It's their party, and you'll cry if they want you to.

Dennis Kucinich has failed in his attempt to get on the Texas Democratic primary ballot because he refused to take an oath that he would support the eventual nominee of the party in the general election. He has no problem with an oath about many of the candidates, it's the affirmation part of the oath that he's got troubles with. Let's keep this in mind and see how strong the losers in the primary will support the ultimate winner--is Gravel on that ballot?
How long is the oath good for? Was Sen. Joe Lieberman (Ind., former D., endorses and votes like an R.--Ct.) asked to do this in the last election?
Kucinich said that the oath infringed upon his freedom of speech, but after the Supremes did in the New York Judge who didn't want to give patronage to party hacks on the theory that the party is a private institution that can make it's own stupid rules (except for maybe that sign on the clubhouse "No Girls Allowed") what did you expect?
It's too bad the oath didn't include nasty comments about fellow Democrats leading up to the primary, but you can't have everything.
Since the Supreme Court has held that electors who are pledged to a candidate don't really have to vote for that candidate, and the delegates elected to the Democratic convention are only pledged for the first ballot, how binding do you think the oath would be? Maybe if Kucinich didn't support the ultimate candidate of the Democrats he'd have to forfeit his Texas delegates. Or, since it's Texas, the state with by far the most executions in the country and it involves Washington, D.C. --maybe it's a capital/capitol offense.