The first goal of the states in running their primaries and caucuses is to preen themselves and promote state interests, not express the democratic will of their people. The second goal is to enhance the position of the state party organizations within the national party, hopefully to achieve the status of Warwick, "Proud setter-up and puller-down of kings."

Clinton deserves small sympathy in all of this, after her blatant duplicity in the Michigan and Florida primaries. Everybody games the system, but cheating in plain sight is just embarrassing.

There's a simple solution, though. When the convention comes, just let the prostitutes caucus and decide who the nominee will be. They're an objective third party, and in touch with at least some of the American people.

When the Democrats dreamed up SuperDelegates, they must have saw blogging coming. What they should do can generate as much discussion as the existence of G*d, what to do about the Palestine and what's better, Macs or PCs?

Demosophist, your first link is broken, but I got to wonder what is the procedure available for self-described party leaders to circumvent the process? I don't think there is any.

I do think Clinton has a reasonably good claim based upon your considerations.

Glen, I think in retrospect the Party has given the states too much latitude in selecting delegates, but isn't the role of the Superdelegate to temper local self-interest. Isn't John Kerry bucking his state exactly what he should be doing if he thinks from his national vantage point that Obama is the better choice?

When the Democrats dreamed up SuperDelegates, they must have saw blogging coming. What they should do can generate as much discussion as the existence of G*d, what to do about the Palestine and what's better, Macs or PCs?

Demosophist, your first link is broken, but I got to wonder what is the procedure available for self-described party leaders to circumvent the process? I don't think there is any.

I do think Clinton has a reasonably good claim based upon your considerations.

Glen, I think in retrospect the Party has given the states too much latitude in selecting delegates, but isn't the role of the Superdelegate to temper local self-interest. Isn't John Kerry bucking his state exactly what he should be doing if he thinks from his national vantage point that Obama is the better choice?

Good point about Florida and Michigan, I don’t see any upside to Clinton agreeing to a do-over caucus nor for Obama to agree to a do-over primary. In which case voters from both States are disenfranchised and as both are important battleground States in the general election, it’s a pretty significant handicap going into this November.

Something else to think about if Clinton gets the nomination by having the super-delegates buck the results of the State contests is that much of Obama’s support comes from first-time “voters” who would rightfully see this as Clinton “stealing” the nomination and as younger voters tend to be the most fickle, would be likely to either stay home or possibly even vote for McCain in protest.

The only worse option I see for the Democrats would be a “unity ticket” as it would (a) prevent them from picking a VP nomination from a Red or Purple State that might put that State in play instead of having two liberal Senators from deep blue States, (b) prevent them from picking a vice president who might add gravitas to Obama and Clinton’s utter lack of any meaningful experience and accomplishment, and © even if they become BFF, their respective negatives cancel out each other’s positives (e.g. Clinton’s high negatives would drag down Obama and if he were the VP nominee, he would be at risk of upstaging her).

PD:

Not sure what's wrong with the embedded URL, but here's the tiny URL, just in case it's not fixed: http://tinyurl.com/3dfm6s

PD:

There seems to be a script error on the embedded link, but the tiny url seems to work OK.

http://tinyurl.com/3dfm6s

Thanks Demosophist, TPM doesn't seem to know who (other than Howard Dean) will do the saving or how the Party will be saved. I think its going to the Convention. It seems to me that both candidates will likely have an argument and that's what gets decided at a convention.

The assumption appears to be that the campaign has gotten ugly and is likely to get uglier. I’m not buying it. From the news article linked at TPM:

A charmed politician who has faced few hurdles in is career, the Illinois senator had to answer questions about his ability to handle a foreign policy crisis (who do you want answering the White House phone at 3 a.m.?); his friendship with a donor facing fraud charges (Tony Rezko helped Obama with a land deal); his service in the Senate (failing to hold hearings as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee); and his credibility on trade (an adviser reportedly told Canadians that his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement was posturing).

I'm sure glad Republicans won't point these things out.

Thorley:

In which case voters from both States are disenfranchised and as both are important battleground States in the general election, it’s a pretty significant handicap going into this November.

Granted, they were disenfranchised by their own state leaders, who refused to follow the rules. It's moot whether Florida and Michigan showed more indifference for their voters by endangering their delegates than the DNC did by barring their delegates. Up against the states and the Party, the wretched voter is a purely incidental consideration.

Clinton has made this vastly worse by running in kangaroo races in those states, and demanding that her bogus victories be rewarded in the name of democracy. If rules applied to everybody - and that will be the f--king day, boys and girls - the DNC would disqualify her candidacy and expel her from the race.

As for doing it over, I'm generally in favor of the right of the states to make their own election messes, but I think do-overs ought to be illegal even if it means a constitutional amendment. If the democratic process becomes a video game that you can just start over, we're in big trouble.

... isn't the role of the Superdelegate to temper local self-interest.

Absolutely. But temper it in whose favor? In favor of the national party establishment, of course, not the voters.

In the future, the only function of the voter will be to go into ecstatic swoons at political rallies. Illegal aliens will do the actual work of showing up at the polling place.

Granted, they were disenfranchised by their own state leaders, who refused to follow the rules. It's moot whether Florida and Michigan showed more indifference for their voters by endangering their delegates than the DNC did by barring their delegates. Up against the states and the Party, the wretched voter is a purely incidental consideration.

IMO what McCain ought to push for (and the RNC would be smart to agree to this) is to restore their full delegate status so that they can go into the election this Fall with only the Democrats having penalized Florida and Michigan voters at all. And hopefully by the time we begin the 2012 race (about a day after the next President is sworn in) no State will have a guarantee that they will be the first primary or caucus.

I think the Party needs Florida more than Florida needs the Party. And I think Florida know it. Their conditions announced today for a new vote: "three specific and necessary requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere." The second and third conditions amount to a full primary at no expense to Florida to decide the next President of the U.S. Glen might call this betterment, not punishment.

Thorley:

IMO what McCain ought to push for (and the RNC would be smart to agree to this) is to restore their full delegate status so that they can go into the election this Fall with only the Democrats having penalized Florida and Michigan voters at all. And hopefully by the time we begin the 2012 race (about a day after the next President is sworn in) no State will have a guarantee that they will be the first primary or caucus.

It seems slightly transparent, but why should that influence anything? If the vote is close in FL (it has been known to happen) that might make all the difference.

PD Shaw -

Resorting to Shakespeare twice in one thread, I would call that "hire and salary, not revenge."

And to paraphrase Gaius Caligula, if they all had one ass I'd give it a swift kick.

Thorley, good point about discouraging the youth vote. However I'm going to invoke the 3rd Law of Democratic Politics* and point out that the youth vote is always vocal, always highly touted during campaign seasons, and NEVER delivers once the general election results are tallied.

*The first law is of course "thou shalt not mess with our identity politics", and the second law is a joke about the dead voting in record numbers.

Just to get in my licks, the issue I neglected in the post concerns the genuine possibility that Obama will win the delegate count while Hillary wins the popular vote. Since she's more effective in primaries, and Obama is more effective in caucuses, that situation might well come to pass. If it does, the conventional wisdom about Obama supporters being thwarted by party insiders will be transmuted into a popular will thwarted by insider party activists. This could well be as destructive to the Democrats as the former scenario.

I'm not sure why this wasn't obvious to me before, but I have a tendency to focus on the complex, and the latter scenario isn't complex at all.

Yes Hillary should be the nominee based on the fact she can win the big states. Obama has not won a single big state except Illinoise.We must elect Hillary if we want the White house She is the one who has proven to be a real fighter. Super-delegates will make the right choice when she wins Penn. Another big win in her favor!

This is the year for the democrats if they remain calm and cool and stay united in this very important election we can sweep into the white house with ease,The votes are there we must stay united in our common purpose to take our country back for the people! Democrats its ours to win!

Good luck Thomas (writ ironical), but those who live by identity politics die by identity politics. No matter what happens, either feminists will be convinced there was a sexist plot to deprive a woman of the nomination or African-Americans will be convinced there was a racist plot to deprive an African-American of the nomination. Either group stays home in November, the D's are f***ed.

In addition, whoever it is will be running against a Republican who appeals to moderates and independents as well as conservatives and who can begin now to spend money and run to the middle for the general election.

That said, if we have to have a Democratic president (God forbid) I'd rather it be Hillary than Obama. Frankly, he scares the bejezus out of me. I honestly believe that as president, he would make Jimmy Carter look like Abraham Lincoln. The upside of an Obama presidency is that it would keep the Republicans in power for 50 years after 2012. The downside is that the next four years will be far too dangerous for someone with Obama's naivete in foreign policy. I foresee lots of dead Americans and stymied American interests as a result.

Fred, LOL. If Obama wins you "foresee lots of dead Americans and stymied American interests as a result." As opposed to what? the present? You see a lot of un-stymied American interests lately?

"Either group stays home in November, the D's are f***ed." I don't know if you've noticed, but over the last couple of months, those who have voted in democratic primaries are double the number of those who have voted in republican primaries. It seems unlikely that "either group" is planning to stay home.

Mark:

Wind blowing like crazy here in the Midatlantic.

Fred, LOL. If Obama wins you "foresee lots of dead Americans and stymied American interests as a result." As opposed to what? the present? You see a lot of un-stymied American interests lately?

Sets my teeth on edge. So far the number of dead Americans as the result of even the most intense conflict, within the timespan of a few months, has been in the ones of thousands (Antietam, Pearl Harbor, 9-11). Granted, that's a lot of dead Americans, but I think there's at least a reasonable probability that the order of magnitude could ramp up at least one or two notches. That will raise the stakes, and make political prediction rather difficult.

"Either group stays home in November, the D's are f***ed." I don't know if you've noticed, but over the last couple of months, those who have voted in democratic primaries are double the number of those who have voted in republican primaries. It seems unlikely that "either group" is planning to stay home.

Several years ago I was predicting the demise of the Democratic Party, and the emergence of a one-party state for the duration of the WoT, by 2008. That might be a bit premature, but I still think the odds of that are greater than 50:50. Well, that's assuming Republicans and conservatives actually invest some gray matter in resolving the fate of the middle class, and the dilemma of capital formation. But they didn't seem inclined in that direction, and may not have the capacity to address such bread and butter issues. Conservatives don't really like to focus on "policy" unless it's "foreign." But they could snap out of it, and if they do and their is a major terrorist attack on the US that ramps up the order of magnitude of American casualties, then I think the One Party scenario is entirely conceivable.

Of course, that surviving party will eventually divide into factions... but we're already seeing that in both parties. The odds of which party will emerge as the temporary singularity depends on the odds of a catastrophic attack on the US and the ability of one of the parties to respond effectively, and to disassociate from the causes of the attack. Forgive me, but that's more likely to be Rs than Ds, because the Ds aren't even sure we're in a civilizational conflict yet, even a complicated one. And they're somewhat torn about who the bad guys are.

I'm no longer certain that Republicans will emerge as the viable party, however. John McWhorter seems to think that an Obama Presidency would have a sobering and therapeutic effect on the culture. I'm less sanguine about such wishful thinking. But the truth is, I don't know the future. All I can do is hope for the best, and throw the weight of my heart and mind into the balance.

Demosophist,

"Several years ago I was predicting the demise of the Democratic Party, and the emergence of a one-party state for the duration of the WoT, by 2008. ..... But the truth is, I don't know the future." Apparently not.

My points in the comment that you quoted were 1) that current administration policies have not exactly advanced US interests very well, so it seems a little odd to worry about Obama's policies having a worse performance record; and 2) all evidence points to a record number of voters responding positively to the messages of the two democratic candidates, and little enthusiasm for the republican candidates, so it seems a little odd to predict that the democrats are on the verge of extinction.

With regard to your additions to the discussion: what can I say? I think the fear of an Obama presidency is misplaced. I think the belief that we are in a "civilizational conflict" is unfounded (btw, does your spellcheck go all red when you type "civilizational"?). There may be further terrorists attacks on US shores, but they will have no more ability to reshape or bring down the US than previous attacks. So far, the only impact of 9/11 on US society-- other than the horrific murder of 3,000 people -- has been as result of our reactions to it.

I am glad that fewer people see the Iraq invasion as a legitimate part of the WoT than in the past. I hope that trend continues. I think it was a terrible strategic mistake that forced us to unnecessarily devote an enormous amount of our resources against a set of enemies that otherwise wouldn't have existed. All we can gain in an eventual victory will be the defeat of enemies we shouldn't have had to fight in the first place. The other unintended consequence has been to enlarge the pool of potential jihadists around the world.

There is and should be a fight against the jihadist elements around the world, but to call it civilizational in nature, or to expect it to reshape the US political landscape as dramatically as you suggest, is, I think, an exaggerated analysis that neither current trends nor history can support. I think that cooler heads -- such as the type Obama is capable of providing -- among our political leadership will have a more effective impact against the growth of jihadism than what we've lived with over the last 7 years.

mark - let me toss out a thought experiment I've been wrestling with and see what you can do with it.

Given the benefit of 20/20 hindsight what's different in the last 6 years? What different American policies? What different reactions abroad?

I've got some ideas (some wildly contradictory, I'll warn you) but would be interested in what you and others might suggest...

A.L.

A.L., can you clarify the experiment a bit? I'm not following you entirely. Do you mean a description of what actual changes have taken place in US policy and reactions abroad? or do you mean, what possible alternatives could have taken place and what results and reactions would have followed? or neither?

How about making it simple; what do we do - in very broad strokes, obviously - differently after 9/11? What is the impact on our standing and alliances abroad?

A.L.

You can LOL 'til your sides hurt, mark. I'm not so sure you'll be L-ing so L in November. Believe me, I have a lot of experience with self-identified feminists. They are fanatical; they are paranoid, and they react very badly to real or imagined slights (and when it comes to slights, they have very active imaginations). From what I've seen, read, and heard, large segments of the African-American community have a similar mindset. Both groups are coming out in large numbers to support "one of their own" but I have no trouble at all imagining either group staying home if they feel they got ripped off.

As for dead Americans, I should have specified dead American civilians. How many terrorist attacks have we had since 911? How long do you think that will last when President Obama allows Iraq to become 90s Afghanistan on steroids, Al Quaeda gets oil money, and he tries to talk Iran out of developing nukes with no threat of force?

Fred,

"Believe me, I have a lot of experience with self-identified feminists. They are fanatical; they are paranoid, and they react very badly to real or imagined slights (and when it comes to slights, they have very active imaginations)."

Oh, so you've met my wife, then.

"Both groups are coming out in large numbers to support "one of their own" but I have no trouble at all imagining either group staying home if they feel they got ripped off."

Well, having become a little more familiar with your imagination (as active as a slighted feminist's, it seems to me), I'll stand by original statement. I'll add that since we've last spoken about this, Hasstert's old seat, in a long-time Republican stronghold, has fallen to the feminist & black-infested Democratic party. Being a conventional-wisdom sort, I'm going to continue to expect more of the same in November.

"How many terrorist attacks have we had since 911? "

Good question. How many were there before 9/11? I think that there's been a total of two, including 9-11, since records have been kept, so that lack of one for the last 6 and half years is in keeping with past trends.

"How long do you think that will last when President Obama allows Iraq to become 90s Afghanistan on steroids, Al Quaeda gets oil money, and he tries to talk Iran out of developing nukes with no threat of force?"

I'm not sure I see the connection among the 3 issues in that sentence. How well is the threat of force working in keeping Iran from developing nukes, do you suppose? BTW, how do you threaten Iran with force without actually talking to Iran? I don't know that Obama has declared he wouldn't use force to prevent a nuclear Iran, nor has he said that he would only talk to them, or only talk nicely to them, or that talking to them somehow precludes threatening the use of force or using force, if necessary.

I'll add that since we've last spoken about this, Hasstert's old seat, in a long-time Republican stronghold, has fallen to the feminist & black-infested Democratic party. Being a conventional-wisdom sort, I'm going to continue to expect more of the same in November.

I believe the seat fell to a Bush Dog Democrat.

The Republican that lost, a millionaire that had previously lost two bids to the U.S. Senate and one for Illinois governor, is . . . well . . . simply not a likeable person (even among Republicans). But he's got money, so he doesn't need to be liked too much to lose an election. And it appears that his Republican primary opponent and his supporters didn't support him either.

All that said, the winning Democrat could hold this district for a long time as long as he maintains a moderate, clean position.

A.L., Well, like Demosophist, I'm no good at predicting the future, much less a hypothetical past. But in the broadest strokes, after 9-11 we don't invade Iraq. We keep a stronger logistical presence in the appropriate corners of Afghanistan and relentlessly hunt down an ever-dwindling, increasingly isolated Al Qaeda, slowly, methodically and as quietly as possible, similar to what we have been doing but with far more resources. A sympathetic world carries on and goes about its business, helping when and where they can, grateful for not being bullied into a position of having to support a deeply unpopular war in Iraq. There is no strain or stress on relationships with allies and no need to spend time and diplomatic resources patching things up. There's less arm-twisting and more cooperation. Maybe we get a little more outside funding and help in Afghanistan. Without the Iraq war as a booster, jihadist recruitment is not as robust around the Arab world; anger at US invasion does seep so deeply or widely in western European Muslim communities. Meanwhile, US treasury & military has $1,000,0000,0000,0000 more and 150,000 rested troops to devote to AQ degradation. There is no AQ in Iraq, no Mahdi Army, no growing Iranian influence. The world does not assume that the US is in no position to use significant force to deter Iranian nuclear program and we therefor have a little more leverage and credibility. The US, having built up forces in Kuwait and thereby successfully restarted the the UN weapons inspection process, is seen as cooperative, supportive of international law, consensus and institutions, and -- most importantly -- maintains the perception of being willing to use force when necessary without having actually been drawn into a 6+ year unpopular war.

hmmm...OK, now we also have a collapsing sanctions regime on Iraq - do we keep them going and kill another "half a million kids" or drop them, as many of the current antiwar folks felt we ought to do before 9/11?

A.L.

A.L., Let's leave what "many of the current antiwar folks felt" out of this. If you want to find contradictions between what group a has to say and what group b has to say, be my guest -- but not on my time, please -- but don't try to make the argument that such a contradiction somehow enhances the argument of group c. In this historical hypothetical, it is assumed that once the UN inspectors are allowed to go through the process to their satisfaction, Iraq would be declared -- correctly -- to not have any WMD or WMD programs and, accordingly, the sanctions would be lifted because Iraq would be in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions. Remember that sanctions were imposed by the UN based upon the BELIEF that Iraq was not in compliance and because Iraq would not allow verification of their claims that they were in compliance. The USA, by having posted troops ready to invade, would be seen to have been instrumental in forcing Iraq to comply with the resolutions and let the inspectors in. I was never opposed to sanctions, nor was I opposed to the resolution authorizing the President to use troops to force Iraq to comply with the relevant UN resolutions. But once Iraq acquiesced and allowed inspectors the access they said they required, I, along with most of the world, could not support the invasion, absent any firm evidence of WMD programs.