I don't mean to sound dismissive, but the platform is a meaningless feel-good exercise these days. It allows the -winning- candidate and a handful of activists to express themselves, but won't be read by the voters or adhered to by the President or the Congress.

Consider this (it gets interesting as you get deeper into it):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1798895

And this would be another simplistic pledge with no ability to follow through. Like it or not, we live in a Federal Primary. The Federal Government plays no role at all in Primaries, and the DNC only determines the window for holding contests and the number of delegates up for grabs. The President can't snap her fingers and impose automatic voter registration, open Primaries and early voting.

We vote based on personality and rhetoric rather than concrete policy platforms and the 2 parties do everything to perpetuate this shallow rendering of the people's voice.

We'd be better off emulating our peers in other countries and vote based on meaningful, clear policy platforms rather than cult of personality. Then people wouldn't have to argue about the meaning of 'progressive' or 'pro-worker legislation' (for examples) and instead we would know exactly what the party is fighting for. Of course, it would also mean we would need multiple parties, coalitions, etc, and neither the Dem or Repub leadership wants to see any of that happen because it would challenge their hegemony.

So disheartening to see your comment, although I'm not surprised - I assume this is the general opinion of the party leaders, then?

Fuck democracy, I guess. It's all just about speeches and personality, policy be damned.

No, it's an acknowledgement of reality.

We have a two Party system and the olden days when folks out on the prairie never saw their candidates are gone. Each Party is a variation of a big tent with a range of philosophies represented. Expecting Democrats in Nebraska to run on the same issues as candidates in Rhode Island is silly. And voters can see their candidates, in person or on TV, and make judgements about their positions, their speaking style, appearance, voice...

if you are talking to me like that because you think I'm stupid, or if you are being deliberately obtuse and changing the subject from the point I was making because you don't want to take your party blinders off for half a second and have an honest conversation, but I'm not gonna work at it.

The Party Platform was a way to express Party positions back in the days when most voters learned what was going on by telegraph. Party conventions have lost their role in actually picking candidates (since we introduced competitive Primaries and Caucuses nationwide), so they're shows that focus on speeches. Nobody has read the Party Platform in decades, so the Party leaders don't spend a lot of time worrying about them. They still write one, because that's the way they've always done it, but it'll be put on a shelf regardless of whom the Democrats nominate.