I will let others rebut this piece point-by-point but regarding the first point about people "working and not being able to make it to the caucus".

Hillary lost Maine quite badly even though Maine allows ABSENTEE VOTING. Thousands of people sent their votes by mail.
If the Clinton campaign were that concerned about people working on a Sunday afternoon (cough cough) they could have set up the same absentee program that worked so well in California.
So let's not buy the BS here. The Clinton campaign thought they would have the nomination in the bag and had money problems. So they didn't organize properly in caucus states and it is true that caucus success rely largely on organization and that is one of Obama's strengths.
But the bottom line is for the whole of 2007 the Clinton campaign presented themselves as extremely competent, ready and the frontrunners. They have only themselves to blame for not organizing in those states, just like the Obama campaign did.
And if these other flaws (as if the lack of Spanish translation was the reason she lost Iowa and Maine but won Nevada ... WHATEVER) played a part, it was only at the margins. Spin notwithstanding.

I strongly agree with Dana that caucuses should be abolished.

As an Obama supporter, I also think it is silly for Clinton supporters to use this as an excuse. Some demographics support Obama in caucuses, but the idea that the guy who gets support from the youngest voters has an inherit advantage over the woman who gets older voters just doesn't fly. It evens out.

Their are multiple reasons why Clinton is losing this race but most of them are due to the campaigns themselves. Clinton didn't even try to compete in most of the caucus states. They went for a big state blowout on Feb. 4 and failed. They spent all their money and don't really have a good plan B.

At best that was a bad idea. At worst that is failure of leadership, poor management skills and carelessness with money.

I find this retrospective fretting about the caucus system by the Clintons rather pathetic. Where were their concerns when she was leading? I like how they showed such concern for the working class in Las Vegas by trying to eliminate the caucuses specifically set up to let them participate.

To Dana's points, I'd still like to hear how caucuses are such a disadvantage for senior voters, who are usually the most engaged part of the electorate?

I agree with Benjamin.

I'd add that anyone who lived in Iowa for at least two weeks as of 1/3/08 who did not know what the caucuses were is someone who's chosen to be pretty apolitical. These people may vote Democratic in November, if they bother to vote, but why should we bemoan their absence from the caucuses? They won't volunteer or give money, and they're likely to vote for anyone with a "D" next to his/her name.

A factor that Goldstein omits is that state parties pay for the caucuses, whereas state treasuries pay for primary elections. Maybe some states just don't want to foot the bill for primaries.

One last point: we need a nominee who can mount a strong get-out-the-vote effort in November. Caucuses look like a pretty good proving ground for that.

My understanding of the Iowa caucuses is that they were originally just local Iowa Democratic Party meetings that got exapted into a presidential contest.

Technically speaking, IIRC, the Iowa Caucuses choose delegates to the county meetings, who then elect delegates to the state convention, who then elect delegates to the national convention.

And if the purpose is to involve people in the party and develop positions on the broad range of issues a county or state party is interested in, it's way, way better to schedule a meeting and have people, you know, meet each other and discuss things face-to-face.

Maybe this explains Texas's dual system, come to think of it.

I take Dana at her word that these are good-faith process criticisms, and find many of her objections apt. One of the problems with caucuses is the same problem that a lot of elections have, only writ large -- too small a time window in which to vote.

But I do think it's important to keep sight of the fact that we're having this discussion at this moment exclusively because the Clinton campaign, out of a certain amount of desperation, has opportunistically and in hindsight attacked a format that they embraced with enthusiasm just a few short weeks ago.

This may be a good conversation to have. But not before 2009. Otherwise it's yet another instance of changing the rules -- or at least the presumption of validity -- in midstream.

Most state caucuses use the elevator (my term) system Pesto describes. The reason is the same as that for local caususeseses (caucusi?): To build party ties.

It's not an awful system. It's getting a lot of negative press this year because every little variance across the country is getting magnified in a close election. (just like Florida in 2000, and several other close states might have been).

"Caucuses favor native and fluent English speakers, and we know Latino voters favor Clinton."

Maybe we should just let non-english speaking Latinos decide who our candidate will be. After all, they seem to be the only group left that provides majority support for Clinton.

Christ, for someone trumpeting her strength, she has turned into the weakest, whiniest supposed frontrunner I've ever seen. Oh, and her staff is so, so tired.

Get off the tracks, Hillary. There's a train a'coming, and you're about to get run over.

Caucuses favor high-information voters, regardless of their economic class or level of educational attainment.

Heh. You make it sound like a bad thing. One of the things that makes me kind of jealous about Britain's parliamentary system is that the party's push their platforms, get a certain percentage of the votes based on that platform, and then pick the people who can best support that platform. Takes the "who would you rather have a beer with" aspect out of it.

That and the fact that the PM has to take live questions from the opposition every Tuesday. How far do you think the Tories would've let Dubya rise in the party knowing what a dim bulb he is?

Your point's valid, just sayin'...

Oops, forgot to sign the above comment. Also:

s/party's push/parties push/

Must need more coffee.

Where you stand on caucuses or primaries shouldn't be dtermined by how you think your particular candidate does. There are good things and bad things about caucuses for every kind of candidate. I've been to a caucus and I think, on the whole, they are bad for some candidates and bad for some prospective voters because they are *invariably* badly run. They are too occasional to be easy to run and when they bring out a lot of new voters they are very chaotic and lots of voters feel disenfranchised whether they are or are not actually disenfranchised. They privilige undermployed, high information, voters over sporadic ones and therefore also have a tendency to make old voters feel swamped when new voters show up, and new voters feel angry that things are being controlled by old voters. In other words: they pit different types of voters against each other in a process that is almost designed to create and foment hostility rather than to create harmony.

that being said caucuses seem to bring voters out and to give candidates a lot of excitement and momentum. and that is another goal of the primary process. I think someone who really thought it out could create a hybrid process that would enable excited new voters to feel good about their choices and their party and create more determined and educated voters. That's what I want from a primary/caucus. I'm not that concerned about which candidate rises to the top.

aimai

That and the fact that the PM has to take live questions from the opposition every Tuesday. How far do you think the Tories would've let Dubya rise in the party knowing what a dim bulb he is?

You can occasionally catch these sessions on US TV--I think on CSPAN. After watching a few, I felt very envious of the British system. For one thing, I think it's a good thing to have such a forum to bring the President closer to the people, or at least open to more scrutiny. Secondly, it was far more enjoyable, purely as spectator sport, than watching some Senators give a speech to an empty room.

I prefer primaries to caucuses, but would really like to see absentee ballots removed from the primary process. Primaries are such quick moving races that I think allowing absentee ballots sent in by someone who could show up on election day is a mistake.

Of course, I'm a big fan of the pro-community feeling that comes from voting, and don't get the same warm fuzzies from absentee ballots.

I am puzzled by this new theme that "working class people favor Clinton and can't go to caucuses" which goes hand in hand with "southern states don't count because they are too black." Last time I looked at America, a greater proportion of black folks were working class than, say, white folks; and certainly, a greater proportion of black folks are in the "service industries." So how come they can come to caucus? Does their "blackness" somehow overcome their working class caucusing abilities?

OK, let's assume for a moment that caucuses favor the insurgent candidate. By the same token, holding 22 primaries on the same day favors the established candidate with better name recognition and the endorsement of more party bosses. What's the point? It's fine to talk about abolishing caucuses, just as, say, it's fine to talk about abolishing the electoral college. But as long as they're part of the political landscape, a candidate shouldn't be criticized for doing well in them, and his victories shouldn't be diminished. There's nothing illegitimate about Obama's wins, and this constant Clinton push to brand them as such is tiresome and offensive and starting to sound just a little too whiny.

All that you say is true. Then there's this: out here in Washington, our district caucuses raised tens of thousands of dollars for the local Democratic party and recruited dozens of new precinct committee officers and volunteers. You don't get that kind of organizating opportunity from sending in absentee ballots, and you can't get hundreds and thousands of people from local communities to turn out for anything less important than selecting a President. Just sayin'...

So how come they can come to caucus? Does their "blackness" somehow overcome their working class caucusing abilities?

You're missing the point. The Clinton campaign needs to rationalize as many of their losses all over the country as they can. Saying "it's just black people" really only covers southern states, and saying "it's the caucus system that's unfair to working people" only gets you a grab bag of mostly small states. Use both, you've got a double-barreled theory that covers a lot more territory. Of course the irony is that Clinton expected to clean up in caucus states and -- at least to a great extent -- in the black community not so long ago.

How quickly things change.

I've for getting rid of caucuses for a long time.

Clinton only came around after she started LOSING them. There really is no other reason.

If it was reversed and she was winning them, she'd love them.

I'd also like to point out that after today, Obama will have a 12-9 lead in PRIMARIES.

"That's how I saw two immigrant women disenfranchised in Iowa -- they were 13 minutes late."

Dana, that's not at all what you described in the earlier story.

What happened was that they came in, but then they *left*, and were not allowed *back* in.

That's a very different thing, and suggests a need for some kind of wrist banding or stamping to support reentry.

Jon H -- If you go back to my Iowa caucus piece, you'll see that although the women's reentry was controversial, it was their initial lateness, not the reentry, that prevented them from participating in the end. Had they not been late, the Clinton organizers in the room would have fought hard to let them participate, but they did not, knowing that by the rule book, it wouldn't hold water.

SO let me see if I have the SPin from the hillary campaign correct:

Caucuses: bad becasue they favor the connected, party activists and so on.

Super Delegates: good because they have the best interest of the party in mind, as oppossed to the unwashed masses who vote in primaries.

Am I missing something?

Dana,

My read on what happened was that, when they re-entered, they were treated as if they were arriving just then, not earlier, because the complainant either hadn't seen them earlier, or was just taking advantage.

That said, you were there, and I wasn't.

Do the Dems allow non-citizens to participate in caucuses? If only citizens are allowed, then why would there be a language problem, given that citizenship seems to require language proficiency? Of course, the Dems will hand out citizenship to anyone with just enough english to say "F+ck you, Uncle Sam."

I've got Dana beat: At a WA caucus, I saw not 2 but 3 handicapped African-American lesbian Muslims disenfranchised because their wheelchairs were too wide for the doors. What a rotten country!

Yes, heaven forbid the process favor high-information voters!