Come on, Walter, you know better.

"For everyone here in Ohio and across America, who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you."

A run-on occurs when a writer puts two independent clauses together without appropriate punctuation or conjunction. In other words, when s/he treats two separate sentences as one. It's NOT when someone goes on for too long. BTW, one wouldn't be able to "hear" a runon in a speech; it would only be detected in print.

While we're at it, the comma after America should be moved to after "knocked out." Truth be told, none of the commas are necessary, but that would be unwieldy, so if he's going for the commas in items of a series rule, then he needs to be consistent. The "who" clause is restrictive in that first item, so it shouldn't be separated from its antecedent by a comma (He correctly left out the commas in the last two items)

I say this in fun and for hudsonjoe, who had a problem with the runon thing. Now, please don't read my posts for grammar. I like to relax when I am on salon (which is OK since I'm not being paid.) (I'm happy to get paid for editing articles for salon. Joan? Walter?)

Both candidates should agree to the following right now:

1. Seat the FL delegates from the contested primary.

Advantage Clinton. Costs no money. The primary wasn't open, so there can't have been crossover from Repubs taking advantage of the special "doesn't count" situation. That Dems don't operate under "winner take all" helps: Each candidate gets the delegates they won that day; there's no reason to suspect that whatever might have kept people from the polls (regarding its known illegitimate status) was limited to Obama voters.

2. Do-over in Michigan, caucus-style.

Advantage Obama. He does better in this forum. Also, less costly than primary. (Since BO's name wasn't even on the ballot, this one absolutely has to be redone in some fashion. It might as well be in a fashion that helps BO, if they want him to agree to seating the FL delegates).

3. Agree that superdelegates should "vote their conscience."

They should not be tied to a district or state b/c then what on earth was their point of existence to begin with? They should hold out and look at the big picture--electability--regarding purple states, etc. If superdelegates are tied to their own state or district, then the ones who've pledged already and worked for their candidate will also have to realign, which could be a mess. (I'm thinking of Stephanie Tubbs Jones here in Cleveland, who's pledged undying support for C even though her district went to Obama.)

I'm confident my candidate Barack Obama could win in these circumstances. I know Clinton supporters could get behind it as well. (I think it favors her, actually, but I think Obama would be seen as heroic if he proffered it and stood behind it. Principle over politics, etc.)

Anyway, the key is that they come up with something like this NOW before they have to keep changing the rules to favor each of their games. I know there are many--probably mostly Obama supporters--who say we shouldn't change the rules at all b/c it would be Clinton's way of grabbing at whatever situation gave her gain and winning by cheating. I say that it just doesn't sit well with me that people's votes didn't count. We're the Democratic party, for goddsakes. Let's not put technicality over the people's voice. That some jerk Republicans moved the date up in FL really has no bearing on the people who went out to the polls that day. I know there are some who didn't b/c they knew their vote wouldn't count, but there's no reason to suspect that more of those were Obama supporters than Clinton supporters. The main thing is that THERE IS NO SCENARIO in which everybody will be happy. Each of the candidates, and by corollary each of their supporters, must make concessions.