Not a Bug

It's important to remember when grumbling about an election that should have been over months ago - and, perhaps might have if the media would pull their collective heads out of the gathered asses (I imagine it's pumpkin heads like Russert and Matthews that pose the biggest problem in doing so. Those oversized melons just get wedged so firmly in there and you have to send out for the jaws of life and a skilled proctologist.) - that this is exactly the way the system is supposed to work.

With superdelegates and proportional allotments, the Democratic nominating process is designed to have two strong opponents fighting it out with neither being able to land a finishing blow. It's only because the nominee has been so clear-cut in the past several cycles that we've avoided this. But the system is working as intended - right down to the party elders being able to overturn the vote of the dirty hippy/activist wing at the convention.

And if you don't like it then it's time to change that system. But while there are many other ways of doing it each election system is fraught with its own pitfalls. The problem, though, with the current one is not the passion or even the rancor of the participants and their supporters - it's that being able to hold an open and honest discussion about our differences is seen as ruinous squabbling instead of healthy.

Because that, more than anything, is the strength of the Democratic Party. The distinguished competition might have a big tent but they have nothing like real diversity. We are the one from the many. Opinions and factions and beliefs drawn together to take up a common cause. And that takes debate and compromise and co-operation. That takes argument. It's not pretty getting there. But it's anything but shameful.