Why are we even flirting with the idea of feeling bad for the Michigan and Florida delegations, like they have somehow been disenfranchised? They were aware of the possible consequences of moving the date of their primaries; this shouldn't come as a surprise. If these delegations do believe that their citizens' voices should be heard, then why don't they agree to hold a later primary?

There should be some requirement that people have to read SOME of the damn letters posted here before they shoot off at the keyboard. I can't even count the number of claims posted here that were refuted multiple times and hours before.

Note to the editors: When you see a letter that verifiably refutes misinformation, maybe you should consider starring it for CONTENT. First, the letters that point out that Clinton was NOT the only candidate on the Florida ballot. Second, the letters that point out that Obama was in fact the ONLY candidate to "campaign" here by virtue of his national media buy. Beyond that:

The Florida Legislature, which has been dominated by the GOP for umpty-ump years, swiched the primary date. NOT the people. This state is completely gerrymandered and it will take a total sea change for us to get a Dem legislature again.

The Republican Party took only half of its Florida delegates away, in a conveeeeenient slap on the wrist.

The DNC decided to take away ALL the Dem delegates. We wuz robbed. Again. This time, by our own party. And Clinton did nothing wrong. And I didn't vote for Clinton yesterday. AND I didn't give that much of a damn about Amendment 1, which was also on our ballots yesterday. I took time off my job to enter my polling station yesterday to vote for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

And g*ddammit, my vote ought to count, even though I live in Florida.

I just don't see how the Democratic Party can disenfranchise the people of two major states from selecting the candidate. They might as well tell those folks to vote for a Republican in the general election. What a colossal screwup.

Obama and his supporters have nothing to do with the rules of the Democratic Party. If you want to blame him, that's your business, but it doesn't make sense to me. Why don't you blame the Democratic Party?

Changing the rules half way into the game seems unfair, regardless of who won, or how many people voted. Florida has been robbed--but Obama and his supporters are not the thieves who robbed you.

The "primary" was not going to count 2 days ago, and doesn't count now.

Somehow, that is about Barak Obama and Obama supporters don't care about the Florida voters.

And Hillary Clinton is not polarizing?

Amazing.........................

This anti-Hillary obsession is only weakening our chances of a victory in November. In short Shapiro should take a long walk on a short pier.

I'd love to take a closer look at Obama, but get side-tracked by the Obama faithful who feel a turnout of 2 million voters is inconsequential, who constantly demonstrate an appaling grasp of facts concerning the Florida election and when called on it respond with, "Well ok I am wrong and misinformed but my point is still valid." Not to mention those that will vote Republican or not vote at all if Obama is not the Dem candidate.

When Obama supporters act in ways that demonstrate they don't give a fuk about my vote or anyone else's vote who is not already of the Obama enlightened, my basic response is well, fuk you too.

I realize I'm getting annoying... but I just read Deadhead's (now-starred) early letter with a fine-toothed comb, wherein s/he spells out the precise mathematical mechanism needed for either candidate to capture all the delegates needed to win the nomination....

AND THERE IS NARY A MENTION of the superdelegates, which constitute 1/5 of the delegates necessary for getting that majority. His exalted formula is incomplete.

Will somebody please listen to me? This is important! All that impressive math? Completely wrong, b/c he didn't count the superdelegates, which equal 796 out of the 4049. So close to a full 40% of that magic 2025 that each candidate needs could theoretically come from party insiders, NOT voters.

Tell the Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties that they can be represented if they will select their delegates by holding unassembled caucuses.

An unassembled caucus is where you tell the faithful to come to the caucus site, cast your vote and leave. You pledge to vote for the winner. That's all. (Well, verify that you really and truly who you say you are.) In this case, it could be held over two days, All day Saturday and Sunday. Maybe even Friday night. Or absentee ballots Thursday night.

Calling the events caucuses is a bit of a misnomer. In a caucus, everyone knows who you votr for. In what I am proposing, you vote is secret.

Just think about the excitement if Hillary and Barack were still tied at the end of the primary and it all depended on Florida and Michigan!

Of course it counts. Nearly 2 million voters, the majority for Hillary got up, out, and to the polls to register their opinions even if they might not formally count. They cared a lot about registering those votes, so course they count even if they might not be counted.

Linda

Go to:

www.Slate.com

and watch the hysterical short video with footage of Hillary mixed with clips from the brilliant film "Election" with Reese Weetherspoon and Matthew Broderick. Who's Tracy Flick? If you haven't seen "Election", you must rent the DVD after watching the Slate video.

"And the plural of "Clinton" is "Clintons"--no apostrophe."

Yes, but the plural possessive is "Clintons'"

If you are going to arrogantly pick on some poor slob's typos (and call the poor slob "arrogant" to boot--he was just joking about his admitted lack of education on the subject) then get it right.

On the subject of the FL primary, I find it curious that anyone would consider someone as a nominee who is so willing to disregard the Democratic party's disenfranchisement of FL Democrats. Isn't that what got us into the mess we are in now?