It’s really quite a phenomenon. In every state that has held caucuses this year, we’ve seen great enthusiasm and excitement — and unprecedented turnout. My mother and father (not latte drinkers, btw) gladly waited in the snow for 2 1/2 hours to just get inside the building for their caucus in Maine. Yet, the caucus system has been met with criticism and disdain by the Clinton campaign, which started after Clinton started losing all the caucuses.

Yesterday, Harry Reid stepped in to quell and rebut the criticism of the caucus system:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday defended his state’s January caucus, saying it created a “tremendous sea change on how politics are looked at in Nevada.” His comments came as the campaign for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has increasingly criticized the caucus system, which has favored Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the two senators’ quest for their party’s presidential nomination. Clinton won the popular vote in the Nevada caucus, but she has fallen short on a number of other caucuses, including Saturday’s in Wyoming. Reid is one of the most influential uncommitted superdelegates — the members of Congress and state and party officials whose support could tip the nomination to one of the two candidates. Reid said Wednesday he will continue to stay neutral in the race. “In a period of an hour, we had 30,000 new Democrats in Nevada,” Reid said in defending the Nevada caucus on Wednesday. “We had tremendous new participation we’ve never had before.”

That was repeated across the country. You’d think that would be a cause for celebration in the Democratic party. And, it is. But, not for team Clinton. What’s most annoying is that the Clinton campaign knew the rules and agreed to play by the rules. Now, in the middle of the process, they want to change the rules. Reid put an end to that idea, too:

Some Clinton supporters have suggested that caucus delegates should be treated differently than pledged delegates from states that hold primaries, but Reid seemed to reject that suggestion. “If we’re going to change any of the rules it has to be [in the] next election,” Reid said at a “fireside chat” podcast honoring the 75th anniversary of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first such chat. “You can’t change things that have already taken place.”

Exactly. It’s always the loser who wants to change the rules.