Anybody remember the phrase "of the people, by the people, and for the people?" It is a very sad state that we have come to the fact that it takes mega millions of dollars to win an elected office. For all of you folks who complain that laws are made for the wealthy, what else would you expect from our system. This phrase needs to be modernized to, "Of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy".

I also tire of hearing that a particular candidate is too "Liberal, Conservative, or any other collective ideology. Any one in an elected office should act on issues based on their merit, and not whether they are conservative, liberal etc. I suppose I am simply a little naive.

Joan Walsh: "The "kitchen sink strategy" analysis is silly."

That's one of two times Walsh refers to something as "silly" because she doesn't want to deal with it. But Clinton really did use a kitchen-sink approach to attacking Obama. How can anybody deny this? One day it's "change you can Xerox," the next it's "Shame - on - you," the next it's mocking Obama's speeches, the next it's attack ads that take situations out of context such as Obama's foreign-relations work on Afghanistan (which Walsh conveniently fails to mention).

Joan Walsh: "Yet over and over Tuesday night, the talking heads lumped together a supposedly toxic trifecta of NAFTA, Rezko and "the 3 a.m. ad" as having carried the day for a newly nasty Clinton."

It's funny to hear Walsh talk about "the talking heads" when she herself joins them at every available opportunity as well as on Salon.

Joan Walsh: "But in fact, only the 3 a.m. ad -- you saw it, the White House Terror Phone ringing when your adorable kids are asleep -- was Clinton's debatable creation."

Joan Walsh: "The NAFTA gaffe was entirely the Obama camp's doing, when they failed to figure out what economics guru Austin Goolsbee told the Canadians, and when."

Not much of a gaffe, and Walsh conveniently fails to mention the Clinton camp's role in trying to make it a gaffe, sending out press release after press release about it. It wouldn't even have come up if Clinton's campaign hadn't been aggressive about trying to make it into an issue, even though everybody involved, including the Canadian government, agrees it was a non-issue. More information here:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about_nafta-gate.html

Joan Walsh: "And Clinton didn't decree that the trial of Tony Rezko would begin March 3."

But Clinton's campaign did send out an exhaustive press release, printed in its entirety by Alex Koppelman, that listed multiple negative press talking points regarding questions related to that trial -- questions that had already been asked for months leading up to the trial and that were mostly irrelevant to the case.

So let's see. Walsh: (1) ignores multiple negative attacks by Clinton, (2) tries to downplay additional negative tactics as if Clinton had nothing to do with them, and (3) seems to think she's not one of the "talking heads" media.

This is why, again and again, I find Walsh to be a lousy journalist. Sorry, but it's true. I like you, but I hate when you insist on the propriety of being dishonest.

No, rules are rules! You don't change the rules over halfway through the games; therefore the rules should stand as is. If anything count them the way they were cast in January.

It would not be right to have the people go vote again, just because one screams.

Michigan and Florida should be counted, but not revote.

Running another primary here in Michigan is fine, but it's going to cost our state a lot of money--btw, our state economy is still hurting and the budget is squeezed beyond belief. If the DNC ponies up some money then maybe it's worth a redo. Then again, I'm mostly annoyed at the party leaders here who thought they were going to force the primary schedule issue. It backfired. My vote was meaningless. I don't blame the DNC, I blame the Mich. dem leadership.

Dear Joan;

I believe that that both of these states, (Florida & Michigan) should be allowed to vote again. It just seems very wierd that the only two states to be dis-qualified are the two that was won by Hillary Clinton. My Mom lives in Holly Hill, Florida and she feels like her vote does not count this year. I for one can not see where that qualifies as the Democratic Process that our Forefathers had in mind when they formed this Great Nation of ours. I am a Vietnam Veteran and I still believe that we are the Greatest Nation on the face of the Earth. I am also a Hillary Clinton supporter. I believe with all my heart that she can and will do the job. Thank you for letting me voice my opinion.

Richard W. Dunlap

I'm not 100% sure whether it should be a primary or not. Primaries are expensive for both the candidates and the state party. Plus, they take a very long time to organize. Caucuses can be faster and cheaper.

Then again, Clinton would probably favor a primary while Obama would favor a caucus, so that's got to be worked out. But, these two states must be seated in the convention.

I don't see a "super delegate" problem. Remember winning a nomination does you no good if you can't win the election. Most super delegates are elected officials: Governors, senators, and representatives. So, they know a bit about winning elections in their states. They are not going to "screw the party over" because that would simply split the party and cause the party to lose the election. The big thing the super delegates will do is make sure that any rifts in the party is fully healed. They are not going to steal the election from the "legitimate winner".

I also don't see a whole bunch of nastiness between the two candidates. And, certainly nothing that won't get healed by convention time. Heck, I wish the supporters of the two sides were as nice to each other and respected each other as much as the two candidates do.

If Clinton wins Pennsylvania and a do over in Florida and Michigan, I think Clinton could probably make good claims to the nomination even if she doesn't quite have as many delegates, and I think we will see the forging of a Clinton/Obama ticket. This would make excellent sense for both candidates. Obama would be 53 by the end of Clinton's term, and still a very young Presidential candidate.

If Clinton doesn't win Pennsylvania, and a Florida/Michigan do over, I am not too sure if we'd see an Obama/Clinton ticket though because that would put Clinton at almost 70 years old by the time an Obama administration is over. Instead, I'd think she would be happier staying in the Senate -- maybe becoming Majority Leader.

For some reason, having two excellent candidates battling it out and energizing hundreds of thousands new Democratic supporters doesn't seem to spell disaster for the Democratic party in my book.