First I would like to point at that the primary does not elect a leader. Rather the primary selects a person to advance to the next stage- the actual election. If a candidate does not like the outcome of the primary of their choosing (Democratic or Republican or whatever), they are free to run as an independent.

Second, the voice of the people should count for something- that is why the Dem and Repub parties have people vote in the primaries- for input. But again this doesn't have to be strictly “fair”. After all it is how the party helps to select the person to advance to the next stage- the actual general election.

The superdelegates are supposed to be party leaders who should select someone they think they can work with, who can lead most effectively (both the party and the country) and ultimately can get the job done. If only two candidates make it to the convention, and both candidates have these traits (regardless of the personal preference of a superdelegate) I think the superdelegates should support the candidate with a clear lead (more on “clear lead” in a moment).

If the superdelegates know something about a candidate that the public doesn't know (fat chance in these times, the way every rock is turned over again and again until these rocks are polished stones) then the superdelegates should step in and support the best candidate.

As I mentioned, if one candidate has a clear lead over another candidate, then I think the superdelegates should support the candidate with the clear lead. I don't think a 51%/49% (2 pt. spread) vote split constitutes a clear lead, but I think that if we're talking a 52%/48% (4 pt. spread) vote split in the primary, that seems pretty clear to me, but could still be argued. Certainly 53%/47% (6 pts.) is a clear lead.

Anyway, essentially what I'm trying to do is balance the vote and will of the people, while recognizing the primary is the function of a particular party and the rules don't necessarily enjoy the typical 50% plus 1 rules in a democratic vote. I as much as the primaries exist for the input of the people, I think their voices should be heard. But if the popular vote favors one candidate over another by a slim margin and/or one candidate has serious flaws, then the supoerdelegates can step in.

Certainly if neither candidate had serious (or material) flaws, and if the public clearly favored one candidate over the other, then the party needs to choose that candidate.

As an example, if candidate x had 55% and candidate y had 45 % of the primary vote, and neither had any fatal flaws, then the superdelegates should support candiate x, with 55% of the vote. If the superdelegates choose candidate y with 45 % of the votes, then 55% of the voters would really feel alienated. Whereas it would be hard for the candidate with the fewest votes to feel cheated.

That's also why it is important to follow rules. As far as I can tell, both Obama and Clinton agreed to the rules governing the FL and MI delegates. Those rules should be followed. If both candidates agree to a change in the rules, that's fine. But neither candidate is obligated (nor should it be held against them) if they do not consent to a rules change. The reason a candidate wouldn't want to consent to a rules change is because they feel it would benefit their opponent more than them, and so who can blame them for not agreeing to change the rules.

That's how I see it- maybe not perfect, but just trying to strike a reasonable balance.

Primary season is January to June. I WISH it were only four months. In fact I would be happy if primary season was two months. Three months at the most. Have a vote, have a debate. Have some more votes, see how people like them. Have a couple more rounds of voting and vetting and then presto! You've got a candidate.

On the one hand I really do want a short primary season, but on the other hand this is the time we get to really look at our candidates and pose questions to them about how they may act (unless you're a Republican- they wouldn't answer “hypothetical” questions- and I think any candidate which refuses to answer hypothetical questions should be shown to the door). See how they respond, etc.

Unfortunately Hillary announced her candidacy late 2006 (or was it early 2007?) and other candidates soon followed, so this has been dragging on for a year longer than just the primary season. I think a candidate who announces more than two months BEFORE the primaries start should be shown to the door too.

Really…. you'd think the Dems and GOPers would limit us to the amount of pain they put us through.

What needs to happen is to have the primaries not stretched out over 4 months. Its asinine and serves no purpose. As if folks haven't had their minds made up for months.

McCain's popularity is on the rise, while the Democrats continue to bludgeon each other, for no good reason since even Clinton's own campaign has now privately acknowledged her insurmountable deficit in votes and pledged delegates. If Senator Clinton were any other candidate, she would have been shown the door by the Party a month ago.

I still remain hopeful that an Obama/Clinton ticket can heal the party and provide the complimentary skills to move forward a progressive agenda.

Agreed. I have been waiting for Barak Obama to do that very thing.