First, the Super Delegates were "supposed" to represent the will of the voters in their district/state/maybe in their dreams. Now, "pledged" delegates can switch with impunity?

DNC leaders, your party discipline is completely disappearing.

Maybe the Obama/Axelrod hostile takeover will succeed. I'd been thinking it was a stretch too far, but, gee, with this kind of thing going on.

And recall that the initial "rules" for states skipping head of IA/NH was to lose half their delegate count (not clear if SD's were included in that). Then the DNC itself decided to abrogate the rules and came up with The Roolz, taking all delegates away. Wow.

BTD: Let me put it bluntly, anyone holding up the pledged delegate count as representing the "will of the people" is simply full of it.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I cannot believe that people make that argument, but they do. In fact someone argued with me just yesterday that the pledged delegate count was a more accurate measurement of the will of the people than was the popular vote. I just didn't know what to say  to that, so I just shook my head and moved along. Been doing a lot of that lately.

And Obama was my first choice. But between the spectacles of this primary and the behavior of his supporters, I have been led right back to where I was before the invasion of Iraq: convinced that the political process has little or nothing to do with me and serves only those with the loudest mouths and the most money.

That said, the flawed system cannot be used as a wedge to JUSTIFY that the nomination should in any way be Clinton's. Why? Both campaigns strategically campaigned and operated under the working assumptions contained in this flawed delegate system. It is precisely why Clinton lost: Penn was an idiot in his strategic planning for the caucuses and primaries after February 4th.

So while I would agree with any Clinton supporter that the system is a terrible mess currently, both candidates played by the same flawed rules, and understood well (I hope) how the game worked.

And now, not a single peep out of those phonies about voter disenfranchisment and the will of the people.

That shows there is no meaning for the pledged delegates.  We should value only the popular vote totals and abolish caucuses and pledged delegate system.

As we have known for a long time, the Democratic delegate selection process is a travesty.

 We have? The collective "we" that has known this is, apparently, the Clinton camp, which prepared a shock and awe strategy designed to end the nomination process after Super Tuesday.  Outmanuvered by a smart, cost-efficient grassroots campaign, a large percentage of anti-war progressives and a media that, to be fair, was suffering from anti-Clinton bias and a perverse sexism, the strategy was disastrous.  

 Regarding Florida and Michigan, I concur, the Dems screwed that one up royally, but only from a PR perspective.  No one has the "right" to participate in a political party's primary process.  But those were not contests, and the Clinton camp is not doing itself any favors by calling for the delegates to be seated as is, at least in Michigan.  The notion that Michigan Democrats who would have preferred a chance to vote for Edwards (as my family was planning on) or who would now support Obama (ditto) will be placated by seating a Clinton delegation is not only absurd, it is insulting.  Politically Michigan is a 50-50 state, for all intents and purposes.  The only reason Senator McCain doesn't have a chance in hell is because of the economy.

If you were serious about how absurd the primary rules are, you would also be attacking the inclusion of Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.  You're not, however, which leads me to conclude that you're simply upset that the Clinton campaign did not have the foresight and vision to contest caucuses and primaries, that they did not have the organizational skills to pull it off, and that they are now in a position where they are making an ugly electability argument that assumes, inter alia, that whites will not vote for Obama.

If Clinton games the system, it's evidence that she's ruthless and will do anything to win, that b*tch.

If Obama games the system, it's evidence that he's running a superior campaign, which is one more reason why he ought to be the nominee.

But claiming that it's ACTUALLY wrong to litigate the rules in court is just a bizarre thing to see from progressives.

Both are corrupt and more interested in power. What's evidenced by Obama's new coalition, which  doesn't encompass the values and beliefs of traditional voters, is that we are made to feel unrepresented by our party this year.  

Personally, I am a bit surprised at the overall lack of rigor here and the willingness to accept some of the outrageous things the party has done to US, the voters.

Hillary is ahead in the popular vote. Remember what Pelosi said "the will of the people".

Hillary is ahead in electoral votes. The ones it takes to win in November.

Hillary won most of the big states, again needed to win in November.

Obama ticked off FL and MI by blocking their votes, which Hillary won overwhelmingly. Say what you want, the fact is Hillary won FL and MI.

Obama ticked off TX voters by reversing Hillary's win in the primary with his corrupt caucuses. People don't like to be pushed, blocked, threatened, have documents stolen, etc. and forced out of caucuses unable to vote or have their vote overturned through corruption.

Buyers remorse is setting in. People are realizing Obama is a lot of hot air with no record of accomplishments, very poor judgement based on the fact that it took him 20 years to figure out his preacher is a racist, anti-American adulterer, when it took Oprah a very short time.

And, based on his deals with indicted Rezko, his money laundering with other Chicago crooks. And, his long-time friend and boss who help him launch his campaign, the unrepentant terrorist bomber, Ayers. The money men, Auchi, the Iraqi billionaire, the PLO people, and others.

And, his continual lying about Hillary, her programs, plans, and thoughts. Lying about his stand on Iraq, past and present. He didn't hear the preacher, then he did. He "doesn't" take lobbyist money. He tells Canada don't listen to him, it's only political rhetoric, and on and on.

The superdelegates should realize that the popular vote represents the will of the people.

The electoral votes represent the chance of winning in November.

OK, so here's my big question, why have a primary at all? Why not just have a pow wow and have the big wigs and the press select who they want. Why makes us actually think we can vote a candidate we like and who could be a good president and who could win in November if who the majority of Democrats vote for isn't who is selected.

And tell me now this is better than the Republicans in 2000?

1. There is room for future improvement in the Democratic nominating process;

2. Both Clinton and Obama operated under the very same rules and there is no evidence that either of them was involved in violations of those rules that effected the outcome; and

3. To change the rules in the middle of the contest -- as some have suggested with FL & MI -- to benefit one particular candidate over another would not be in the best interest of a party that prides itself on standing for principles of basic fairness.

Bill Clinton supported that lawsuit, which would have shut down pre-agreed to caucus sites and prevented voters from caucusing on the Strip, ie. suppressed their participation. Yes, that's wrong. Further, Bill Clinton mischaracterized the situation with the Caucus sites on the Strip implying that they would be weighted disproportionately in their favor. In fact, the opposite ended up being the case. (Of course, typical of the Clinton camp, now you complain about that Armando!) And, further, HRC won those caucus sites.

Second, Armando, you've consistently twisted my position on Nevada and conflated it with your stance on Michigan and Florida. It doesn't seem to matter to you that I've written here to clear that up. You just keep attacking using your false claims.

I'm consistent. Pre-agreed to rules created a penalty for Michigan and Florida for changing their primary dates. The candidates pledged in 2007 to honor those rules and not to campaign in MI and FL. Clinton went back on that pledge and has, since she decided to go to Florida to claim "victory" in a primary no one competed in, claimed that the MI and FL results are valid as they stand.

Once again, pre-agreed to rules were thrown out the window by the Clinton campaign to suit their argument of the moment.

Armando, the persistent fallacy in your argument about Michigan and Florida is that the rules provide for a negotiated outcome regarding Michigan and Florida and have done so all along. The problem for HRC is that the rules give the advantage to the winner of the pledged delegates in conjunction with the DNC members of the Credentials and the Rules Committees to negotiate that settlement.

In effect, Armando, you have been hyping Michigan and Florida for months, ignoring the fact that there was always a path to an equitable solution according to the pre-agreed to rules regarding their delegations. The problem was that that solution did not favor Hillary Clinton who, it's been clear for months now, has pretty much lost the contest for pledged delegates on which the nomination process is based and which would have given her the votes needed to seat the MI and FL delegations as they stand.

Armando, to go on a public conference call with your candidate and have her drum up blog support for the concept that she has somehow won the "popular vote" and to participate, once again, in an attack on states that held caucuses, makes your current pander on Michigan and Florida and primary reform out for what it is...another in a series of arguments slanted to favor a candidate who has, by all measures, lost any credible claim to a path to the nomination by the one standard agreed to by all parties ahead of time: that the winner of the contest for pledged and super delegates by the pre-agreed upon rules would be the nominee of the party.

Clinton said as much before this process began.

Now she is talking about the popular vote and "The Map" and not addressing the contest for pledged delegates.

And, Armando, you, once again, are engaging in misleading and inconsistent attacks on me in a blog post while complaining that the rules should be thrown out the window because they are unfair.

I will happily discuss reforming the nomination process. There is a time and a place for that; the midst of heated nomination contest filled with personal attacks is not it. I agree that the situation in MI and FL is one whose resolution...even by the pre-agreed to rules...was mishandled by the DNC and the MI and FL State Parties. We may well pay a price for that political error.

However, for a Clinton supporter to claim that the rules are all unfair and ask that they be rejected while HRC is losing according to those same pre-agreed to rules (rules that weren't a problem before this nomination process began) is a bit rich.

I'm consistent. Respect all the voters. Respect all the pre-agreed to rules. Respect the process. Use that pre-agreed process to achieve a settlement regarding MI and FL that respects the candidates and the States and voters that played by the rules.

There's one yardstick: the nomination goes to the winner of the contest for pledged and super delegates by the pre-agreed to rules. I've said that all along.

Every last candidate knew those conditions going in.

This primary season was scheduled in such a way that a candidate like Clinton could have put it away on Super Tuesday. HRC did not, despite the schedule, the polls, and every last aspect of Super Tuesday favoring her. (Many Californians, for example, voted BEFORE the Iowa and NH primaries.)

Ad hominem is not an argument and it discredits whatever other argument you make.

The voters of MI and FL were done a disservice by the DNC and their State parties and legislatures. They broke no rules. They just voted. Just like the Las Vegas strip workers who caucused in Nevada and gave HRC her victory in Vegas. However, in accordance with the pre-agreed rules, the voters on the Strip were caucusing for pledged delegates and the voters in MI and FL were not.

By those rules no one campaigned in FL and MI. That's a disservice to those voters, too. You don't talk about that, Armando.

How would it be fair to the voters in the states who preferred Obama, to decide the nomination based on primaries in which he did not campaign?

It would, in fact, not be fair to any voters.

I'm not sure if the cost assumption is correct, but party building in mostly red, rural states would be important (conventions, meeting all the other interested dems).

If those two assumptions are correct, then there would clearly be pressure to keep the system as is...

But.. does any of this matter? Will the party heed any calls for reform/change after this disgrace?

Or will it be business as usual.. democracy is "whatever a chosen few define for the rest of us"?

My answer to all this is the following.

Everyone goes to a primary method. No Caucuses

No Super Delegates

All the primaries will be held on one day.  That day should be in late May.  That way all the candidates will have from Dec to May to campaign where ever they want to.

This way no one has an advantage and every candidates gets an even playing field. Then it's over.  If no one gets the number of delegates required  then whoever gets the most popular vote is the winner.

Barack Obama needs 119 more pledged delegates in the 48 state scenario.  I really don't think he will get them.  

And you should be able to mail your ballots anytime over approximately four months, but no preliminary totals should be announced, ever.