Some have suggested that the fairest way for superdelegates (the 700-plus unpledged Democratic Party functionaries who will be the difference in this election) to determine their vote is to go based on what their state decided or vote for the person with the delegate lead. I think these are both poor solutions, as they merely mimic the weirdness inherent the terrible primary (and excruciatingly horrific caucus) process. Instead, I would propose that we schedule a national primary. This would have a couple of benefits:
1) It would be a total fair and smart way to gain closure on this process. By now no one can complain that name recognition ruled the day and it would be a true mandate of the people.
2) It would avoid the incredible acrimony from either side should this be decided by superdelegates. Moreover, it would probably avoid the vicious floor fight about Michigan and Florida receiving credit for their delegates.
3) It will overwhelm John McCain in the media. The truth is that the more I think about this close race the better it is for the Dems. Every headline is about the Democrats (except for the McCain's party hates him stuff). You will not see coverage of McCain in a positive light because it will be totally obscured by the spectacle of this final, winner-takes-all primary. Also McCain won't know who to hit or to whom he should draw a contrast. Also it can't hurt to make a 979 year old man remember two different policy slates.
It think logistically this might be difficult to achieve, as well it is not clear that both camps would agree to this (though I am not sure which one would object), but this seems like the fairest and best compromise to solve a seemingly intractable problem. Thoughts? Better suggestions? Ad hominem attacks?