Of course they should vote again. If I lived in either state I would be furious that my vote didn't count. It wasn't the voters who decided when they could vote.

Charlie Crist has gone on record saying he was not opposed to the Democratic Party holding "do over" primary election - but failed to mention a couple of things. First, since elections are expensive, can Florida (and/or Michigan) really afford to host another election? Second, it seems like this would only be for the Democrats. To be fair, the GOP side would also need the opportunity to re-evaluate the decision to support McCain. With only Ron Paul left to challenge McCain, who promises 4 more years of Bush policies,I think it only fair that both parties re-do their primary - not just one. And that it should be paid for by the parties, not by the taxpayers who have already paid for one primary election.

I don't know if hair is considered a body part. But, if it is, your thesis falls apart immediately. Both John Edwards and Mitt Romney were subjected to intense media scrutiny about the 'perfection' of their hair. They were mocked for it. In fact, when Romney decided to go with a more 'mussed' look, to look less 'robotic', I guess, that was discussed at length as well. I saw letters discussing the fact that with Romney especially, anyone who looked that 'perfect' just couldn't be real, he's untrustworthy (the fact that he had changed almost every position he ever claimed to hold in a matter of about 3 years should have clued people in, but no, it was the hair). Edwards was also accused, in part because of the hair and his smile, of being insincere. By voters. The last time I looked, they were white and male. And don't get me started about what some people used to say about Kucinich's height, the fact that he looked like a 'geek', etc. You somehow missed this stuff?

Have people spent lots of time discussing Hillary's ankles, her voice, the fact that she's obviously physically older than Obama and in many people's eyes, that makes her unacceptible (many voters don't understand that they are actually from the same generation, they are both Boomers). I've seen people fixate on Obama's ears. But, it doesn't just happen to them.

While Joan is off with Tavis Smiley figuring out how to force the world to adopt Equitable Development, Social Justice, and Smart Growth (all in one conference yet), perhaps they should do some math. Joan can “swat away the specter” of the need for super delegates to win, but something’s gotta give if you do the math. There are 779 delegates to be elected between now and the convention as things stand right now. To get the needed 2,025 delegates before the convention, Hillary needs to win 634 of them. That’s more than 81%. (Barack needs 578 delegates, which is more than 74%.) Anybody think Hillary, no matter how well she campaigns, can do this?

Me neither.

The only thing that can prevent a decision determined by super delegates at the convention itself is seating those delegates from Florida and Michigan somehow. Only the Democratic party – not Hillary and not Barack – can decide that issue.

Like it or not, the PARTY will determine the Democrat who runs for President in 2008, whether through super delegates or the coming fight over Florida and Michigan. The PEOPLE who are Democrats are NOT going to determine the nominee.

Our person may win, but there are going to be a LOT of unhappy people in the party when it’s all over. Our chances? About 50-50.

Joan,

You have finally set me at ease. I was extremely worried about you for a while, but you've finally tackled THE issue of the campaign.

Yes, FL and MI should vote again. I'm so happy to read that you think these delegates should NOT be seated as is from a bogus election (Hillary is pushing for this, which is why I'm extremely negative toward her at this moment).

I think your point is correct: democracy may be expensive, but a re-vote must be held.

I suppose we can thank the Dem big-wigs for this disaster, for setting the ball in motion. I'm sure that Hillary thought she would have a coronation, rather than a close election. I love to see big-shots taken down a few pegs; I think ultimately this is good for her to be humbled, she is way too arrogant.

If Hillary were to somehow win, she would have to redeem herself in my eyes to win my vote.

For the record, I held my nose and tossed my vote to Obama yesterday here in Ohio (I love Kucinich, but he's out anyway, and lately he's become so self-righteous). Obama has several negatives, first and foremost is the rhetoric about "reaching across" party lines to "get things done." I don't think it's so easy. And besides, reaching out to rabid right-wingers is a dangerous thing. I suppose he hasn't learned that. Sometimes you can't negotiate with foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics.

There is one quality I've always admired about Clinton, which is the same thing that has pissed me off about her: her fiestiness. I know she won't take any right-wing shit, she's very good at that. But when she started her nasty crap against Obama, from her own party-she's just like Lady McBeth- she got too power-hungry, too selfish, and damn with the party. It's all about Hillary.

I sincerely hope that she's reigned in by wiser folks. Otherwise, this disaster, which is partially of her own making, will consume us all and we'll end up with McCain.

We'll have Clinton supporters to thank for providing the GOP the opportunity to win the presidency in a year they had no business doing so.

I've had a couple hours of sleep and calmed down a little. So I feel like I can think about this without having my head explode. I can also congratulate Hillary and her supporters on their victories yesterday.

I am conflicted about having a redo of the primaries in FL and MI. I like the idea of a redo and I understand the frustrations of FL and MI voters. On the other hand, I think that rules are rules. FL and MI voters who went to their primaries knew that their votes would not count. There is no doubt that Hillary is pushing for these delegates because she feels she "won" both contests. There is also no doubt that she would be arguing just as forcefully for the votes not to be counted if she had lost.

I really think in this nomination process so far, Hillary has been allowed to define what is "winning." She defines victory as targets that she can reach. When it becomes clear that she can't reach those targets, she just redefines victory. I am frustrated that the press, her supporters and even Obama's campaign seems to be going along with this. Case in point: Hillary said she would have this sewn up by February 5th. Then she said she was going to win big in TX and OH. Then she said that unless Obama won TX, OH, VT and RI, she had won. Finally, this morning she claimed that her campaign has turned a corner, even though she was 20 points ahead in TX and OH three weeks ago and even though she will probably come out of these contests with an even bigger delegate deficit. I do wonder when do we start to hold her accountable for setting expectations and then not meeting them?

I think we need to put to bed the idea that she should be the nominee because she won the "big" states. Our election system has delegates and electoral votes so that there is a balanced geographical distribution of votes. The system is designed to prevent the more populous states from controlling elections. Yet, isn't this exactly what the Clinton campaign is advocating? That a minority of voters, from a limited geographical area, should decide who is the nominee? Furthermore, in CA, MA, and NY, Obama won nearly more or more votes that McCain and Romney combined. If you add Obama's votes to the 75% of Hillary voters who are willing to also vote for Obama, doesn't that make him a shoe-in to carry those states?

Finally, and then I'll leave it, I think it is absolutely wrong to push for this primary season to continue as long as possible and for Democrats to go into the convention knowing the super delegates will choose the nominee. Although Joan denies it, Clinton did throw everything she had at Obama. I think the comment about both she and McCain having "lifetimes" of experience is a perfect example. Obama's campaign has now threatened to play just as dirty. The bigger picture is that we want, no, we NEED, to put a Democrat in the White House in November. How does allowing the Republicans to sit back, raise money, and take notes from the Democrats as to which attacks worked and which didn't, help us reach that goal?