Not to sound unkind, but all the discussion about changing, revamping, upgrading, overhauling, revisiting--whatever term you want to use--the primary/caucus methodology sounds an awful lot like sore loser talk.  Furthermore, assuming the rules were different, the conduct of each campaign would be different as well--it does NOT necessarily follow that Clinton would win, Obama would run a much different campaign if the states were winner-take-all, for instance, or spend his money much differently in certain states if they were primary-based rather than caucus-based, etc.  The (static) rules in place dictate your (dynamic) strategy.

I predict very little changes for 2012.  The states will not bend to any candidate, not when their respective systems have worked as-is for such a long time.  Caucuses are cheaper; also, in states without a well-established Democratic infrastructure, it makes sense to caucus so you can bring folks together and talk, organize, etc.  The argument of whether certain voters are more or less likely to caucus is a matter for the individual states to take into consideration when making a determination on whether to primary or caucus, not for candidates or campaigns to impose willy-nilly.  Also, the timing on primaries isn't always in the state party's control.  For instance, in a Republican state with GOP Gov, GOP state house, and GOP state senate, it's entirely possible that the GOP would set up a primary date that the Democratic Party in that state is wholly against.  Should the state Democratic Party then sit back and allow the GOP to run roughshod over their schedule--or should they take matters into their own hands and conduct a caucus on the date of their choosing?  A good example would be FL, where the DNC told them their delegates would be withheld if they used the primary results for allocation.  All they had to do was set up a date to conduct caucuses instead, and then they could field a full delegation.  Setting up a particular Primary date is not always in the state party's control.

In the end, the answer isn't to change the rules to suit a candidate--the answer is for the candidate to adapt to the rules (as long as those rules comport with the DNC--which all seem agreed on).  If the rules are changed, so be it; if the rules are changed, the strategy will change.  I don't think, in 2008, the rules were stacked one way or the other for or against a particular candidate.  

It seems clear enough to this admittedly amateur observer of the process that Hillary Clinton squandered a record-setting 2007 fundraising, the highest name recognition in Presidential campaign history, and the specter of four more years of Republican control and lost the nomination battle to the junior Senator from Illinois, an African-American man with a "Muslim" name.  If you want to set that at the feet of the primary and/or caucus rules, you are free to do so.  If it were me, the first person I'd look at was the campaign adviser who seemed to think the states were winner-take-all rather than proportionally allocated.  It is more than clear that one campaign has been seemingly one step ahead the whole way, while another has lagged a step behind.  THAT'S where Clinton angst should be directed--

--because it has cost her not just the Democratic nomination but the very Presidency itself.