How about unity behind the presidential nominee, Barack Obama? Hillary say she's going to take it all the way to the convention. Are Josh Kardon and his group going to go along with that? How can there be unity when the Clintonites are trying to bring down the party and its chances in the fall so she can run in 2012?

Speaking of party unity, I was surprised to hear Kevin Mannix say he won't be supporting his GOP rival in November because he couldn't support a dishonest man who was also a hypocrite. He just couldn't do it. But wait, didn't he support President Bush back in 2004?

Will Macpherson be in attendance?

Thanks for chiming in, Charlie, and I want to congratulate Novick's folks again for the extraordinary campaign they ran, too. Maybe this thread can be our own Democratic unity meeting.

DPO Chair Smith needs to get off her ass and endorse OBAMA if she wants unity. if she thinks she can just sit back while Clinton tears the party apart,she has another thing coming. it is time for OBAMA supporters to take off the gloves. The Democratic party has spoken in this state and it said OBAMA. Smith, DO YOU HEAR ME.DO You want Insane McCain. No choice. More war. No health care. No education. GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO YOUR GOD DAMN JOB. And keep Bradbury and K off the stage. They make me sick.

Well, anonymous stranger, you've certainly convinced me to want to hold hands with you, and you may have your wish on Friday. I'm always happy to read all your productive contributions from all your pseudonyms to the progressive side of the blogosphere.

Don't hold back, pissed.

Perhaps you can hold your own Unity Rally, and then you can exclude all those people who make you sick.

John

Meredith is a Clinton supporter too. I doubt we'll see her lift a knuckle until Hillary concedes. And then we'll all be watching.

Johnny Gnosis, you can say the same for Wyden. Although he hasn't indicated that he is a Clinton supporter, he says he will wait months yet (at the convention apparently) before he endorses anyone. What is this? Lack of conviction? Waiting to see who is finally the winner before declaring where he stands? In the meantime the national party is undergoing something like a constitutional crisis with the Clinton faction having agreed to all the rules and then willing to break each and every one of them until she can find some way to steal the nomination. I call it gross election fraud on their part.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You guys are getting out of hand.

It is really uncool to attack Meredith and the other undeclared super-delegates when you don't know their preferences or what they plan to do. As near as I can tell, you've imagined a scenario that makes you angry and then reacted like it's true.

Slow down. Wait to see if there's actually a problem before freaking out. And, really, screaming threats and calling names is not an effective way to convince anyone of anything.

Fact is, the party elders are enabling the Hillary Clinton plan to sabotage the fall election so she can make a comeback in 2012. Now she's likening the party, and the rules she helped make and signed on to in Fl. and MI to Zimbabwe. Until her own SD supporters do an intervention on this baloney, there won't be any party unity. The impact will be felt all the way down the ticket.

Regardless of whom they support, it's past time for our remaining super-delegates to declare themselves. They are the only ones who can end this. I respectfully ask that they step up and declare themselves so we can unite behind our nominee and get busy defeating John McCain. I can only imagine the pressure they've been under, but really, it's time to make that decision.

Wow, you guys sound like crazy people. Johnny Gnosis, you've spoken with Meredith personally and know this to be the case? Hahaha, of course you haven't. Give it a rest already. Seriously, what will change if Oregon's automatic delegates declare themselves now or after the primary season? Let me guess, one of them will support Hillary and you can trash that person on BO?

I don't know what Meredith or other Oregon SDs plan to do. But Hillary has let it be known she plans to sabotage the election by invoking the nuclear option all the way to the convention. So any delay by these SDs is simply enabling her and destroying Dem. party unity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/compromise-in-works-to-se_n_103010.html

Wayne, Thanks for the response. But while the Clinton campaign is moving toward the "nuclear option" of open conflict in the convention over rules that they made and signed on to, Dem. unity is pretty much an impossibility. And your failure to speak to this threat is not defensible.

Wayne, Hillary herself and her campaign have confirmed they want us all to pretend that those elections actually happened and they want all the delegates from them, or else... And they will take it to the convention if they don't get what the want. We both know the DNC Rules committee and the DNC Credentials Committee are not going along with that preposterous demand. So, this is about Hillary and her ambitions. If she can't have it now, she will have it in 2012. She can appeal to the convention, and she has said she will, because the Dem. party is so sexist and so unjust.. just like "Zimbabwe." So I can only view the passivity by folks like yourself as enabling this kind of behavior as being destructive to the party and making party unity impossible.

Getting people to read the delegate selection plan was almost impossible and I suspect none of us who did read the plan foresaw the improbable results of this process. However, we did approve to continue inclusion of the automatic delegates, many of whom are elected by large numbers of voters and all of whom are needed to win the election. The DNC members I know were all elected for their judgment and their commitment to democratic principles. The task we gave them when we elected them was to use their best judgment for the good of the country and that is what they should do. In the future, I hope we can remember the importance of being involved in less exciting times.

With our proportional allocation rule for delegates, a rule that I believe enabled a candidate like Obama, I can accept that some of our automatic delegates will support the Senator Clinton. There are some truly wonderful people in the party who support Senator Clinton and we need them to win this election. Nothing good can come of driving them out before the process runs its course. The key will be to follow the rules and this includes resolving the Michigan and Florida issue and not rewarding rule violations.

Doretta, I think you undermine your points when you simply insult people and insult their intelligence.

The point is being made that people should chill until this meeting on May 31. I disagree,May 31 may not resolve anything, because I think that there is a more malicious dynamic at play. When the Dem. party is attacked as being sexist or like "Zimbabwe" because Hillary didn't get nominated that is not helpful to any Dem. candidate. And when the intent has been expressed to take the FL/MI issue to a floor fight at the convention, which is within the rights of the Clinton Campaign, then the intent is clear. I hope the Clintonites will change course, but it doesn't seem to be the case. In the meantime, forget about unity.

Meanwhile behind the scenes here is the situation. This is the background to the threats around the nuclear option and MI/Fl, and the attack on the Dem. party as being sexist and like Zimbabwe. Al Giordano is reporting that Hillary asked for the VP slot and was turned down. The nuclear option is her response for leverage and blow back. Time magazine is giving corroborating evidence.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248#comment-40654

"The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process."

Steve Packer, apportioning the delegates "enabled" Obama? It also "enabled" any other candidate who potentially could have won the nomination, e.g., John Edwards. It created the touted level playing field. The only candidate it did not enable was Clinton. Instead, we were given time to vet Hillary Clinton, and the results of that vetting have unearthed much about her character and so called experience. Under GOP rules, which the Clintons are now kicking themselves over for not having fought for, or in a national, one-day primary, Clinton indeed would have been the inevitable candidate, based on name recognition, media cooperation, and the support of the Democratic establishment. Instead, we had a real primary in which the grassroots have finally been able to have some input. So please don't speak of "enabling" as if Barack Obama has won this contest by affirmative action.

The meeting of the rules committee on May 31 is painted as a cold deliberative process. I wish that were so. It's going to be public which is good. But there are reports now that the Clinton campaign is arranging to have busloads of supporters there to raise hell to pressure the DNC members to see it their way. Looks to me like it's going to be an ugly circus with shouts of sexism and unfairness. So I would like to know from Wayne and others how that is going to help with party unity.

To my way of thinking this period is a great time for Obama to exercise progressive advocacy vs. McCain rather than primary politicing. Let HRC do whatever. Obama simply can act as the presumptive nominee without declaring it so. This way HRC has no quarrel when she officially loses - fair and square. HRC could cry out that Obama won't fight with her, but that will just make her appear silly.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the alternative to proportional delegate allocation is winner-take-all. I believe grass roots candidates have a better chance of success with our current system than with the previous one. Howard Dean showed us the way, but Obama has created an amazing organization to actually win. It may be a fantasy, but I sure would like to believe we can win elections without the PAC money and Obama is on the way to prove it.

Obama has been doing the right thing, focusing his attack on McCain, going forward with the VP vetting process, and praising HRC and her supporters. Who hasn't been doing the right thing are the people who are supposed to be concerned with party unity and success in the fall, by sitting by and saying or doing nothing, while HRC tries to split the party further with her antics, and by doing everything possible to taint the legitimacy of the Obama nomination. She says she's taking her fight of changing the rules of nomination all the way to the convention and any "unity" in the party will be sorely damaged by that destructive effort. Meanwhile the Oregon SDs fiddle while the party burns.

Jenny Greenleaf: "I would advise those who are fear-mongering to just let the process play out"

I don't consider myself one of those who are fear-mongering, but I suspect you might have been addressing me. I am glad you are going to announce soon. Fear-mongering is based on imaginings not based on reality. We have learned in this election that no tactics are off the table, including using racial polarization to marginalize your opponent ( "the hard-working white people"), or to send out surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro to play to accuse your opponent of sexist tactics and to invite women not to vote for the Democratic nominee, nor to threaten to disrupt a meeting of the DNC by sending bus-loads of supporters to appear to influence the outcome, nor to threaten to take a fight over rules to the Aug. convention to damage party unity. That's not fear-mongering, those are the facts. And yes, they do damage party unity, particularly when they are passively sanctioned by party leaders such as yourself.

"I'm not even that enamored of the whole superdelegate system, although I understand the reasons for it and am trying to do my job as best I can"

Jenny, you are not the first superdelegate to say this publicly.

And I would remind everyone (as a former delegate once involved in delegate selection rule revision) that the convention is where reform of any such system starts. And this would seem a good year to have that conversation again (as in 1984 the Fairness Comm. was created, etc.).

@ Jeff

I don't know where you get this naive idea that Hillary Clinton will do the right thing. The NY Times seems to indicate otherwise. She's now claiming it's all about civil rights and freeing the slaves. This is disgusting. This is not about party unity.

"On the trail and in interviews, she raised a new battle cry of determination, likening her struggle for these delegates to the nation’s historic struggles to free the slaves and grant women the right to vote."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/politics/22florida.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Steve Parker, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your use of "enable". You too seem to think that the system we used this year was preferable to winner-take-all. This was the first time the system was used, and as in our mail-in ballot history, a lot of wrinkles will need to be ironed out.

It appears that some of you have connections to the national party, e.g. the superdelegates commenting here, and one big change the party needs to make a priority is not allowing Republicans to freely cross over and vote in our primaries. I know I am preaching to the choir in Oregon because we don't allow it. But the Republicans have played with our heads this year to an unbearable extent and balled up the works in states which allow it. No state party can be forced to do so, but I hope there will be a discussion on the damage which can arise when Republicans are allowed into our primaries.

Doretta: "Again, my point is that the superdelegates are not the silver bullet that you are looking for."

Your personal insults as an attempt to denigrate an appropriate argument are not well received and do undermine your argument.

I'm not expecting any "silver bullet". What would be helpful from people like Wayne Kinney and Jenny Greenleaf is a demonstration to Hillary Clinton and her campaign that her tactics are divisive and hurt the party, and her announced intention to portray her fight as a "civil rights" cause and continue the fight to the convention is bogus and destructive. By speaking out against these tactics that direclty undermine the party and the nominee and by announcing their support for the party's nominee they can show her that her destructive efforts are without support.

Back to the "Unity" meeting--how did it go? Everyone kiss and make up? Did Merkley or Novick say anything to help us bitter Novick supporters get on board the unity train?

WASHINGTON—Presidential hopefuls John McCain (R-AZ), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) announced Monday their plans to form what many Beltway observers have already dubbed the "2008 Nightmare Ticket," a calculated move that political analysts say offers voters the worst of both worlds.

This thread doesn't feel very unifying.

Am I the only one who thinks we may as well kiss florida goodbye in the general if we don't count their primary votes? Won't it be bad for Obama (and Ds in general) come november?

@ Katy

Katy, you know that is a bogus argument. There was no primary vote! Many many people didn't bother because they knew the primary wasn't legal. There was no campaigning. To change the rules now is simply a lie. Right now, if the Quinnipiac poll is correct it would be dead even between HRC and Obama. To change the rules that Hillary negotiated and signed on to, agreeing that there would be no election and no campaign, is the divisive thing to do. And it's not going to happen. For a bunch of Hillary supporters to show up in buses to disrupt the DNC rules meeting on the 31st, that's divisive. For Hillary to go around making speeches trying to destroy the legitimacy of the nominating process and the nominee, that's divisive. And for you to come on this forum and support such a lie, that's divisive.

According to the NY Times today she intends to perpetuate this lie all the way to the convention, fighting the very rules she negotiated and signed on to. That's divisive and destructive. I'm sorry our own party leaders here in Oregon don't have the courage to call her on it publicly. The Dem. party loses credibility when it can't even be faithful to its own policies.

Clarification: The Q-poll I cited above pertains just to Florida.

If Wyden endorses Senator Clinton, I'm going to need more foil for my hat.

Bill, It wasn't even an argument, it was a question. Yeah, I get it, you hate Hillary Clinton. Now, back to my question - what will the Democratic party do about Florida come November? Isn't anyone worried about how the voters there are feeling after all this? Why did that make you so angry? I'm baffled.

I think real unity might be found by focusing on some of the local and regional issues at hand. Working together to protect the 5th Congressional district and supporting local house races to maintain a Democratic majority would be well worth the effort. We shouldn't forget. This is Oregon after all--always one step away from closing our public schools, libraries etc..

That's better than watching the national Democratic Party, full of money and forgotten values, getting torn apart along the seams of the educational divide within its ranks.

I am not too worried about Florida and Michigan. My prediction is that the rules committee re-enstates half and then allocates them just barely in favor of clinton maybe by 5 or 10 delegates. Just a prediction here but it seems a fairly reasonable outcome to 1: Still have some type of punishment, 2:Get the delegates seated and 3: Not seat them in a way that would make the Obama folks pissy because they don't feel it is "fair" to their candidate. It's not a perfect solution but it is a solution that is quick, to the point and relatively clean. As far as the Oregon Sup's go, take as much time as you want. I am guessing that some of them are just now getting over their hangovers from Tuesday night and are now trying to catch up on all of the work they have fallen behind on in the last week or so. Clinton giving this thing up before June 3rd is a pipe dream and Oregon's Supah-7 making endorsements aren't going to change that.

Thanks Pat and Marshall, this is something I've been thinking about and trying to understand for a while. I'm thinking more in terms of the general though. So far I've heard one story about a woman from Florida who was pissed at the Obama campaign and the DNC and I'm simply wondering how many more of those types of voters are out there. How many are feeling so let down by their own state pary and the dnc that they're willing to sit this general out? To me it seems troublesome for the Ds come November, just wondering how that can be resolved before the general.

Thanks very much, Wayne and Jenny, for your responses (happy birthday, Wayne!). It's great to hear you will be announcing your decision soon. The escalating rhetoric from Hillary is worrisome, but I will try to keep breathing deeply. Thank you for your service!

The polls have consistently shown that Florida is in the GOP column regardless of who is the Dem. Nominee. If McCain picks Crist, then it will be even more a lock.

Some new "battleground states will be in play however. Obama is polling better in Colorado. If he picks Webb as his VP, he will do well in Va. And while trailing in Ohio, that state is still a toss-up.

The end result is that Obama can win even without Floridas and Ohio. Michigan is much more important, however.

Hmm...Florida's a swing state.

@ Katy

Your response suggesting it's all about my "hatred" of Hillary is simply another way of marginalizing what I say. Nope.. I don't care about Hillary. She has lost her relevance only in that she is still a fizzling force in our national politics, but still potent enough to do damage. I resent and oppose her destructive tactics at a time especially when our nation is in crisis and we are poised to embark on another more devastating war with Iran, a war which she seems disposed to have.

Regarding the likely settlement with Fl and MI... I think the DNC Rules committee will likely come up with something that is a compromise and workable but it won't satisfy Hillary and her supporters. (Come Nov. the Fl. voters are going to care less about the fake Dem. primary.) Hillary has her supporters worked up now to where accepting anything short her full demands is not doable and a reason to take it all the way to August. ( Rachael Maddow has it right.) Her rhetoric and the actions of the past two days tells me she wants to exert power as a spoiler if she can't be the nominee.

My anger is mostly directed at the wimps who are held up as party leaders who could shut her down, but won't, out of the mistaken view she is a rational person who has a grip on her own self interest and will come around to reason. The campaign has proven otherwise. And the same party leadership equally seems to have no rational sense of its own self interest nor a willingness to act decisively in protecting it.

Bill if she's lost her relevance for you why write a 3 paragraph long post about her? Take a valium.

Florida also held a straw poll that everyone knew wasn't part of the primary process, including the Democrats who stayed home or voted for a Republican. Changing the rules after the game has been played to favor the candidate who is advocating the rule change is called cheating or corruption in any other sport.

That said, there may be a rules change on the 31st to seat all the delegates with no voting power, and there may even be a rules change at the convention to give partial or full voting power, granted that it doesn't overturn the choice that the primary voters made. But even if that doesn't happen, Obama will be competitive. He isn't the one who made the rules, after all. Hillary's 12 supporters of the 30-member panel voted unanimously to strip cheating delegates of their votes, while the only dissenting vote was cast by an Obama supporter.

A Quinnipiac poll earlier this month showed Obama just one point shy of McCain in Florida, 43 to 42. Like I said, Obama will be competitive.

For clarity, I probably should have struck the "also" from my comment. The contest Florida had was a straw poll, and that was the established penalty before Florida Democrats unanimously voted to break the rules, and that was the procedure voters operated under when they decided whether to vote in the straw poll.

Also, both Clinton and Obama signed pledges not to participate, else they were to be stripped of all delegates from all contests. An election that prevents free speech or assembly by the candidates is not a legitimate election, and is nothing we should be establishing a precedent for by making it the deciding factor in our nominating process.

Katy - Hahahaha! Laugh at yourself. You might think I don't Meredith is a Clinton supporter, but I do. And so do you. "Hahahaha!!!"

And Wyden will NOT be endorsing Clinton. He has endorsed the state winner every time and he will this time too. I'm guessing he is being slow out of respect for JK. Wyden isn't dumb.

Doretta:"my "silver bullet" comment is a personal attack? I think your standards may be a little skewed.

As near as I can tell you are calling for the Oregon SDs to start a public fight with Hillary Clinton before the rules committee meets and before the primaries are over and your justification for that is promoting party unity. I'm hoping they have a better idea."

<hr/>

Many SDs around the country have done their endorsements and for the need for unity around the party nominee, and backed the DNC rules for counting delegates. To back the Dem. party and its nominee is not divisive but unifying. They don't even have to mention Hillary.

My criticism of the party leaders ("fiddling while Rome burns.) was not an ad hominem attack. It was a criticism of their inaction and its consequences. Your attack here below is an ad hominem personal attack, intended to denigrate and marginalize. "impatient toddler?" Surely you know the difference.-

"Petulant rants that claim it's indefensible if he doesn't do it exactly on your timetable just make you sound like an impatient toddler who's melting down because he's been told he has to wait until after dinner for his lollipop."

Jenni - exactly right! That's how she knows!

Arianna Huffington makes the same case. Hillary is no longer relevant, the Super Ds are the problem. She calls them out on their irresponsibility.

Stop Yelling at Hillary to Stand Down and Start Yelling at the Superdelegates to Stand Up

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/stop-yelling-at-hillary-t_b_103135.html

JG, I do laugh at myself quite often. I have no idea who Meredith, or any of the other SDs (except of course those who've publicly declared)are going to support. I can't imagine how you know? Care to fill us all in? Seems like there are quite a few BO readers who are about falling out of their chairs to find out.

Geez Louise, my once very high opinion of Hillary Clinton just keeps slipping. Now the Democratic nomination process is like the Zimbabwean election? Note to Senator Clinton: Zimbabwe has had effectively one-party rule, with cosmetic elections, for three decades. Those elections, cosmetic though they are, are nonetheless replete with fraud, voter intimidation, and violence. Senator Clinton, please tell me again just how those elections in Zimbabwe compare to the Democratic presidential race circa 2008. Go into some details, please, cuz I just don't get it. Thanks.

As for why the party elders won't have a nice chat with Senator Clinton, this is no mystery: note her surname. They won't have a chat with her for the same reason that she was the presumptive nominee (a year ago) in the first place: her surname. Hillary Clinton is a very smart and accomplished woman, but if she had had those same smarts and accomplishments without ever having resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, she would likely never have been a candidate in the first place.

There are many other talented, accomplished Democratic women office-holders besides Hillary Clinton. I truly do not understand why so many people's hopes have been projected onto her, nor why so much angst has been focused on her. She's not the great white hope, the great female hope, or the great anything hope. She's another flawed human like the rest of us.

Greg, I'm assuming Obama wins the primary and he's looking to the swing state of Florida for votes. We are talking about an entire state here. I wish we were talking about a state that always goes Democratic but we're not. I'm thinking a whole lotta Ds are pissed off that their votes didn't count and won't vote in the general. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm wondering what we, as a Party, are going to do about that after the Primary? How do we make the voters in that state feel like we appreciate their input in this historic election? I understand that folks are using this question to bash Clinton - but I think it's a serious question and something we all need to start thinking about.

Well, here's today's news about Florida:

Democrats file suit to seat Florida delegates

"Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims."

And so on.

Katy, you wrote:

a whole lotta Ds are pissed off that their votes didn't count and won't vote in the general. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm wondering what we, as a Party, are going to do about that after the Primary? How do we make the voters in that state feel like we appreciate their input in this historic election?

Do we actually know about lots of pissed off alienated Democrats? Lots of spin, but how can this be known? And I don't mean an interview with Betty Sue in a beauty shop and Jim Bob in a barber shop somewhere.

Making voters feel "appreciated": hm. I would think that has to come first and foremost from the candidates themselves and from the people who actually set up the primary. Some of these, at least, arguably mooned the electorate in favor of...well, I'm not sure exactly, some wacky perception of gaining influence. And instead we wind up with relative backwaters (population-wise) like Kentucky and Oregon getting lots of attention, and Florida's "influence" being reduced to what happens in a smoke-filled room (and maybe, once again, a court of law). Pretty damned ironic.

You also mentioned that the Florida situation is being used as a cudgel against Hillary Clinton. Maybe. And she is most certainly using it as a cudgel against not only Obama but against the entire Democratic Party. The longer this goes on, the more absurd statements HRC makes comparing the Democratic nomination process to a Zimbabwean election, the more I come around to thinking that Hillary Clinton really DOES just feel entitled to the nomination, and that she's doing the enraged-jilted-lover bit: if I can't have the "prize", then by god, nobody can!

What I see Clinton doing with regard to the Florida situation is all of a piece with her pig-headedness about Iraq: She refused to apologize for her vote to authorize the war (in contrast to John Edwards), and turned that refusal into some sort of twisted matter of "principle". In Florida, she refuses to acknowledge the fact that she, just like Obama, agreed ahead of time to boycott the Florida primary, and now she has twisted that lack of acknowledgment around, made wacky claims about her "popular vote lead" based on a deliberate misreading of the history, and now seemingly threatens to disrupt the convention if she doesn't get her way.

Hillary Clinton is a talented woman, but nobody owes her the presidential nomination. It's not hers to demand.

Here's the video of Geller openly mocking the Democratic party and its "sanctions." After smiling and saying he would show the very video I've linked to to the Democratic Party to prove they "tried" not to break the rules, he then laughs at a confused speaker asking whether he's really urging a nay, replying with a syrupy "Oh, no sir! We really, really want this, don't we?" To which the speaker replies, "I understand, please don't throw me into the bramble bush."

I don't really buy the disingenuous concern trolling above. Florida voters aren't going to be thinking in Nov. about the DNC meeting on May 31. They are going to be thinking about the cost of food and gasoline, and the continuing cost in lives and money of the war in Iraq. And I don't really believe MI/Fl decision by the DNC is going to change anything drastically. They will be sure not to arrive at at decision that tilts the thing one way or another. But the part that is objectionable is the disturbing rhetoric. It tells me that Hillary is going all out to sabotage the fall election and provide every opportunity for the Geraldine Ferraros of this world to vote against our nominee. It is also notable that she met today in private with Mr. Geller, the clown that is sueing the Dem. Party. Hillary is burning her bridges.("hard-working white people," "Zimbabwe") Where she intends to go after this is a puzzlement. She has no base outside of the party. Unless she's competing to be McCain's running mate.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/03/by-adam-c-smith.html

Katy, first of all, it's pretty clear to me from your always-civil comments over the weeks that you are sincere and definite not engaging in "concern trolling".

Second, please use the HTML tags to link to web sources; the instructions are just below the window where you type your remarks in teh first place.

Third, from the poll mentioned in your link:

"If there’s one thing that this survey says is you have to acknowledge the Jan. 29 primary on some level," said pollster Tom Eldon. "You really can’t say the Florida primary was a non-event to voters. It was a non-event to Howard Dean according to the rules of the DNC.”

There's a case to be made for that argument, indeed, but also a case to be made for meting out penalties as the Florida party was advised would apply up front.

There are lots of things weird, if not wrong or misguided, about the way we conduct primaries in the US. But how in the world do you justify after-the-fact rule changes? I certainly hope that after the drama and trauma of 2008, the Democratic Party will reconsider the entire nomination process; emphasis on the word after.

Some people argue that a national primary is the only democratic way to pick a candidate, because it obviates the claims that one state is more important than another, and prevents a repeat of the Florida/Michigan "me first" fiasco.

Other people argue that something like our present method is best, because the prolonged campaign serves as a sort of winnowing process, sorting out the "best" candidates from the "worst".

If there were a national primary, would we simply pick the top vote-getter to be the nominee? Suppose that top vote-getter got, say, 25% in a field of 7 or 8 candidates? Would that be a good way to pick a candidate? Would we have instant runoffs of some sort, with voters indicating their 2nd and 3rd choices, say, and candidates kicked off the bottom of the list until a winner finally emerged?

<h2>NONE of the present angst and drama would exist if the race had not developed the way it has: two strong candidates making compelling arguments and having committed supporters. Those super-delegates wanted to be the icing on the cake metaphorically; they didn't want to be referees.</h2>