I think everybody agrees that a nasty, public pissing contest at the Democratic Convention will be a disaster for the party, and will seriously wound whoever wins it, perhaps fatally.
I also think that everybody agrees that the nomination is not winnable without superdelegates, unless someone drops out. I don't see that happening. As close as things are, and they are going to stay, both Senators Obama and Clinton will feel that they can still win... and they'll both be right. Not exactly a scenario in which anybody with the ambition and ego needed to run for President is likely to give up.
Howard Dean, (whom I have utmost respect for, having voted for him after he dropped out in 2004,) has said that there will be "a deal". Nobody knows what he meant by "a deal", so I'm going to suggest one...
With or without Florida and Michigan, who I think should get a DNC-funded caucus or primary (I suspect that a caucus would be cheaper, but don't really know), take it (and the results) or leave it (and the delegates),
the "deal" should be with the SuperDelegates, not the campaigns, and it should be:
Whoever has the delegate lead after the last vote is cast (or earlier, should one or the other have a lead large enough to be unbreakable... not that I think that's likely) will get all of the DNC superdelegates, and any elected superdelegate can either come on board, or run for re-election without DNC support. That wouldn't move many Senators, true, but there's only 49 of them anyway (Sanders is a Socialist, Lieberman has no party affiliation, since the CfL party kicked his ass out.) Party support is huge for House members, most of whom never get on TV, never get a donation from outside their district, and nobody knows who they are.
Add the DNC-controlled supers to the rank-and-file House members, and you've got the controlling block. Senators and "elder statesmen" wouldn't be enough to swing things the other way, and they could vote their "conscience" without fear of effective reprisal anyway.
This preserves a lot of competing interests.
Superdelegates aren't going away, and if you think that they will, you're living in dreamland. Think about who these people are. They're people who have dedicated their adult lives to the pursuit of power. They aren't going to give it up voluntarily, at least not in enough numbers to matter. So you need to come up with a plan that throws them a bone while pulling their fangs.
The candidates don't get a voice. This is critical. Anything they say will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as self-interest. And I think that assessment is correct in both cases. First, nobody ever does anything for any other reason anyway, and second, even if altruism really existed, no altruist has ever been President. So they need to shut up and say nothing except "I will abide by the result." How does this serve their interest, or, why should they agree? Well, first, they don't get to make the call anyway, but still, this really is a zero-sum game. Anything you get, your opponent has to give up... which isn't likely. Under that construction, the best choice for both is a draw, where neither gives up, and neither benefits.
The membership at large will be OK with it. Those who really get into this stuff will see the inner workings, and the (much larger) number who don't care about sausage-making will see that the results reflect the voting, which will read out in their minds as "fair".
To me, the critical thing is that the campaigns don't get a voice in this. Nobody will see either one as an honest broker, nor should they. What needs to happen is a process that will ensure that the pledged delegate count will determine the nomination, and that the candidates themselves cannot influence. Anything else leads to catastrophe for the Party.
I'm hoping for other ideas. If we can come up with a process that works, we can present it to Chairman Dean, and see what he thinks.
--Shannon
PS - If you cannot divorce the process from how it would help or hurt your candidate, please don't contribute. I voted for Obama, but I would rather he lose than to win by rigged rules. And I'll vote for whomever our nominee is, and no clothespins will be required.