was too conservative (his campaign platform was less liberal than the actions he took in office).

primaries back in 1932 were not the same as today's.

The democratic party used a lot of backroom deals back then.

Our current system really didn't begin until the 1970's (as far as mass primaries).  The SD's and the way pledge delegates were appropriated started in the late 1970's and thru the 1980's.

1932 vs 2008 is not a valid comparison

The Democrats used to have a rule that the party's nominee had to be someone who could win 2/3rds of the delegates (this was dropped, btw, just after the 1932 race).  It was always clear that FDR could get a majority of the delegates at the convention.  What the backers of other candidates hoped to do was deprive him of this two-thirds vote (they were spoilers, essentially, and if they'd succeeded the nominee would have been someone who could have gotten this large a majority, ie. it wouldn't have been Al Smith).  FDR passed the 2/3rds mark and got elected.

If such a rule were in place today, I have my doubts that either Obama or Clinton would get the nomination (but who knows?  at the end of the day the Dems would have to nominate someone, and even in this race it's possible the delegates at the convention would throw their support to one or the other rather than go with someone who was old hat or unknown).  But you can see the dynamic in play (I might not get the nomination but I'll make sure you don't, either).

If this older system were in place now, btw, I'm not certain that Hillary Clinton would get the nomination.  You'd have a similar situation, actually, to the one we have now.  Clinton would have been the clear front runner (having, as she does, the support of people who belonged to the Clinton administration, the loyalty of politicians in New York and Arkansas, etc.--the whole shebang).

There are plenty of people within the Democratic party, though, who have good reasons not to sign on to a Clinton candidacy (eg. Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, there are plenty of states where the Clinton name isn't magical, each with their own party apparatuses, and so on).  These politicians, in the old system, would have gone looking for a candidate who could beat her (and, interestingly, they might have come up with someone like Barack Obama--someone who could get the support of a major constituency of the Democratic party, ie. African-American voters, right out of the gate, who was young and charismatic, had one of the big state poltical organizations behind him, hadn't made many enemies, was untainted by scandal, etc.).

So while the current system is different, politics is still the same game (we're not in some totally different world).

I've got to rec any diary that takes us back to '32.

Al Smith didn't have a problem with the Catholic vote...

Don't EVEN tell me you all think Obama is as good as FDR.

You don't think the hard-working white people of the country will vote for a man in a wheelchair, do you?

No, the supers had better step in and take it away from this FDR guy, or we're gonna lose in November!

</snark>