It would have been nice if any of these peoples decrying caucuses would have expressed their concerns sometime BEFORE the primary began.

But they didn't. Because nobody considered caucuses undemocratic until Hillary started losing them.

Perfectly fine. You'll have four years to help craft the solution.

The rules for this election are set.

Now, hands off!

Since I pledged to try to be nice to Clinton and her supporters on another thread, here I will attempt a reasoned argument and express my amazement that Clinton's view is considered
D(d)emocratic (big or small d) to understand, agree to, and participate under the election rules established prior to the elections and then, when losing under those rules, attempt to change them. Apply this to caucuses, Florida and Michigan.

Apparently this strikes Clinton supporters as showing they want a fighter in the White House. What I see is someone who ignores established rules to get what they want and creates rules that favor only themselves. Why does that sound familiar? Why? Why? Oh, now I remember! Because we are living right now under such an administration. That's worked out well, hasn't it?

I hope the Super Delegates and those involved in the Saturday meeting decide the real issue:

Does Hillary Clinton have the ethical standards we should expect from a POTUS? The answer is clearly "NO." and I'm not talking about bogus stuff we read from Republicans.

Lied about Bosnia trip.
Lied about Ireland talks.
Lied about commitment to Florida & Michigan.

Yet she blames others for all of this while also refusing to apologize for her vote for Iraq and Iran and never apologizing to the Obama family for her comments about assassination.

She has a personality defect to the point she cannot see her own errors anymore; and Bill is worse than she is in that area.

Although I support a different candidate, I have to admire and respect your relentlessly positive attitude. You don't diss people, HillaryClinton08, and you aren't conspiracy-minded. You exude boundless enthusiasm for your candidate. Good for you.

It is a Party nomination process. Actual primaries are relatively new. In 1968 only 13 states had them and Hubert Humphrey won none of them. A party can select their nominee any way they choose. They could go "rock, paper, scissors" and it would be fine. It is THEIR nomination. Not the public's.

Pathetic.

In my opinion there should be no primaries, only caucuses. As has been stated by so many over this cycle, we are not electing a president in this stage of the process. We are selecting the person to represent the party in the election of the president. Why we let republicans and independents help Democrats determine their candidate is beyond understanding. Even those claiming to be democrats but do nothing to understand candidates, issues, and the process should not be allowed to help chose the person representing the party.

Denis

I used to be against the caucuses until I looked into them and their purposes. They actually are good for the party as you point out and help build the party and in a way are more democratic than the primaries. I hope this ridiculous scorched earth primary doesn't cause state parties to abandon caucuses in the future. The clintons really are pathetic. I am soooo sick of them. Major clinton fatigue.