Yes, hold a do-over in both states in May or June. I'm an Obama supporter, and the demographics in Florida and Michigan may favor Clinton, but fair is fair.

Democracy is too important to either exclude 2 states or include the incredibly dubious results from the earlier votes. Re-doing primaries in both states is a no-brainer compromise. Dr. Dean, please get on it.

For this to finally be over and for him to win in November, Obama must win PA.

Pennsylvania, where the demographics favor Hillary, has 188 delegates at stake.

North Carolina, where the demographics favor Obama, has 134 delegates at stake.

Those are far and away the 2 biggest contests left. It's likely that Clinton nets very little in either delegates or popular vote when both states are taken together.

Now, why is it that Pennsylvania is so decisive supposedly, and North Carolina, an only slightly smaller state, means diddly? Because that's the only narrative a blinkered Clinton supporter could put forward that gives Clinton any sort of realistic shot at the nomination.

The "Pennsylvania is all that matters" meme isn't going to catch on. Sorry Brian; it just doesn't make sense.

How about this crazy idea?: every state matters.

Yeah, the big states matter in proportion to their bigness, but there's an already an elected delegate system in place which reflects that. Why don't we play by the rules the party actually set out, rather than the Clinton rules, which change pretty much every week according to what they think benefits them?

A small portion of superdelegates might fall for the Clintons' flim-flam (or be bullied or bribed by them), but the 2/3 or so it will require to overturn Obama's likely triple-digit pledged delegate lead?: fat chance. Obama is your next Democratic nominee, no matter who wins Pennsylvania. Might as well start getting used to it.

Check out the Obama v. McCain, Clinton v. McCain Surveyusa polling maps.

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/03/all-victories-a.html

Yes, NC is a solidly red state if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. If Obama is, it's a dead heat in the polling, anybody's ballgame.

The exact same situation holds for Virginia, another supposedly "red state."

Obama changes the old map. That's his argument. (At the VERY least, Obama forces the Republicans to concentrate limited resources in states where they wouldn't have to against Clinton. That matters.)

I'm not crazy about Tuesday or Thursday: Alex or Jake and Amy. Maybe it's just not enjoyable enough to watch glib assholes discovering their own humanity in baby steps.

But the Monday, Wednesday, and Friday shows are all dynamite. Dianne Wiest, Gabriel Byrne, and the young actress who plays the gymnast are all increasingly spectacular -- especially Dianne Wiest (good Lord, she's a present actress!)

HBO seems to have lost its knack for resonating with the Zeitgeist, but In Treatment proves it hasn't lost its ability to birth quality.

I want to respond to the very powerful meme of "popular vote." Several letters have cited it, and it will no doubt be with us to the end. I believe it is misleading and nonsensical, for several reasons.

1) The campaigns were never playing for popular vote; they were playing for delegates. Is it fair to let candidates allocate resources and attention based on one set of rules, and then have superdelegates essentially change the game by concentrating on another measure? Anybody who's ever participated in any competitive endeavor, from Tennis to Electoral College, knows the importance of rules, and not changing them in the middle of the game to favor one player or another.

2) Concentrating on popular vote disenfranchises every single state that holds caucuses, since a smaller slice of the electorate caucuses than votes at a primary. For instance, Obama is very strong in Colorado and Minnesota; though his percentage margin may not have been quite as high in primaries in those states as it was in caucuses (who knows?), his popular vote margin would have been considerably greater in a primary. Caucuses have been part of the Democratic process for choosing a nominee forever; why disenfranchise states that hold caucuses now?

3) In this election, one candidate -- Clinton -- came in with huge name recognition, as perhaps the most famous woman in the world, with the best brand name in Democratic politics. The other candidate was a virtual unknown just a year ago. A lot of Clinton's popular vote advantages in states were in Super Tuesday states, where her name recognition and the compressed schedule meant she was the only name with which a great many of the voters were really familiar. For these reasons, Obama concentrated on the caucus states in his campaigning leading up to Feb. 5, knowing this gave him the best chance to stay even on delegates. It turns out he was right. Now, you're going to tell him, sorry, popular vote is what mattered after all, sucker. (Kind of like telling him, Michigan is going to count after all, sucker. Why is it that the sucker in any deal-breaking involving a Clinton is always the other guy?)

I just want to add, that despite all of Clinton's in-built advantages, Obama still leads in popular vote, even if you count uncontested Florida (not counting Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot.) That doesn't change my opinion that popular vote is an incredibly misleading measure in a nomination season. Granted, if Clinton does manage, through Florida and Michigan re-votes perhaps, to eke out a tiny advantage in popular vote, it will sway some superdelegates. I have a very hard time believing, however, taht it will sway the 2/3 or so of superdelegates it would need to sway. In the end, superdelegates' primary concerns will be 1) electability, and 2) fairness. Letting popular vote trump delegates in a nomination season simply isn't fair, for the reasons I've outlined.