CQ's Craig Crawford is excited about a min-convention to decide the Democratic race. The idea is that the 800 superdelegates would convene right after the end of the primaries (the last primaries are in Montana and South Dakota on June 3) and which ever candidate comes out ahead is the nominee.

Saying this is the "most fair, reasonable and obtainable solution on the table," Crawford writes:

Democrats can keep on griping about superdelegate power, but the fact is that they are part of the rules and neither candidate can articulate a feasible path to winning enough elected (pledged) delegates for a nominating majority.

Superdelegates are going to decide this thing no matter how much anyone complains about it. It is just a matter of when they decide. The default position is that we will not find out for sure where these unelected party elites stand until the August convention, which invites many more months of continuing hostilities between the warring camps (unless someone drops out).

The "rub," as Crawford writes, is to get both candidates to not only agree, but to pledge to back out if the convention goes against them. That's a pretty big rub. So would the candidates agree?

The only way an early, mini-convention makes sense for Clinton is if she mounts a serious comeback and pulls closer to Obama in the popular vote and pledged delegate count. Otherwise, the situation after the primaries will look like what we have now, a situation which, if the superdelegates are forced, favors Obama. For Clinton, keeping this thing going as long as she can is one of her only remaining strategies. Of course Obama knows this, but he too would be unlikely to tie himself to something that would hinge on what happens between now and then. If Clinton manages to pull off a significant comeback, then Obama would also want this thing to go on.

In other words, neither candidate much benefits from an early convention.