WE Democrats have a problem, but it's one we can fix. We are blessed with two fine candidates, but it's entirely possible that when primary season ends on June 3, we will still lack a clear nominee. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could each still believe that the nomination could be his or hers at the national convention in Denver in August. In that situation, we would then face a long summer of brutal and unnecessary warfare. We would face a summer of growing polarization. And we would face a summer of lost opportunities – lost opportunities to heal the wounds of the primaries, to fill the party's coffers, to offer unified Democratic ideas for America's challenges. If we do nothing, we'll of course still have a nominee by Labor Day. But if he or she is the nominee of a party that is emotionally exhausted and divided with only two months to go before Election Day, it could be a Pyrrhic victory. Here's what our party should do: schedule a superdelegate primary. In early June, after the final primaries, the Democratic National Committee should call together our superdelegates in a public caucus. Of the 795 superdelegates, over 40 percent have not announced which candidate they are supporting; I'm one of them. While it would be comfortable for me to delay making a decision until the convention, the reality is that I'll have all the information I reasonably need in June, and so will my colleagues across the country. There will have been more than 20 debates, and more than 28 million Americans will have made their choices and voted. Any remaining uncertainty in our nominee will then lie with the superdelegates, and it will be time for us to make our choices and get on with the business of electing a president. This is not a proposal for a mini-convention with all the attendant hoopla and sideshows. It is a call for a tight, two-day business-like gathering, whose rules would be devised by the national committee, of the leaders of our party from all over America to resolve a serious problem. There would be a final opportunity for the candidates to make their arguments to these delegates, and then one transparent vote. This is our electoral process at work in a way the founders would be proud of. The formal nomination itself obviously awaits the Denver convention. However, if most of the superdelegates were to come to the table in June, there could be a clear conclusion, and enormous moral pressure on the candidates to accept the result and move on. Some might raise reasonable concerns about the cost and logistics of assembling these superdelegates. But those would be manageable; this is a business meeting of a few hundred people almost three months from now, not an extended, cast-of-thousands convention. Possibly the nominee will become clear by June and such a gathering will no longer be needed. That's fine: it can be canceled or turned into more of a formality. The chance to have our nominee clearly identified in June as opposed to late August far outweighs any logistical or financial concerns. In addition to the practical political benefits, such a plan is also a chance to show America that we are a modern political party focused on results. It's a chance to show that when confronted with an unexpected problem, we have the common sense to come together, roll up our sleeves and direct events to a successful conclusion. And I believe that in the end, American voters might just be inclined to reward that kind of unexpected common sense.– Philip Bredesen is the governor of Tennessee and the policy chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association. __
