Hillary Clinton continues to bash the caucus system. In the latest attempt to spin away her defeat by wide margins in several caucus state over the weekend Clinton devalued these caucus states as "not being representative of real voters". To a certain extent this is true because it takes some commitment and effort on the part of a voter to participate. It is true that the caucus system must be reformed to increase participation or junked entirely in favor of a full primary election.
It is also true that the caucus system is the party's way of controlling participation, fund raising and increasing grass roots activist participation. With a statewide voter primary election party bosses lose direct control over the apparatus and invite challenges from insurgent candidates that can threaten their control of the party.
But aren't calls for reform of the presidential nominee selection system for the future not the present?
The main problem I have with Clinton's criticism is that she and her operatives and the party establishment have devise the system that she now is calling unfair to her candidacy. The system was not created in a vacuum. Clinton the early front runner and overwhelming favorite to win the nomination at the beginning of the primaries helped set the rules for the game and now when she starts losing the game she calls the rules unfair. She can't have it both ways. God knows Hillary has been planning to run for the presidency from the days she and Bill finished law school. The playing field has always been tipped in her favor because the Clintons have controlled most of the party operatives and DNC members from the beginning.
I'm sure they all thought it was going to be a cakewalk for Clinton to the nomination. Even though they wonld never say that. Firing her campaign manager isn't the problem either. The problem seems to be with the Clinton brand itself. If Obama's momentum continues you should expect Hillary to get dirty and god knows what she'll conjure up in an attempt to try and stop Obama.