And what if the party decides to finance new elections in Florida and Michigan?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Let me be more constructive now.

I think everyone is well aware of what the rules are for the Democratic nomination and no one is suggesting they be changed in the middle (oh, wait, there's that whole Florida/Michigan reseating thing after agreeing to- well, nevermind). I understand your reservation about the inherent “undemocraticness” of caucuses and districting rules in Texas, but it seems you are using those flaws to argue that, therefore, elected delegates and superdelegates are equal, since they are both undemocratic. I don't think it follows. It's like saying there were voter suppression in one state, therefore, an oligarchy is democratically equivalent.

If 35,000 Democrats show up to a caucus (such as in a small state like mine of Hawaii, but as you indicated in another comment, victories in small states are also irrelevant to this campaign), that's surely more democratic than having one person decide on their own who the candidate should be. It is inherently unfair to the democratic spirit to have a few hundred people overrule the decision of their very party members who voted in the hundreds of thousands. They certainly have a right to do so because that's how the party rules are set up, but it would be both unwise practically (why start off angering a majority of your own party?) and morally, for lack of a better term. We are stuck with superdelegates this time around (and both candidates are campaigning for them heavily from what I understand), but I would support removing them from the next nomination process. We do not need their fail-safe mechanism. My guess would be that the Clinton campaign was always organized with the goal of winning the most elected delegates, not getting a party bigwig vote-in.

“…when the pro-Clinton spin comes spewing out of a scorched-earth campaign that keeps changing the rules to accommodate its losing ways.”

Interesting sentiment Michael, but your extreme bias is showing. Just because you prefer Obama, does not make every Clinton assertion “spin”.

This is, after all, a political contest, and it is very much an open question who will win the nomination. There is absolutely no reason for Clinton campaign to do anything except to compete and fight as hard as they can and explain why they believe she is a better candidate and more deserving of the nomination than Obama.

I just cannot get over how Obama supporters continue to delude themselves that the Democratic Party nomination process is something that it is not. The fact is that the Democratic Party nomination process is not a democratic process and never has been. It is not based simply on who wins the most elected delegates. It just isn’t. Deal with it. It is best descibed as a partially democratic selection process that includes some voter input.

Among the wildly undemocratic elements, are: caucuses, which do not reflect the will of the voters in their states; undemocratic byzantine rules that arbitrarily allocates some voting districts in Texas more delegates than others; undemocratically excluding the voters of two huge important states; and of course, the undemocratic superdelegates.

Sorry Obama supporters if you don’t like it, but it is your party and this is how you pick your nominee. An undemocratically selected majority of elected delegates has no more inherent validity than a selection by superdelegates.

Instead of whining about what they think the rules should be, Obama supporters would be better served by competing hard by the rules of the game as they are to win the nomination, exactly like Clinton is doing, rather than how they think the rules should be.

That can be done a variety of ways, including piling up enough undemocratically selected elected delegate to make the superdelegates moot. Oh wait – I forgot – Obama cannot do that any more than Clinton can. As a result, whoever makes the best case to the superdelegates will win, by – for example – winning all the big important states, and winning with more momentum at the end, and winning in Ohio and Texas even if outspent 4 to 1. That is the case Clinton will make.

It sounds like a pretty darn good case to me.

And – BTW- the party will not be split in two, because Obama will take the VP slot, if the superdelegates decide for Clinton.