Click on the following student questions for a transcript and audio clip:

1. Why do the Democrats have super delegates, and the Republicans do not?

2. How can I become a super delegate?

3. What's the point in voting if the super delegates decide?

4. Will super delegates vote for the candidate most likely to win in November?

5. Does Hillary Clinton still have a chance, even though she's behind?

6. How much have the candidates spent on this election?

7. Why should the race or gender of a presidential candidate matter?

8. How big of a factor is race in this campaign?

9. Should supporters of candidates who dropped out be allowed to re-vote?

10. Why can't all the primaries be on one day?

11. Can the party force Obama and Clinton to run together?

12. Could the long primary process have a negative effect on the Democrats?

13. Isn't the electoral college outdated in today's society?

Introduction:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Welcome to this week's Insider Forum, I'm Judy Woodruff. This week is special.

Insider Forum has teamed up with the Online NewsHour's Extra for Students, and we've invited high school and middle school students around the country to submit questions on the 2008 Democratic Primary race, and the general election, as you'll hear.

We have received many, many questions and comments for our two guests, and they are here now to answer your questions.

First, Tad Devine. He is a senior strategist and adviser to the Democratic presidential campaigns of Vice President Al Gore in 2000 and Sen. John Kerry in 2004. He is, today, a partner at Devine Mulvey, a political consulting firm.

Also joining us is Tony Corrado, he's a professor of politics and theory at Colby College in Maine. He is also a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Mara and Lisa, New York City:

"Why do the Democrats have super delegates, and the Republicans do not?"

And the Hunt Commission members -- it was led by former North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt, and the other members who were mostly party activists -- looked at our nominating process.

And they concluded that the lack of participation of elected officials -- particularly members of the United States House of Representatives, United States senators, governors -- in the 1980 campaign, was something that the party needed to remedy.

And to remedy that, and to get the participation of those elected leaders of our party, and other activists, as well, the Hunt Commission decided to create a category, which are called "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates," but popularly known as super delegates. And these elected officials become delegates -- not because of what voters do in primaries and caucuses -- but because of their status as elected officials.

This was felt to be good for the party for a number of reasons. One is, to make sure that these people -- the congressmen, the senators -- actually participate in the nominating process, because if they do it was felt they'd participate in the general election and help our nominee win elections.

And they also provided other benefits, as well. An element of peer review -- these are usually the senators, the representatives -- they know these candidates for president and they'd be able to exercise their own judgment, and review all the candidates.

And the party leaders also wanted to have some kind of mechanism within the party so that if we had a stalemate in the nominating process, where two candidates won a lot of delegates but not enough to become the nominee, that there would be this group on uncommitted delegates who could move towards one candidate or the other, achieve some kind of closure, and allow the party to come together behind a candidate.

So, for a number of reasons, but I think particularly to make sure that these elected officials are included in the process -- these delegates, categories of delegates, were created.

Now, during the course of time, you mentioned 800 -- we started off with 540 super delegates from the Hunt Commission, now we're up over 800, and so there's been a lot of growth in their ranks, and I'm sure that's something that, after this election, our party may step back and decide whether we have too many super delegates now.

Krista, Community High School in West Chicago:

"How can I become a super delegate?"

A second way you can become a super delegate, and what the largest group of super delegates are, are members of the Democratic National Committee -- individuals who have been appointed by their States to serve on the Democratic National Committee, or the individuals who serve as the chair or the vice-chair of the state party in their state.

So, that's one of the reasons why it's a pretty elite group -- it tends to be the individuals who are active in the party, who have been party members for a long time.

Now, someone who would like to go to the convention as part of this group of party leader and elected officials, also have the option of seeking delegate status by running in their state.

Because one of the interesting things about Democratic rules is, while we have all concentrated on the super delegates, there's also a small group of party leader and elected official delegates that are selected at the state level.

These are delegates who are known as "bonus delegates," they are 10 percent of a state's delegation who are added on to the number of delegates in that state, which is kind of an obscure category that was actually created by Tad Devine --

Tad Devine: Late one night.

ANTHONY CORRADO: And what's interesting is that it's often the case that people who are involved in the elections can be selected for that group, even though they're not a major elected official.

Emily, North Penn High School:

"I understand it's important to vote, but what's the point in voting if the super delegates decide?"

That the votes of those people who participate will weigh very heavily on the decision making process. So, I think people should vote, not just to elect those pledged delegates who, after all, are the largest group of delegates out there, but more importantly, to affect the decision making, now, of super delegates in the course of the next couple of months, couple of weeks.

Rachel, Bishop McNamara High School in Maryland:

"Would the super delegates vote for the one who had the best chance to be elected president against John McCain, no matter what the people say, or would they vote for the person who the people favored, and why?"

And I think many of the super delegates are looking at the votes in their state, to see which candidate will do well in their state in the fall, and they are, in large part, going to follow the guidance of the people in their state.

One of the issues that they confront, however, is what happens if the candidate ends up at the end of the nominating process in a place where one might be better in the general election than the other?

And that's why so many of the super delegates are still undecided. They're waiting to make a decision about which candidate do they think will be the strongest candidate in the fall campaign, and the votes that candidates win in the states is one of the things they're looking at to make that decision.

Luis, Highlands, N.Y. :

"Does Hillary Clinton have a chance to be president, even though she's still behind?"

She is behind, and Sen. Obama's advantage -- while it is small in terms of delegate numbers, we've talked about it at the beginning, about 130 or so delegates ahead -- nevertheless is significant because of the system that we use in the Democratic Party -- we don't allocate our delegates the way that the Republicans do, they have winner-take-all, and we have something called proportional representation, which essentially splits the delegates.

But, for Sen. Clinton to win, she's going to have to really have a few very, very good weeks in the weeks ahead, she's going to have to build on that big victory she just had in Pennsylvania and the win she had before that in Ohio.

She's probably going to have to go into the next set of events in Indiana and win convincingly there. Keep it very, very close in North Carolina, if not, surprise Obama, as well. She's going to have to win a number -- most of the upcoming states, places like West Virginia and Kentucky -- and she's probably going to have to go to a place where right now people expect Obama to win, and important battleground state, like the state of Oregon, and she's going to have to beat him there.

Now, if she does all of that -- and that's quite a tall order -- and manages to, perhaps by the end of the primary season to actually get more votes than he has, in terms of popular vote, then I think she may be able to, you know, find a way to put together a nominating majority of delegates.

That could come as a result of the fight over the credentials of the delegates from places like Florida and Michigan, which haven't been resolved yet.

So, there's a way home, although I think we'd have to say that Sen. Obama right now is the clear favorite.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, in connection with that, and I'm just going to throw in my own question here, to Professor Corrado -- what are the odds at this point, Tony, that this could go all the way to the Democratic Convention at the end of August?

ANTHONY CORRADO: Well, I think that there's still the prospect that that might happen, but I don't think that the odds are very high that it will happen.

In part, because many Democrats want to see the nominating race resolved at the beginning of the summer, so that they have time to prepare for the fall. And there will be meetings that occur prior to the convention -- meetings of the Rules Committee, meetings of the Credentials Committee -- that determines who is officially seated as a delegate, and members of the Platform Committee, who will decide, what are the issues the Democrats are going to stand for in their platform?

And it's often the case that, when there are divisions within the party, those divisions tend to be resolved during those meetings in the month before the convention, where they work out issues.

Because the one thing the Democrats want is a unified convention, and to begin to turn their attention to the general election campaign.

But one of the issues will be -- if it is the case, as Tad just noted -- that Sen. Clinton does very well in this last part of the nomination campaign, and if it proves to be a much closer delegate race than we think it will be at this point, then you may see that fight go on for some time.

But there are many incentives, and that's one of the reasons why the super delegates are important -- they have an incentive to bring the party together, to not have this go all the way to the convention, and I think one of the reasons why many of them are watching and are still unpledged to a candidate, is they want to help to be in a position to resolve some of the divisions in the party, so to help bring the party together before the convention in Denver in August.

Ryan, West Chicago:

"How much do you think that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have spent on this election?"

Is that right, Tony? You are more of an authority than me.

ANTHONY CORRADO: At the end of March, they had spent a combined $352 million. Barack Obama had spent $190, and Hillary Clinton had spent $163 million.

So, Tad's estimate of about $400 million is probably close to where they are at this point.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Wow. That's a lot of money.

TAD DEVINE: That's a lot of $2,300 contributions. Or in this case, $25 contributions.

Megan, West Chicago:

"How come the Democratic Party is getting so much publicity because of race and gender, when those qualities do not determine if someone will be a good president?"

Listen: RealAudio | MP3

ANTHONY CORRADO: Well, I think one of the reasons why they've been given so much attention in this race -- because we really face a historic choice.

For the first time we have a realistic prospect that we will have a woman, or the first person of color to be nominated for not only the major party presidential nomination in the Democratic Party, but a real prospect of winning the presidency.

So, this has raised a lot of discussion about the fact that we have a woman and a person of, you know, the non-majority race running for President.

It has excited many women to come into the process and vote, and support Hillary Clinton, as well as Barack Obama. We have seen many members of the African-American community and other minority communities get very involved for the first time, and therefore it's one of those features that's unique about this race, which leads to a lot of discussion of race and gender.

But, I think that she's correct -- these aren't the most important features in terms of selecting a president and one of the issues is really which of these two candidates would have the best leadership characteristics, which of these two candidates has the best character, which of these two candidates has the best ideas about the future, and how to improve the country in the future.

So that, while they're not the most important factors in voters making a decision, they tend to be highlighted, just because of the historic nature of these two candidates.

TAD DEVINE: And Judy, can I just add that, for me, it's wonderful to hear a young person say that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes.

TAD DEVINE: That these are not factors. Because it says, and I think signals where this next generation is coming from, and where our country, as a result, is likely to go, which is in a very, very good place.

Jordan, North Penn High School in Lansdale, Pa.:

"How big of a factor is race in this campaign?"

Our Democratic Party this time, will for the first time have a nominee who is either a woman or an African-American. And that in itself is a remarkable achievement.

But, I think the question really goes to how voters feel about this and whether or not voters' behavior and their voting patterns are affected by these issues of race and gender.

I think, you know, so far in the campaign we've seen just remarkable occurrences in respect to the issues of race and gender. Iowa and New Hampshire, for example, have long been thought of places that would not be hospitable to an African-American candidate.

And Barack Obama, not only winning in Iowa, but also doing very, very well in New Hampshire -- he got more votes in New Hampshire than Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, or Paul Tsongas did when they won New Hampshire. And so, you know, that in itself was a remarkable achievement.

I think a lot of these barriers have begun to break down. Now, I don't think they've all broken down -- either the barriers surrounding race or gender, when it comes to all voters.

But, I think what's happening in this process is, we're beginning to see the end of voting patterns which would have precluded people from winning elections, either to the nomination of our party, or ultimately, the election as president, because of their race or gender.

So, I think it's been a big step ahead already, there are many more steps to go between now and November. But I think the outlook on this issue is very, very good.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You're saying it's not behind us, but it's the beginning of the end.

TAD DEVINE: That's right.

Brian, Arcadia High School in California:

"Should the people who voted for nominees -- or candidates -- who dropped out such as John Edwards and Mitt Romney -- be allowed to re-cast their votes for their party?"

Listen: RealAudio | MP3

ANTHONY CORRADO: Well, you know, that's an interesting question -- one of the problems we've always had in the presidential race is you have, in Iowa and New Hampshire and the early states, all of the candidates competing, but many of them drop out early.

So that the candidates who end up going on, tend to offer fewer choices to the voters.

But one of the ways that it's often the case that individuals do get to, in some way, recast their vote, is that in many of these states like Iowa, which is a caucus, they don't select their delegates until June in a state convention.

And the individuals who voted, for example, for John Edwards, or Mitt Romney in Iowa, can move on and ask representatives to their Congressional District Caucus, recast their votes and chose among the other candidates, or they can choose to continue to support a John Edwards or a Mitt Romney.

And one of the things that we see in some of these states is that individuals do end up changing -- they're originally elected to represent Mitt Romney, and then they decide to go along and support Sen. McCain.

Or they're originally voting for Edwards, and they decide to vote for either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. So that that does give us some benefit of the type of thing Brian talking about.

But it's also one of the reasons why some individuals have argued, we should have something like four primary days, or a national primary, where you have time for everyone to consider all of the candidates, and then be able to vote for them.

Christian, West Chicago:

"Why can't all the primaries be on one day? Wouldn't this save a lot of money for the states and the candidates?"

Listen: RealAudio | MP3

TAD DEVINE: The answer is, yes it would. And I think after this year, and with all of the changes that are coming up, primary and caucus process in recent years, and all of the interest, I think, around this campaign and the way people are looking at the rules -- I think we've actually come to a point now where after this election is over, I believe we actually may be at the point where we have real reform, the kind of reform that Christian's talking about, where perhaps, some kind of regional set-up.

There are a number of plans that have been proposed by different people, there's legislation before the Congress right now which addresses this, that maybe three or four days of voting where many states on the first Tuesday of the month or some other day like that would have all of their primaries be on a regional, or some other basis.

To allow different States to come earlier in the calendar, to allow a much more orderly process, and I think that's really a good development and hopefully it will happen.

Dan and Ian, Bronx Science School in New York:

"Can the party can force Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to run as president and vice president, or is it up to them?"

Listen: RealAudio | MP3

ANTHONY CORRADO: Well, it's really up to them. It's the decision of, first of all, the nominee of the party to decide who he or she feels comfortable with as a vice president, who he or she believes is qualified to be their vice presidential candidate, and certainly there will be the case that the members of the party, and the supporters of the candidates often advocate the candidate they support as the best vice presidential candidate, if their candidate has failed to become the nominee.

But there's no way for the party to force them to be together, it's going to be the choice of the individual who's going to be the nominee.

But one of the aspects of this election is that both candidates have showed such strength amongst the voters, and have shown such an extraordinary ability on the campaign trail, that there's lots of discussion about the possibility of the two of them getting together.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Tad, very, very quickly, what do you think the chances are that could happen?

TAD DEVINE: I believe despite the conventional wisdom that it will never happen, I believe it can happen, and I actually predict that it will happen.

JUDY WOODRUFF: OK, that's provocative.

Lauren, Bishop McNamara High School in Mitchellville, Md.:

While the Democratic candidates go at it, the presumptive GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain is cruising by doing 'presidential-type things,' like visiting troops in foreign countries like Iraq. Won't the fact that the Democratic nominees are still only focused on debating and attacking each other have a negative effect on whoever gets the nomination and doesn't this weaken them in the fall against the Republicans?"

Listen: RealAudio | MP3

TAD DEVINE: Yes, it does. I think Lauren's correct. You know, one of the axioms of presidential politics is that the longer it takes you to win your nomination, the more difficult it is for you to win the general election.

So, I think Lauren is correct that the best hope for the Democrats is, probably, another axiom of politics, which is that if the incumbent party's president is in trouble with low approval ratings, if the country thinks we're heading in the wrong direction which is, right now, historic high, then the challenging party has a great opportunity.

So, I think these two forces are going to collide in the general election, the fact that the other party settled early on their nominee and had an advantage, and the fact that our party has real advantages in terms of the climate of the election.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And quickly, to Tony, how do you see this?

ANTHONY CORRADO: One of the things I see is, we have to remember, John McCain has a lot of work to do in traveling around the country, because his nomination campaign ended so shortly. And on the Democratic side, they have had very strong campaigns in all 50 states, they've registered lots of new voters, they've brought a lot of new people into the party, and that will help them in the fall.

And I also agree with Tad -- that presidential elections tend to be based on real-world events, and the real problems of voters.

Voters are looking at their economic position, they're looking at how they're doing in life, they're looking at their sense of what's going on in the world and whether or not the government is heading in the right direction, and that ultimately becomes more important as they start to look at who they want the next leader to be in the general election campaign.

Jennifer, Arcadia High School:

The electoral college -- a good idea for America in 1776 -- when it was difficult, if not impossible, to count the vote of every American citizen -- seems to have become outdated in today's society where communication and the exchange of information is both easy and instantaneous."

Listen: RealAudio | MP3

ANTHONY CORRADO: Well, I think that Jennifer is right. The electoral college has become, in some ways, an antiquated institution. It was originally formed because it was difficult for voters to get information.

There was concern about the big imbalance in population among the states, and many of the founders felt that Pennsylvania, New York and Virginia would be the states that would tend to select presidents, because they had so many more people. So, they went to the electoral college idea.

But I think now what we find is the electoral college is something that is probably in need of fundamental reform, that we really should eliminate the electoral college because it tends to reduce participation and the incentive for voters to get involved in the general election, because it ends up being a handful of states where the campaign is really conducted.

And it's also the case that if you had direct election of the president, every vote would count. And whether you were voting in California or whether you were voting in Wyoming, or whether you were voting in Maryland, your vote would be equal to every else and would count just as much as everyone else's.

And I think that that would really increase interest in elections.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And Tad, you don't think it would disadvantage the smaller states?

TAD DEVINE: Having once worked for a candidate who got more votes and still lost the election, I think Jennifer's idea has a lot of appeal to me, personally.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You're referring to Al Gore?

TAD DEVINE: I am referring to Al Gore in the 2000 elections.

And I agree with what Tony has said, but I think the other side of the coin is worth thinking about, too, which is if we move to electing our candidates just on the basis of popular vote, a lot of the issues right now which concern people, which are the way that different states work, and some states being ignored, and other factors, we could actually have a different set of problems.

I think instead of states being ignored, you know, we'd have population-center directed voting, where people would just be spending all of their time and all of their energy in places where there are just large populations.

And this is a big country and a lot of states, and a lot of regions -- whether they're rural regions of the country -- that people pay attention to, because a state like Missouri or Iowa or Wisconsin are going to be very, very close in the election.

So, if we do change it, I hope we give it a lot of thought and a lot of study before we make those changes, because one thing we can say about our system, it may not have been perfect, but it's worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just to clarify -- to change it what would that require?

TAD DEVINE: Actually, believe it or not, changing the electoral college would require a lot less than I think people realize. You know, we could actually move -- and a lot of people have been looking seriously to a system of popular vote -- well short of amending the constitution.

So, there are different processes where states could band together and agree that they would cast their votes on the basis of popular vote winners on a national basis, without actually resorting to Constitutional amendment. I think Tony's probably more of an expert on this than me, but I think there's a lot of ways to get there, short of amending our Constitution.

ANTHONY CORRADO: But truly, if we wanted to change the system the way that is the best, is to have an amendment to the Constitution, since the Electoral College system is part of our Constitution.