Dickerson, along with pundits and posters, tirelessly sound this refrain:

"Exit polls show Obama has support for his argument. Roughly two-thirds of voters in the four contested states said that superdelegates should vote with the people and not their own priorities."

So help me with this:

Which "people" ? How do you count those who "voted" in caucuses? What about those (like me) who will be writing John Edwards' name in on their ballots? If Hillary catches up and surpasses Barak in the total popular vote (however you count it) but remains behind in delegates, have "the people" spoken?

What about Hillary and Barak supporters who are suffering from buyers remorse in June? Shouldn't superdelegates consider this factor in their "vote with the people" decisions? And I won't even bring up "the people" in the insignificant states of Michigan and Florida.

Do the Democrats want to win in 2008? If they do, Howard Dean, DNC gray beards (to be chosen by each camp), and Obama and Clinton should sit down together now. They should establish tight rules on how the campaign should proceed. At least seven points should be agreed to:

1. candidates should be encouraged to let the campaign play out to the last primary,

2. Michigan and Florida will be required to abide by the party rules already in place,

3. both candidates will agree to run the final primaries against McCain, not each other,

4. the superdelegates will be the deciding force should neither candidate gain enough delegates through the primary process,

5. both candidates, should they prevail, agree to offer the vice-presidency to the other candidate to accept or turn down,

6. the terms of this agreement will be made fully public as the means used to enforce its terms.

7. should either Clinton or Obama refuse the terms offered, the DNC should publicize this refusal as an act that puts victory over McCain and the Republicans in great jeopardy.

man you make rules like a communist or something.

I say change the stupid rules, maybe by vote. How about that?

Interesting points. I like the last two quite a bit, and believe they might actually work in reigning in inter-party negativity and attacks.

But I don't know that it's a good idea to enforce the offering of the vice-presidency between two people (not necessarily Clinton and Obama) who may have lots of bad blood between them. Of course, as your point tacitly indicates, each side would be free to turn down the offer.

But say, for example, that Candidate A loathes the idea of having Candidate B be his or her running mate--and not just personality wise but due to practical considerations such as the questionable campaign strategy of both candidates on one ticket in a general election or for differences in policy. If B takes up A on the offer, that sort of sucks for A, and could lead to a divided and inefficient White House in the future.

Also, I'm very ambivcalent about the role the superdelegates should play.

IRS Threatens Church's Tax Status Over Obama's Hartford, CT Speech; Perez Asks Congress to Investigate IRS <link>

Hartford Mayor Eddie A. Perez asked Congress today to investigate the IRS' threat to strip the United Church of Christ of its tax-exempt status over Barack Obama's speech to a church convention in Hartford in 2007.

"If the IRS is successful, every church synagogue and mosque that invites an elected official to speak on issues such as the war in Iraq, abortion, the environment, labor and other issues of social justice could fear loss of their non-profit status," Perez said.

What about those (like me) who will be writing John Edwards' name in on their ballots?

what about you? do you think that because you, hidaily, are writing in John Edwards means that we are supposed to put him back in the ticket? or that we are supposed to consider you especially? i really don't understand the point of the first part of your statement at all. as for your manifesto? it seems an awful lot like just that- a manifesto, a mandate. and you came up with this wonderful solution all by yourself that you want to FORCE everyone to abide by? who the heck are YOU? i understand your frustration but you have no idea how the party leaders plan on dealing with it and i'm sure they are already discussing this today.

i like this site because you hear interesting ideas that you might not get elsewhere. but i think your ideas are a bit too stringent on this point.

Let me start by answering “by deduction.”

I mention my continued allegiance to John Edwards for two reasons. !.) I’m trying to show that neither Obama or Clinton is my ideal candidate. 2.) And I try to work Edwards into everything I talk or write about in the hopes of moving the two remaining candidates, centrists both, to the left, where the Democratic party belongs. Right or wrong, having said this, I want a Democrat elected in 2008. And this is not going to be an easy task with either candidate heading the ticket.

For marzipan, while the vice-presidency can no longer, in John Nance Garner’s immortal words, be considered equal to a “warm bowl of spit,” it does remain an office that derives power from the whims and design of the president. (The monster Cheney is the creation, by default, of the insecure child, W.) And Lyndon Johnson took second place in 1960 despite nearly every pundit of the day holding that he would never give up the power of Senate Majority leader to become veep. Hill and Bar or Bar and Hill? Who knows? The offer should be made if only to give the appearance of unifying the party. And both candidates (even Hillary) are young enough to wait their turn in 2012 or 2016.

marzipan expresses the feelings of many Democrats: “I'm very ambivalent about the role the superdelegates should play.” But ambivalence won’t hack it when it comes to crunch time now and at the convention. Consider the alternatives. Walk outs by irate Clinton or Obama supporters. A dead-locked convention running on and on before a dazed and then incredulous electorate. FOX reporting: “These people want to run the country?!” Not good for the party, the candidates and especially for the country which needs to turn out of office every Republican lick-spittle to ever utter the name “Bush” with even a hint of respect for the man.

And Real Slim K.-- Politics ain’t bean bag, glad you’re hearing me, and I’m not certain if I should be hurt or complimented when you say “man you make rules like a communist or something.” I guess I’ll have to ask you what the something is in your “something.”

you should be offended, deduction, because communism is bad.

or something, makes me folksy. Hillary supporters are very folksy, hardworking, Joe and Josie Lunch-pails. Not like those flaky Obama cult-guys.

A quick and easy fix to the mess the Democratic party is in is just not going to happen. Something else is needed, and needed now. Take another look at the Seven Point Agreement (SPA) I advocate in the above post (and every place that will print or post it). Is this proposal as some have said, "too sane"? Or is it too historically radical for the timid to contemplate?

The Democrats lost their chance for "radical" when the media ignored John Edwards out of the race. But we still have a chance to make this election "historical" in the best sense of the concept. Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama - voters deserve this, the country needs this. Only the egos of the candidates and their supporters (like so many posting on this thread) are keeping it from happening.

And that's where real "change" begins, moving from the selfish narrow to the general good. You know, away from a Republican mindset to a truly democratic vision.