to me that the Democratic primary process needs a complete overhaul. And that the DNC needs better leadership. Howard Dean has only made a difficult primary season hopelessly muddled.

But, maybe some good has come out of this priamry season. We've learned that: being first doesn't equal being the most important; individual votes really can make a difference (even if we're not Superdelegats); caucuses really are less democratic than primaries (and the Texas Two-Step is really stupid); and, the mainstream media meddles far too much.

Here's hoping we can remember some of these lessons in time for 2012.

Really, when were you born. I thought seeds and stems were a thing of the past. And not to mention that there may be more than a few people in the country who don't know what the heck you are talking about. Not that I am one of them, but thought I might mention it.

"These votes were a valid expression of sentiment when they were cast, but they lose their potency as an expression of the pure popular will as they age ... they could have changed their minds along the way"

Though that might be true, I haven't seen any data to back that people minds have changes, I would still much prefer the candidate to be chosen by voters than by the parties aristocracy. You hint, but do not directly say, that the super delegates should not be overridden by the pledged delegates but to me that would be a far greater travesty to democracy than the thought that people's minds could have changed. And don't dance around the idea of "If the convention were really designed to be a rubber stamp of the primaries, why not vote right before the delegates arrive in Denver?", an argument that the nomination process is flawed does not lead to an argument that the nomination process should be ignored by the super delegates.

If you think an aristocracy can do better than the people I think there's another party you could join.

"the weird science of the Democratic primary system" - You got that right.

This weird science was authored by Democrats.

They have proven that they cannot govern themselves.

Why would you trust them to govern all of us?

Vote Nader. Repeal NAFTA. Repeal PNTR - China.

for such an illogical and undemocratic way of selecting an nominee.

except maybe the people in the 70s who came up with this farce of a vote.

What do we pay superdelegates for anyway?

Vote now, supers, or turn in your secret decoder rings.

The Democrats present a full slate of candidates who are thoroughly vetted re background, voting history, associations, words, actions, platforms, possible contradictions, baggage real and imagined, and THEN everybody votes simultaneously in all 50 states - on the same day as the Republicans. Everybody receives an equal budget from a DNC fund for strictly noncommercial use (e.g., no ads with red phones, rippling flags, or bared fangs). A series of debates takes place with moderators chosen for their neutrality and aversion to witch hunts and dogfights. And MSM analysis is confined to an obscure cable channel that virtually nobody can find.

Use a nomination process that is the exact same as how the REAL presidential election is held.

The winning candidate of each state gets all the electoral votes from that state. Whoever gets the most electoral votes obviously has the best chance of winning.

NO DELEGATE SPLITTING AND NO OPEN PRIMARIES.

Inviting the opposition party to vote in your own primary has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.

What Richardson's blessing signified was that an ambitious politician with close ties to Bill Clinton (they watched the Super Bowl together) decided that his self-interest would be enhanced by choosing Obama rather than Hillary.

When you're this cynical, you don't perceive momentum.

Shapiro writes

But it is also shaky to argue -- as many Obama partisans do passionately -- that the pledged delegate totals from the primaries and caucuses should override any independent decision making on the part of the 796 automatic superdelegates (mostly members of Congress and the Democratic National Committee) who will ultimately provide the winning candidate with the margin of victory. Most Democratic voters will have chosen between Clinton and Obama back in February -- and they could have changed their minds along the way. These votes were a valid expression of sentiment when they were cast, but they lose their potency as an expression of the pure popular will as they age. The gap between Super Tuesday and the Democratic convention (more than 200 days) is roughly double the time between the November election and the presidential inauguration. If the convention were really designed to be a rubber stamp of the primaries, why not vote right before the delegates arrive in Denver? What was the reason for such early voting? All the Democrats had a plane to catch?

Although I do agree that "the rules are the rules" and they should stay that way for this 2008 primary (NO FL and MI revotes, superdelegates ARE independent, the inconsistencies from state to state with regard to voter eligibility), I strongly disagree with Shapiro about the prospect of the superdelegates throwing the crown to the candidate with fewer votes. Only the Democrats would do something so incredibly stupid, even though the rules allow. The supers ALSO have the option of NOT upsetting the result of the pledged count. It seems extremely unlikely that Hillary can win the pledged delegate count, and therefore if the supers were to crown her rather than Obama, who would have more delegates and most likely more votes, we would have an uproar of colossal proportions.

My criticisms of Clinton have not changed. I *do* believe that she places her interests above her constituents (Iraq War vote), her interests above those of her party, and she will push to the limit a scorched-earth policy to win via the supers. I maintain this is extremely sleazy, self-centered, and vain. The most recent email from the Clinton campaign, that Obama wants to disenfranchise voters in the remaining eight states, even North Carolina, is ludicrous. The arguments from the Clinton campaign as to why Clinton is the better candidate change as often as the days of the week. It's really laughable. Now I know why she does better with the less educated, because they obviously buy the crap.

However, Shapiro does have a good point about the protracted process. I've long told my mother (who is a devout Hillary fan-she fits that demographic of an older female voter waiting her whole life to put a woman in the White House regardless of the content of her character) that this long process benefits McCain, and that I would not be at all surprised if he won. After all, one should not misunderestimate the stupidity of the American people. It's a lot higher than any of us thinks.