Most commenters on this thread seem to want to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida

Untrue. Let's recap history: The DNC told FL and MI not to hold primaries before Feb 5 or else. They did it anyways. The DNC stripped their delegates (not a smart move, IMHO). The Campaigns agreed not to campaign in those states and that it would be a straw poll. Only Hillary had her name on the MI ballot.

Now Hillary wants to seat the delagates from these elections that are not free and fair. That would not re-enfranchise the voters and it's not following the rules.

If I lived in FL or MI I would be pissed and seeking some sort of redress. But I would be blaming my state representatives and the DNC, not the candidates for what happened.

In a perfect world, new elections would be held, be they cacuses or primaries. I think few here would disagree with that.

The cruel irony here is that the post Feb 5 primary states, OH, TX, and maybe PA have ended up with great influence on the nomination. So going later in the primary cycle wasn't so bad after all.

Maybe you should preface this with the full disclosure that you're a Clinton supporter.

I'm a Joan Walsh supporter and I approve this message.

Seriously I liked Joan's article, though she may have opened herself to some criticism with a critique of the Obama position(s) on SD's while omitting Hillary's position(s). Maybe there was a vowel shortage in her word processor towards the end.

I don't think one method will work for all cases (sort of a Turing halting problem), but maybe we can adapt the rules to better fit our times and our concerns. Democracy can be messy at times, and I think establishment types have grown afraid of the chaos. Certainly the '68 and '72 primaries still resonate today (see above posts) and the super delagates were instituted to preserve access for party elders and tame the 'excesses' of that period. Now this system looks bloated and corrupt.

CNN had a segment tonight on how each campaigns has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to SD campaign funds. Each campaign denies that the practice has a corrupting influence.

I agree that alternating the states that go first would be a great step forward. I also think that a large front-loading of primaries (or a national primary) is not ideal. A lesser known or more fringey candidate needs time to build interest and viability in the body politic. A big bang favors the well-heeled establishment candidate.

I don't know who is the right choice now but one thing everyone rational knows is that the only difference that matters between clinton and obama is which one of them has the best chance of beating the republican.

Well, if you've followed any of the letters threads recently you know that the super rational Salon readers (where everybody is above average), can't seem to agree on how to determine who has the best chance to win.

I've seen lot's of spin, hyperbole, and vitriol, but nary an alogrithm in sight.

I certainly don't know, and I'm not sure the Super delegates know either. The best of them will make a judgement call, but it will be just that. Hopefully it will be better informed than ours, but I wouldn't count on it. I'm hoping that the next few primaries sort things out

Well, I am living in a liberal enclave and I do listen to talk radio. Right now the most strident of them are saying 'F McCain'. and pushing for not voting in the general. They also loath the Huckster and the evangelical rebellion. We'll see if they reverse thier position by the election. I'm sure they will bad mouth whoever the Dem candidate is.

I agree with SocsAndTwigs and will pretend we have a democracy. And I have growing concerns about the effectiveness of Hillary's campaign. If Obama is such a lightweight and Hillary such a realpolitik heavyweight, how come she isn't kicking his ass back and forth across the Country?

Obama is not the only one who will have to bring their 'A' game to prevail in the general.

I'm not sure it IS better to have it settled sooner rather than later. There's an obvious downside to a continued fight...

Agreed. I guess I'm more concerned about the devil I know, which in my opinion is a brokered convention where there is a tiny spread between Hillary and Obama, and the chance that the losing side freaks out. That's my nightmare scenario for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I think we have to stand tall before the Republican fear machine and realize we have some advantages this cycle.

We don't think it's fair. It sucks. Seating the delagates as presently constituted is also not fair. It sucks. New elections should be held.

Also, there are rules in life other than in sports. If you walk outside without your shorts on, you risk a trip to the big house or the hospital depending on how far north you live.

Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Obama is less of a lightweight than portrayed by detractors, and Hillary less of a heavyweight than portrayed by supporters. That's why I'm hoping for a clear(ish) outcome in the next few weeks. Then I can say to myself, "well at least Obama|Hillary can get it done with some decisiveness.