A new contest would settle all the concerns now associated with the two states. Both states would get to seat delegates and the results would actually be due to real campaigning. The citizens of both states should have the opportunity to meet with the candidates before deciding who should be the party's nominee.

YES. Good idea. Why not?

I believe my "our" candidate (Hillary Clinton) would win, and "we" would appreciate the additional delegates. How about it Howard Dean? Please get to work on that.

And someone.... please find the money to pay for it.

Thank you.

They absolutely should and it should be primary only--the most democratic vote. They're simply too big and too important. If it were Guam? Not so much.

Plus:

If both candidates could put a portion of their war chests towards paying for the re-run, it would be an excellent way of healing the rifts caused by those two states holding their primaries early.

It seems to me to be the only way to resolve that issue without hurting the Democratic Party.

Should MI and FL re-vote? Well, duh.

Yes, Florida and Michigan should vote again, but because it's the right way to do things, not because it will break the impasse between Clinton and Obama.

See, the "deadlock" is an extension of a duality that exists all across the Democratic Party. It's partly generational, partly based in class, partly related to what others have called "theory of change." But whatever its nature, the fact that it's there is undeniable.

It doesn't have to be (and so far hasn't really been) a destructively oppositional duality. But even with that being the case, is there any reason to believe that Florida and Michigan will somehow end up being the deciding states for Obama or Clinton?

It will come down to the convention — which, you know, is what the convention is supposed to be for, after all. So how is that a bad thing? It will have to be hammered out, and the convention will be live with electricity instead of being some dead-handed ritualized practice only vaguely related to its original purpose.

So anyone who feels strongly about who should win should be organizing to persuade the superdelegates in their area. They're your little-r republican representatives to your party. Tell them how you want them to vote.

As I posted on Walter's article, party elders/leaders need to sit down with Clinton and Obama campaign chairs and co-chairs and leaders in these respective states to develop a strategy regarding these two behemoths. They are too important to ignore and Michigan is a "battleground" state. Florida might also be in play for Democrats this year, given the huge voter turnout among Dems. in their (not supposed to be) primary.

My concern has always been that ignoring these states disenfranchises voters. My stomach does flip-flops when I hear Clinton and her campaign staff say things about "seating" delegates determined in their primaries. But the disenfranchisement issue is one that clearly bothers me.

I don't know what the solution is, other than a "do-over." This I'm sure will p*** off party leaders there, but it will at least solve the delegate issue. I can't believe that the DNC can't find the money to do this. They are raising money hand-over-fist, from what I read and hear. If, OTOH, money is a factor, then there conceivably could be a sharing arrangement: 1/4 = state parties; 1/4 = DNC; 1/4 = Clinton; 1/4 = Obama. Other important players (at least in Michigan) are unions. I'm sure that IAM, AFSCME, SEIU, HERE, UAW have funds available (either through their locals or through the national unions) that could be induced to contribute something toward a "do-over." (I HATE that term...)

RE: Super-delegates. I think you (Joan) and others are worrying way too much about this, propelled by the MSM, which seems to want to fan these flames; this, in turn, just gives fuel to Obama's followers and makes it increasingly difficult to explain how and what these delegates do (not that they would listen, at least not to me...

Super-delegates are LEADERS. I think that we, the voters, can and should encourage these delegates to take their leadership role seriously and responsibly before we arrive in Denver. I believe we will have a nominee before that. For now, I would urge super-delegates to sit tight and let the voters speak.

Oh, and I'm not sure that the only argument that can be made to super-delegates is the number of pledged delegates each candidate has. It has to be a combination of factors that includes this measure, certainly, but that also takes into account popular vote, leadership, ability to get voters out, organization, "battleground" state wins, our country's current state of affairs, both foreign and domestic, and seniority/ party standing, among others.

There's no question they should go again. It would help whoever wins (which I too think would be Obama, but hey, Clinton did have a good showing tonight.) Either way then the Democrats in those states won't be unduly pissed off at the Democratic nominee whomever he or she might be.

It is done in a timely matter. I think the Republicans relish a long, protracted battle for the Democratic nomination. It gives them more time to raise money and for McCain to begin his national campaign. If there is to be a 'do over' of the Florida and Michigan primaries it should be ASAP. Waiting until June or July will only serve to weaken the party.

What? This is totally...ner mind..for the record: Finally some "folks" ... "Americans" opened their eyes to Barack Hussein Obama!! How would it sound in a Islamic Country with a name like Christian Max Hitler. Wouldn't the guy question about changing it, before attempting such a feat. HMMMMMMMMM....

It cannot be Florida and not Michigan or vice-versa. Obviously, you will see Hillary supporters embracing a Florida do over and they keep the Michigan delegates too (big surprise there since Obama was not on the ballot), or a Florida do-over which they think favors them without Michigan which would be more even.

Nonetheless, its simple, you want to change the rules mid-primaries, you do it in a way that is even handed -- that means both do-over or neither.