You are correct. My remarks were purely brainist.

The Dean/Obama 50-state strategy, with organization and a ground game being put in place in long-neglected areas of the country, is well underway. It's bringing new blood and fresh energy, as well as small donor money and volunteerism into the party. It's exploring new technologies to involve more people, and promoting grass-roots style participation at a time when fresh approaches and innovative thinking are vital for the future of the country.

It's a renovation that's growing the party, helping to energize the next generation of party activists, giving real support to Democratic challengers in red districts, and expanding GOTV to unprecedented levels. It's an approach that will ultimately challenge the republican party in every part of the country, in state and local races as well as national ones.

I don't think anybody opposes this.  

They are upset about the caucus system, the RBC ruling on Michigan, the behavior of party leaders, and the behavior of the Obama campaign.  The caucus system is well-documented.  The RBC ruling was such a stupid mistake.  The Obama campaign handed PUMA an issue.  Taking four of her delegates and giving them to Obama was a slap in Hillary's face.  He sent a very clear signal to Hillary and her supporters that he is in charge and that from now on, it's going to be his way.  That is not a sign that he is interested in reform.  It's his way.  Period.

Further, the DNC and party leaders really let us down.  Officials that were supposed to be neutral made their preferences known and nobody spoke out against he sexism or the ridiculous charges of race-baiting leveled against the Clintons.  Many Clinton supporters hold Barack Obama responsible for the race-baiting.

Let's say Obama is elected (my preferred outcome).  He sent a very clear signal on May 31st that when he's in charge, it's his way.  He will install his own people at the DNC and there will be no reforms.  He will protect the system that elected him.

Further, in the eyes of the PUMAs, the strategy of inflaming/ignoring sexism and race-baiting is validated.  Because it worked.  It got him the nomination.  Nobody was held accountable and the party went on to a big victory.  Why in the world would anybody want to look back and analyze past mistakes when Obama won?

If Obama is defeated because of an insurrection led by Democrats angry about the nomination process, then the party will be motivated to reform the system and candidates will stay away from race and gender.  Otherwise, the next time a woman comes along, why should anybody stand up for her when the media is being sexist?  And race-baiting?  Hey, it worked!  Let's do it again.
Last time, the party didn't do anything.  Much of the netroots cheered it on or participated.  (Some of the most sexist rhetoric and most ridiculous race-baiting charges of the campaign came from the netroots, particularly the big orange blog whose name I dare not write.)  So it should work again, right?  

Now, I don't completely agree with this argument.  For one, I don't hold Obama personally responsible for the race-baiting.  I do, however, think that when the Clintons were being smeared in the media and in the netroots, it is SHAMEFUL that so many people stood on the sidelines and said nothing in their defense.

Further, I think that if the PUMAs succeed in defeating Obama, Hillary will be blamed.  There will be diaries all over the internet about her secret ties to the PUMA movement and KO will air a special comment condemning her for working against Obama.  I think that the party will be so badly damaged that the divisions will spread into Congress and President McCain will steamroll right over our majorities, which we would lose in 2010.

I don't think the PUMAs are crazy.  I think they are rational, patriotic Democrats who are acting in what they believe to be the best interest of the party and the country.  I don't agree with them, but many (not all) make a very legitimate argument.

Drew, the "reform" argument they have advanced to you is far from original. Nader's groupies have been pushing that theory for years. It's little more than convenient cover for predictable, ugly, sore loser tactics. I'm not disputing everyone's right to vote as they please - but please let's not elevate this small-mindedness to a martyr's cause.

I didn't say it's original, but I believe it is sincere.  If other candidates have made their argument (like Nader), then why is sore loser tactics when the PUMAs make the same argument?

And where do you get "martyr's cause" from what I said?  Who's the "martyr"?

Like I said, if they succeed in bringing down Obama, I believe that chaos and infighting, not reform, will be the end result.

OK, so that I'm clear: at this moment in history, with as much on the line as there is, with stakes as high as they are, you would hand the White House to the republicans for another four years out of "party principles?" Principles you only just discovered recently, having not really been so interested in finding out about these matters before a couple of months ago? And you're so shocked at what you didn't bother to learn about earlier that now you don't care which party wins in November? Unless the rules under which candidates campaigned are now changed in accordance with what you want?

Oh-kay. Bored now.

Clinton understood the process going in -- understood how the delegates were apportioned and chose to run within that system.  She was not denied the ability to throw her resources into Wyoming and other "delegate rich" states -- she chose not to.

She made the same mistakes McCain is making now -- she spent her money on advertising instead of a ground game, she was late to the notion of amassing small donors and she didn't employ a 50 state strategy.

Seriously, on the race-baiting issue, certainly Clinton wasn't naive enough to think that once Obama was seen as viable, AAs would flock to him and wouldn't need any "bait" to do so.  And if sexism did effect the outcome, there is no evidence that the Obama camp used it or promoted it.  

It's as if two strong contenders finished a triathalon, one winning by a nose, and the fans of the loser want to go back and challenge the layout of the course as "favoring" one runner over the other.  This was the race going in -- this was the race Clinton lost.

The thing that most bothers me about these lofty claims to choosing party "principles" over electoral victory, is the implication that those advocating these views must have the luxury of doing so.

I daresay a lot of these allegedly principled ethicists would be taking a dramatically different view, were their own lives on the line in this election. How fortunate for them, that their own financial positions guarantee their survival for four more years in the current economic wasteland. How thoughtful of them to sacrifice the health of Reaper's six month old cherub, together with the other millions lacking health insurance, for their "cause". How courageous their eagerness to forfeit tens of thousands of other people's children to more pointless wars, all in the name of "principles".

To the extent that PUMA caters to this self-serving, self-aggrandizing insanity, makes it well nigh impossible to regard any of its adherents without contempt.

And nobody is saying that.

The reason caucuses played such a huge role this time is because Obama dominated them so thoroughly. His campaign understood them and prepared for them, and his opponents didn't. That spoke well for his campaign's organization, ground game, overall strategy, tactical approach, and understanding of process -- all important measurements of a potential general-election campaign.

Keep in mind, a party primary is not a small-d democratic event, and was never meant to be. It's not a contest to determine who's more popular among registered Democrats at a particular point in time (usually late-winter, early-spring). It's an activist-energizing, infrastructure-building, ground-organizing process that uses a variety of measurements to determine who can ultimately put together the best campaign to represent the Democratic Party in November. That's why it mixes open and closed primaries, open and closed caucuses, single and multiple-state campaigning, etc.

Sure it has its flaws. But turning it into a "Dem-only general election rehearsal" may not be the best solution, or be in the long-term interests of the party.

Anyway, here's the current thing. When the caucus system is attacked with the intent of delegitimizing Obama's nomination, it's going to be defended. Too often, those criticizing the caucus system are doing so for those very reasons: to cast aspersions on Obama's achievements and create doubts about him.

Honest criticism of the caucus system is fine and good, and the possibility of reforms should be examined. But remember, these decisions happen at the state level. History, tradition, local power dynamics and influence, financing, etc. all factor into changes to a primary process. Coordinating that on a national level is a monemental undertaking. But as I said above, building and growing the party infrastructure in all 50 states can add to the national committee's authority, influence, and power to enforce rules and encourage change.

By the way, the thing that bothered me most this time around was the same thing that's bothered me in past cycles: the number of delegates (and influence) awarded to territories that don't vote in November. What's up with that?

All votes on election day are relevent.