Although as an Obama supporter I believe that the Clinton supporters are worse, I know it's just partisanship and that they are not nearly as bad as I think, and there are some real jackholes supporting Obama, too.

But to the poster who suggested that the party is shooting itself in the foot, don't sell us so short.

Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, then argue for an hour about how we really should shoot ourselves in the other foot for the sake of Equality.

...they should re-vote. However, I'm not sure it's that easy. As the last poster said, would there be a primary or a caucus? What date would favor which candidate? These two couldn't agree on a sandwich order at a deli right now, much less something like this.

But the sad reality is that we'd likely end up with a very similar result as the rest of the country, with Clinton winning 53-47 and +8 delegates in MI and Obama winning 52-48 and +11 delegates (or whatever, I'm not looking up delegate counts for a theoretical). And then do we have a neatly solved issue?

And to those posters who swear that the first votes should count, there's a very simple analogy that Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune made. Having that vote count, would be like halfway through the baseball season deciding that the spring training games (exhibition games played as tuneups and as a way to evaluate players) counted toward deciding who got into the playoffs. Joan, I know your Giants won't have to worry about going to the playoffs anytime soon (of course, neither will my Reds), you can see that would be horribly unfair, as would (for different reasons) saying in the middle of the season "oh by the way, we're going to re-play those spring training games in October, and they'll count then."

Sorry, those are the rules going in, those are the rules that need to be enforced. And the fact that Clinton supporters are clamoring for this, it's solely because they think it's to their advantage. You know if Michigan or Florida had demographics that were more like, say, South Carolina, Clinton supporters would want nothing to do with this.

To FL and MI voters, I'm sorry, but your state party screwed it up for you in a laughable power play. How much more say would you have in the nominating process if your party leaders had stuck to the rules and put your primaries in, say, mid-March?

This is a looks issue with comedy in general. Who was Dane Cook before he lost 100 lbs (or whatever it was)?

Your options these days, as a comedian, are:

Be a hot guy.

Be a hot woman.

Be a minority who exclusively does material about how wacky/crazy/zany/sad/poignant it is to be said minority.

Sure, Roseanne wouldn't survive on TV these days, but neither would Louie Anderson.

I've seen it reported other places and hinted at by others like Bill Richardson that today is moving day. Either sweep the big two states by considerable margins, or get out of the way. It was one thing to let 11 striaght victories go for two weeks, but seven more weeks of this and Clinton could really do some damage.

If I were a superdelegate, that's what I'd be saying. Seven more weeks is an eternity in an election, the Democrats can't afford to give Sen. McCain that long to stand idly by and say "I agree with both of them when they say that the other one sucks."

...because I just couldn't read all the way through every page of letters, but I see a theme emerging.

"Let the people have their say" or "let people vote" seems to be Clintonspeak for "let's hgang on for as long as we can and see if this Rezko thing pans out and we can win this nomination by default."

I'm not going to go into the math like Chuck Todd always does on MSNBC, but after tonight she'll probably need to win 65% of delegates, something she's only accomplished in (I think) one state (Arkansas. If there are more, please post, I'm just doing this by memory).

Her campaign has stated that the will of the voters must be respected, and thus they will not actively court superdelegates to overturn the will of the people.

That leaves one option: hang on, and hope that the superdelegates fulfill their one actual useful purpose, and that's to prevent the party from nominating someone who has the majority of delegates but is unelectible because of a scandal or a revelation that comes out after those nominating contests are over.

For example, let's pretend that the GOP superdelegate process was identical to the Democratic one, and maybe for the sake of the argument that McCain-Huckabee was a little closer but still a foregone conclusion. Now imagine the Vicki Iseman story stuck, that she went on 60 Minutes and spilled the beans that yeah, the relationship was romantic, and yeah, he did her favors in exchange for her doing him. Uh, doing him favors, sorry, doing him "favors."

That's what superdelegates are for. To ensure that Hypothetical McCain couldn't hold his breath and stomp his feet and take the party down with him because he had the pledged delegates to take the nomination as Dead Candidate Walking. Now substitute "Rezko" for "Iseman," and you have the reason why Clinton wants to stay in.

This coming out today stinks of "lowering the bar" so that any .00001% victory in Ohio (plus a close loss in Texas) for the Clinton campaign looks like a major upset. Remember that Penn, the pollster in chief, was "seeing" a double-digit loss in New Hampshire, too.