DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT

The campaign continues, as it should. Why the pundits in the media wish to see Mrs. Clinton quit the race is beyond me. Yes, the mathematics is practically impossible. And, yes, it does not seem likely that fate will suddenly shift in her favor. But, who are the media to demand an end to her campaign? Has the expense of covering primary campaigns gotten so out of hand that the news media would rather cutback coverage by eliminating the chance for ordinary voters to have a say. I haven't noticed voter unwillingness to participate in these primary elections, be they in Kentucky or Oregon.

Of course, this is not to excuse Mrs. Clinton or her former campaign advisor Mark Penn for the incredibly horrible campaign they elected to pursue. The Clinton campaign seemed blindsided by the ability of the Bamistas to gain support at various caucuses and to score early primary victories. The knockout blow did not ensue in early February. Ever since then, the Clinton campaign has played catch-up and sought to redefine what success - and entitlement to the nomination - means.

What have we learned from this seemingly endless situation? First, the primary season lasts too long. How many voters who cast ballots in February or attended caucuses in January have reconsidered their opinions based on new information about the candidates. Couldn't all of this be accomplished between, say, March and June?

Second, the mixture of caucus chosen delegates and primary assigned delegates is just plain crazy. Look at the results in Texas where Ms. Clinton won the primary, but lost the caucuses. Is it right for Obama to gain more delegates than Ms. Clinton, despite the fact that she bested him in the voting booth?

Third, caucuses are a good way for a small slice of the electorate to get to meet the candidates. They also help winnow down a large field. In other words, caucuses have a role to play. However, once the winnowing process has set in, shouldn't the voters of Iowa or Kansas or any of the other caucus states have the opportunity to select their candidate?

Fourth, we need some uniformity in the primary process. Why should some states allow non-Democrats, defined in terms of party registration, have any role in the selection of the Democratic party nominee? The putative reason: allowing independent - and more centrist - voters the right to participate in a primary helps ensure that the candidate selected will not come from the party's extreme has some merit. Equally, too, does the proposal to require a mimimum participation of registered voters for a primary election to be valid. Why should a tiny minority be able to impose its will during an election when few are expected to turn out? And, isn't the general election the place where a party should be punished if it chooses candidates from the fringe? That's what happened to George McGovern in 1972. Since statewide-elections cannot be gerrymandered, there seems no reason to allow independents to participate in statewide, Democratic primaries. As long as locally gerrymandered districts persists, then I can accept the participation of independent voters.

The reforms of the 70s and 80s within the Democratic Party got us this far. What is now required are further reforms, reforms that address the issues I have raised.