The media gleefully anticipate a contested Democratic National Convention and -- along with the Obamaists -- the possibility that superdelegates could give the nomination to Hillary Clinton though Barack Obama might arrive with more "earned" delegates. That would, as an Obama spokesman said in this article, create havoc.
This is not a one-dimensional issue, however, though the media almost certainly would portray it as a Clinton attack team dirty trick against St. Barack. Don't forget that Obama likely would lead only because Florida and Michigan have been disfranchised by the party for holding too-early primaries. Obama also might lead because liberal Democratic Party insiders controlled the lightly attended caucuses in a number of states -- Kansas, North Dakota, Alaska, for example -- that Republicans typically carry in the general election anyway.
What do you bet in such a scenario the Obama people would insist on perfect devotion to the rule denying Florida and Michigan delegates, but seek a way around the super delegates should they be expected to give Clinton a margin? And, yes, Clinton would readily do the reverse, if circumstances demanded. My points:
1) Obamaists would be more credible if they'd acknowledge both teams play political hardball.
2) It's time to end caucuses, stop the madness of Iowa and New Hampshire primacy and go to a rotating series of regional primaries to choose party nominees. Yesterday proved that a grouping of primaries can work. There were interesting, diverse outcomes that reflected the diversity of the states.