Given that it's the Clinton camp leading the drive to let Florida and Michigan vote twice, you'd think they'd be in favor of letting Texas count every vote twice too.

The more puzzling question is why TNR doesn't hate caucuses?  They create a poll tax for many parents who would like to participate, violate the secret ballot (imagine an African-American supporter of Hillary Clinton surrounded by friends, maybe even a boss, who are fervent Obama supporters), and outright prevent many working people from participating.  

That flushing sound you hear is the remainder of my affection for Senator Clinton.

I don't know where else to post this, but see Politico.com for what an effective Web redesign looks like.  Aesthetics, navigability, and on -- it has what the sorta-new TNR.com lacks.  I love the product but not the delivery.

Chris, I believe that this:

www.youtube.com/watch

would be the response of our beloved Plankers.

From HuffPo today:

"Close observers of yesterday's reports on the efforts of McCain and Obama to get Sen. Clinton to disclose her earmark requests going back to 2001 may have noticed a strange thing about the statement her office issued at the end of the day.

It said all manner of things about earmarks, and moratoriums, and funding, and accountability. But it never said whether she would disclose her earmark requests going back to 2001.

We spent today back-and-forthing a few more times by e-mail with her press office, and the exchanges made it pretty clear that the oversight was intentional. The plan seems to be that since the NY press has never obsessed over Hillary's earmark requests, she can safely not release them as long as she doesn't say she won't and doesn't say why she won't."

Gee, maybe Hillary got some money for something or other to which she herself or one or more campaign contributors have a financial connection.  But I am sure they were all hospitals.

lymon, I can only assume you've never actually attended a caucus. Got kids? Bring 'em! My parents were bringing me to Iowa caucuses before I could crawl. For heaven's sake. And while some caucuses (such as Iowa) require open statement of candidate support, many caucuses in fact use secret ballots.

Anyway, I assume you are also leading the charge to outlaw the New England town meeting as well as PTA meetings and other forms of direct democracy that require attendance and do not use a secret ballot. To the barricades! The tyranny of New Hampshire and your neighborhood elementary school must be resisted!

I kid, but only because these objections to caucuses as such are so laughable. And one must weigh against these claims a fair assessment of the practical results of the switch to primaries. As a practical matter, are you really willing to agree with either of these two propositions?

1. Since 1972, Democratic primaries have produced more winning presidential nominees than prior to 1972; and

2. Since 1972, the primary process in both parties has produced more competent and less corrupt presidents than was the norm prior to 1972.

honest to god, how many times does she get to move the goal posts...

Rhubs -- I've never attended a caucus.  I do know several single mothers and their "bring the kid(s)" practice varries widely.  In general, yes, I favor secret ballots where praticable regardless of setting, but particularly for electing our federal government representatives.  A caucus that has a secret ballot is definitely better than one that doesn't, but again, consider my hypothetical -- I don't know how anyone would say that person isn't going to experience an artic chilling effect, be it in voting or advocacy.  Why even risk it -- there's nothing *wrong* with a primary.  

1.  I'm not sure I understand your proposal: since 1972 the primaries produced more winning nominees than the caucuses or are we comparing pre/post 1972 nominees?  If the latter, I disagree -- Mondale/Dukakis/Gore/Kerry vs. Carter/Clinton (and obviously this is a muddle -- does Gore "win" does Clinton count twice, etc.)

2.  Hmmm -- I dunno -- competency: Carter/Dubya don't fare well (and Clinton needs time to get up to speed), corruption: Reagan/Dubya make this a bit muddy too.  

Separate point: Puerto Rico has switched from caucus to primary -- again, I think that helps Hillary because there's no way she overtakes Obama on pledged delagates.  

lymon, I mention 1972 because that's the easiest dividing line after which primaries have been the norm for presidential nominating contests, as opposed to prior to 1972, when it was more typical for parties to choose their own nominees by caucus and convention instead of outsourcing it to the least-committed members of the general public. You could plausibly put the line at 1968, but that puts first-term Nixon into play, and it just didn't seem sporting to burden the pro-primary argument with Nixon.

As to the secret ballot, I agree that when we're electing people to office, the secret ballot should always be used. But in a caucus or primary, we are not electing anybody to office. A political party choosing a nominee is no different than a church congregation choosing a new treasurer.

As to the kids, free on-site babysitting was how I won my Minnesota precinct for Harkin in '92 (my first voting-age election)! Of course, it helped that I was a senior in high school and was able to draw on a vast pool of eager underclassmen babysitters, but on such details are campaigns won and lost.

But I'm not so much pro-caucus as I am against silly and partisan arguments designed to persuade the uninformed that caucuses are some kind of antidemocratic force for evil in the world, as if the big problem in America today is that we have too much direct democracy and active participation in government, or as if Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam all came to power thanks to caucuses. The recently discovered Hillarista "principled" objections to caucuses as such just don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

"They create a poll tax for many parents who would like to participate, violate the secret ballot (imagine an African-American supporter of Hillary Clinton surrounded by friends, maybe even a boss, who are fervent Obama supporters), and outright prevent many working people from participating. "

Choosing delgates to the national party convention is a party function, not a function of state or national government.  Arguing about the process as if it were an election, in the constitutional sense is inappropriate in my view.

It's true that it's harder to get to a caucus than to a primary.  Whether or not that really disenfranchises many people seriously interested in the party is an open question - my observation is that the local Iowa caucuses are open, unintimidating, and that people who want to attend get assistance from each other and the local party organizers on questions like child care.  In order to hold a job, one has to show up to work, usually every day, for hours on end.  To be a member in good standing of a church, and have influence in how it does it's charity, one has to show up, joing comittees, and the like.  Is it really so much to expect that you do the same for 2 hours every 4 years in order to influence the most important decision your political party makes nationally?  I personally don't think so.  

I certainly don't agree with everything Christopher Hitchens says, but he's 100% right when it comes to caucuses.  And this article mostly focuses on the stupid side of the Iowa Republican caucus, not the Democratic one.

The undemocratic caucuses are a terrible way to choose a presidential candidate.

www.slate.com/.../2181008

A vote for Clinton is best cast in the privacy of a booth, doing such in the light of day would require too much bravery for most...