Hillary's Hollow Complaints About Caucuses

It's pretty obvious that both the Clinton and Obama camps are completely result-oriented in their respective complaints about delegate selection and allocation.

We find Camp Hillary's complaints about state caucuses particularly hollow. Caucuses have been around for a long time. They are less expensive than primaries. Most importantly, they have traditionally served as a means to get input from the party's most active participants--the precinct captains, the donors, the voters who follow the ins and outs of the race, the folks who think in terms of "who can win."

To hear the same people who speak virtuously of the "superdelegate" concept denigrate the caucus system is cynicism at its worst.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been powerful party insiders for nearly 20 years now. If they thought there was something wrong with caucuses, they could easily have done something about it. Of course, they didn't--indeed, Hillary had every reason--as with superdelegates--to think that those party insiders who attend caucuses would be her core of support.

Her campaign's mistake, however, was to ASSUME she'd win caucuses without really working at it. And that's where Obama's campaign--through sheer determination, strategy and organizational savvy--simply outmaneuvered her.

So, Hillary, don't complain about caucuses. Next time, have a stragegy for them as well.

Now that brings us to Camp Obama. They like caucuses, but not superdelegates. Get over it. As we said above, the two are analogous: both are intended to put power in the hands of party insiders. You can't accept one, but not the other.

Furthermore, Obama has the chance to persuade the superdelegates that he is the right candidate. It comes down to electability. If they think Obama can beat McCain, and Hillary can't, they will come over to his side.

There are some legitimate beefs out there. The so-called Texas two-step--both a primary and a caucus--is ridiculous. It adds the exclusivity of a caucus to the expense of a primary. It exhausts the party's workers. It's confusing. And it's unnecessary. We'd like to see the party ban anything like it in the future.

Then, there's what to do with Florida and Michigan. A do-over, while not perfect, is the best option. Those states' voters should have a say, especially in such a close race. By the same token, it would be ludicrous to reward Hillary for staying in Michigan while Obama stayed out. And the Florida vote was terribly flawed by the circumstances. So do it over. Both should be primaries, as they were intended to be.

Hillary's supporters think those states will somehow put her over the top. They won't--not under the proportional allocation system. Even after her big victories in big states this past Tuesday, Hillary barely closed the gap. So, barring an unlikely blowout in either state, Hillary won't win the whole thing if we do it over in Florida and Michigan. But it will avoid a nasty floorfight at the convention.

Since it's clear that the remaining contests, without Fla. and Mich., won't decide it, the Democratic Party should--in the lull before Pennsyslvania--get this resolved and set the new primary dates in early June.