I think that the prospect of a Democratic superdelegate primary in June is a superb one. Not only does it end the process quicker, allowing Dems everywhere to unite behind one candidate, but it will step two sweaty months of debate and speculation as to what should happen at the convention in August. One question though...what exactly would be the process for getting something like that accomplished? Do both candidates just have to agree? Or, is it up to the DNC? Basically, who has to be convinced that this is what's best for all parties involved.

I think the bigger issue is how this superdelegate primary would purport to be binding. How would the party bind the delegates? What could it possibly do to keep them from voting however they want come convention time. The whole point of the superdelegates is that they're unbound.

If, in two hundred years, we've been unable to bind electoral college voters, I doubt that, in two months, we'll be able to bind these folks.

I smell a rat in all of this. I can't help but think this is a Clinton scam to somehow legitimize some back room deal she is cooking up. If in June she has fewer pledged delegates and votes, she should just drop out. Heck, she should just drop out know, before she starts mis-speaking about her two combat tours in Nam. There she was, serving with the 101st in the Big Lai Valley, knee deep in hand grenade pins.

If it's not decided by then, sure. However, my guess is that it will be. Both Hillary and Obama are dropping like stones in the national polls, that in a year where a generic Democratic candidate has a 10-15 pt lead.

The super delegates serve as referees. I don't see them allowing scorched earth politicking much longer.

I might be in favor of a superdelegate primary...but how would that work? Would the supers all have to go cast an anonymous ballot and then we'd have Price-Waterhouse-Coopers tally the results and tell us who won? Could be the political version of the Oscars.

But what would happen then? Would the votes translate into delegates, like a state convention? So it would be like adding a 51st state? And then the delegates from that primary...would they be free to change their minds like other delegates?

The big problem I would have if the hypothetical "superdelegate primary" was a secret ballot would be that it would turn the ballot box into the smoke-filled room of yore. Picture this scenario: the supers all cast ballots, and it turns out that Hillary wins by a massive margin. Obama fans in Obama-leaning states are outraged, but their representatives and senators and governors all say, "Don't look at me! I voted for him!" Clearly, some are lying, but nobody knows who. The result is, some supers probably get voted out of office for suspicion of having "sided with the enemy" even though they didn't, and some who would otherwise have been in political trouble for voting the way they did get off scot-free.

But if it would be more of a superdelegate caucus, I could go for that...

Think of it more as a deadline by which they have to announce their intended vote..