Are the Democrats Back to Party Boss Rule?

Vestiges of the old days of Party bosses sitting in smoke-filled rooms, engaging in arm-twisting and outright heavy-handed control of the process seem to be overshadowing the Democratic Party in the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean has all but decreed that one of the two Democratic candidates for the Party's Presidential nomination should drop out of the race by June.

Excuse me, but, what if neither Clinton nor Obama have the required number of delegates to be the clear winner in June?

This, my friends, does not matter in the thinking of the bosses behind the scenes.

Dean's objective is to prevent the nomination process from going to the Convention floor in the late summer, despite the fact that it appears that Democrats across the nation are clearly divided as to who they prefer to run against John McCain.

Thus, the Party of 'letting every vote count' seems to be under the rule of Party bosses, or in this case, the Party boss, Howard Dean.

If neither Obama nor Clinton have enough delegates to be the clear winner in June, how is it fair to require one of them to drop out, even though their rival may have more delegates? Party rules do not state that whoever has the most delegates wins but that whoever reaches the required 2024 delegates is the winner.

For example, suppose at the end of June Obama has just over 1800 delegates to Clinton's 1550. Obama would be short of the required number to win by 224. Clinton would be short by less than 500. In that scenario, neither candidate wins.

And this is precisely what Dean and the Party bosses wish to avoid--allowing the individual voters in the Party to control the process. The Party elites fear the process going to the Convention floor in spite of the fact that apparently this is the choice of the majority of the rank and file Democratic voters.

The Democrats set up these rules for themselves. Party bosses have no business intervening in the process.