apathy on the other side.

I understand that HRC portrays herself as a fighter and the problem with a fight is that someone has to lose and if anyone can explain how she her strengths counter McCain's I would like to hear them.

She voted for the war, she has less "experience" and 50% of the country hates her.

How is this a recipe for a win?

BHO spoke against the war and was proven correct, has less "experience" than McCain and is motivating people to turn out to vote and impact the country.  To get people to caucus is asking a lot and the commitment is more than to just vote so I respect any candidate that gets people to commit their time and money to help the cause.

McCain vs. BHO = Experience of what we have or a change for something new.

This seems more reasonable me if winning is the goal.

Tep

Much as I hate to say this, there's only one majority palatable convention compromise candidate ... Gore. I suppose this could be worse.

Gore!

Look, I'm beginning to hate Ohio, too; and I'm from Ohio!!

But I love Barack.

(He picked up a bunch of delegates down here in SW Ohio.)

One conclusion you reach from hanging around with other Democrats is that "of course, voting against the war is better than voting for it."  And among Democrats, this is absolutely the majority opinion.

But I'm not so sure it's the majority opinion around the country.  Certainly, the majority opinion around the country now is that this war is a disaster, and one obvious way of avoiding this disaster would have been to not start the war in the first place.

But before the war began, the majority opinion in this country was that we should go.  Maybe it was based on Bush and Cheney lies, but that's what people believed.  So when you repeat over and over that the only right opinion before the war was to be against it, you are basically saying to all the voters out there that did support the war at the outset: "You were stupid."  

Regardless of whether people were or were not stupid, they don't like being called stupid.  Just ask all the people who took out subprime loans - they were not stupid, oh no, they were duped/abused/scammed/hijacked at gunpoint/ into buying a house they can't afford.

Being against the war from day one isn't as big a badge of honor out in the country as most of you seem to think.  Being against it now is a whole lot safer.

buffaloboy makes a valuable point--hanging around with Democrats can be hazardous to your objectivity.

FWIW, and with apologies to those already familiar with Actual History, the Gallup organization ran large-sample, good methodology national polls between 1991 and 2003 on the unambiguous question, "would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with US troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

Always a majority, at times approaching 3:1 and averaging nearly 2:1 for the entire period, were in favor.  The number was 70% back in 1993, when it became clear that Saddam would not fall in the wake of his first defeat.  I've always wondered how "Bush lies" managed that when he was a n'er do well baseball team owner in Texas at the time.

Everyone is "against the war". Democrats make a big mistake when they imagine that everyone is against it for the same reasons they are, or that being "against the war" means the public is okay with accepting a defeat.