The Koch brothers and their web of "fundraising organizations" raised over $400 million in 2012 - an they've gone to extensive efforts to hide the sources of those funds.  The money's there, the transparency is not, so you see or hear an advocacy ad and have no way of knowing who is really behind it.  Influence and power is what it's all about, influencing policy to ultimately put more money in the already-bulging pockets of corporate and wealthy interests.

It's all about the money.  Not that there's anything particularly new about that, but it's reached a level where "greedy" and "gluttonous" seem like apt ways to describe it.  

Lambert at Corrente has put forth a "12-plank platform," here:

A living wage. It's ridiculous to have retail wage so low people have to work and (which is another kind of work, a tax on time, though more degrading) get welfare too.
Medicare for all. Duh! Would be wildly popular, unlike this P.O.S. ObamaCare Rube Goldberg contraption.

Tax the rich. Not for revenue, because taxes don't fund spending. But to prevent the rich from buying up the political system with their loose cash, and also to prevent the formation of an aristocracy of inherited wealth. Basically, this is shorthand for a steeply progressive tax system. Say, like Eisenhower's, with the 91% top rate.

Post Office bank. It's ridiculous that there's even a category like the unbanked, or a "check cashing industry." It's also ridiculous for people to hand over their household money to the banksters so they can piss it away playing the ponies. So have a public bank where dull normals can put their money. As a side benefit, prevent the destruction of the Post Office by privatizing weasels.

Jobs guarantee. Everybody who wants one should have a job, always. (I could be persuaded on a basic income guarantee, but haven't been.)

Debt jubilee. If it can't be paid back, it won't be. Goes for student loans, especially.

Net neutrality. We don't have a new media without this.

End the wars. All wars, including the Drug Wars, and its concomitant, the militarized police. We've got two ocean and nukes. Fk the empire.

Restore the Bill of Rights. Like Madison would want. That includes defining email and data on personal devices of all kinds as "papers and effects" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. It also defines government installed surveillance software as "quartering of soldiers."

Many co-ops. See Gar Alperowitz. A more humane workplace, a less vicious Gini Co-efficient.

Few banksters. Few banksters, doing boring things. A return to the 3-6-3 rule: "[B]ankers would give 3% interest on depositors' accounts, lend the depositors money at 6% interest and then be playing golf at 3pm.

Carbon negative economy. Better have a plan B when the fracking wells run dry! Also, very good jobs. And "a shining city on a hill" for the rest of the world.

And it seems like it's time to start asking - loudly and often - questions like, "who are we?"  "Who do we want to be?"  "How much is enough?"  "What is the lowest standard of living we're willing to accept, for ourselves, for our families, for our neighbors, for our fellow human beings?"  "what kind of country do we want to live in?"

The current system is working quite well for the few who are benefiting at the expense of the rest of us, which is why I despair of there being any significant change - at least in my lifetime.  So, whether others consider that to not matter or that it's "wasting my vote," I will continue to deny the major parties, who really are part and parcel of why the system is where it is, my cooperation or compliance with it or my acceptance of it by not being guilted or shamed or bullied into voting for whichever representative of the corporatocracy gets the nomination.

It is your right not to vote for anybody, as I don't think there are any candidate who will appeal to you. But I'm not sure what you are holding out for - you think a "white knight" will appear and swoop in and save the day? I'm not sure why you don't believe people when they say they support things like gay marriage, abortion rights, marijuana legalization, but they also want a strong military and more cops on the street - many, many, many times over.

I don't expect anyone with any kind of real vision for a country I'm proud to live in to stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election as long as elections continue to be awash in corporate, special-interest money from anonymous donors.

If that monopoly could be broken - if third party candidates were allowed - that could make a difference.

That's how Jesse Ventura won the governorship of Minnesota. He was way behind until somehow he got into the debate between the "major" candidates - and he won.

Maybe if we apply pressure somehow to the media to open the debates, we might get somewhere. Why can't the networks present their own debates - and open them to all candidates? To he!! with the two party monopoly and the unholy alliance with the corporate media.

We have to figure a way around those corrupt relics.

I also remember how Ross Perot shook things up.
He was a strange and somewhat creepy duck - but he had a lot of money and he wound up in the debates. He withdrew after there were supposed threats to disrupt his daughter's wedding. More than likely, the threats were to rip his head off.
So he withdrew. But for a while there, the two party system was teetering.  

People should stop complaining already about the DNC.  The Hillary people in 2008 should look in the mirror and ask why they gave the Caucus states to Obama.  

When the delegates were restored AFTER the primaries were over why give Obama any of them from MI when he didn't even bother to put his name on the ballot? It would have been fair to split the undecided between him and Edwards BUT that is not what happened.

For those commenters who are so breathless in their admonitions, and, who repeat endlessly to the rest of us to "stop trying to replay the election," and/or,  the refrain used when one knows the official result of a contest is not always what it seems, such as those in the O.J. Simpson, or "Z" vs Martin cases, "get over it," I would suggest you simply ignore the conversation by using the most valuable tool we have here on TL..........the scroll bar.

I wish this was not a debate about Obama vs Clinton but, rather, a discussion about the process, and the many intricate facets of this most debatable contest.

The key point of my post above was to answer the question, "why even have Super Delegates?" If the 2008 contest was as simple as Obama's supporters claim, "he won more votes," then why do we have Super Delegates, who don't have to cast their lot with the wishes of the voters? There's an excellent description of this at the site, "Generation Progress," called, "Why Superdelegates Exist."

The Obama allies insisted the Super Delegate system was "an attempt to subvert the will of the people." But, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) argued to unpledged delegates -- members of the Democratic National Committee, House members and senators, and former party leaders -- that it was not their responsibility to vote as their state had voted, but rather to back the candidate they thought would be the best person to represent the party.

It is my understanding that those special delegates had powers and authorities that regular delegates did not. I thought of them like executors of a will. There is normal protocol, distributing the assets of an estate in accordance with the wishes of the deceased. However, they do, also, have the authority to make decisions contrary to those expressed by the departed. Such is the power of an executor, and, such was the power of the Super Delegates.

It was their solemn duty, and obligation, to make decisions based on what was best for the Party, not, necessarily, what was best for any particular candidate. For example: Suppose one candidate held the lead in delegates just prior to the election, and, at the last minute, it was discovered that he, or she, had committed an illegal, or, immoral, act years prior. If, in the opinion of the Super Delegates, the candidate was thus about to lose the election, they could strip him/her of those votes, and, award them to the other candidate.

The very purpose for the advent of Super Delegates was to adjudicate situations like the example I gave, or the controversies surrounding Obama/Clinton. There was considerable talk about "voter's remorse" towards the end of the Primaries. IIRC, certain pundits and polls indicated that Hillary had a much better chance of beating McCain than did Obama, especially after her convincing wins in the Big States: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, and Texas. And, of course, had the votes counted, Michigan and Florida.

Anyway, my purpose here is not to replay the 2008 campaign. But, rather to illustrate that Hillary's supporters had real reason to be disillusioned, and, disappointed. The Obama people kept insisting, "the rules are the rules." But, I believe that there' a greater calling, "the will of the people." And, certainly, after the 2000 debacle, "count the votes," should have been the guiding principal.
This was exactly the sort of situation The Super Delegates were supposed to judge, and rule, on.

In Florida's defense, it was Republicans that violated the rules and set the primary calendar in that state. In Michigan I am unsure how the date of the primary was decided.