Is there even a question? Nothing like telling two states there vote dosn't count. Both parties incourage if not beg for people to go out and vote. Then they slap them in the face and say your vote dosn't count. Are they any less American citizens? They have a right to be heard.

I say NO they should not have to vote again. I think that the votes in both states should count and the delegates should go to the person who won in those states. Clinton took 50% in FL and 55% in MI so she should get those delegates. I do not think it is fair that the votes of both states did not count. People in those states took the time to go out and vote! I say give the delegates to the person who won!! Our Constitution gives us the right to vote. But America is telling the people in those states that it doesn't matter who you vote for it doesn't count! That is just wrong. Why waste the money to have those states vote again? Just give the delegates to CLINTON, she deserves them! After all she did WIN in both those states. Personally, I think it should be Hillary for President and Edwards for Vice President! But hey my vote doesn't count anyway so it doesn't matter.

GO HILLARY WE LOVE YOU HERE IN FL!

Why do some think that we do not count, are we not still 2 states of the United States.

Being fair we all voted before and why, not to be heard or considered.

Michigan suffering very bad from the auto industrial falling, foreclosures the highest among all the states and we dont have a vote.

May I ask why did they not say, no need for Michigan and Florida to vote at all they do not matter!

Angry yes, Another point to make, before I voted I had to tell all the ballot officals if I was voting demacrat or republic before I could have a ballot, why did I have to tell all.

I'm a fan of both Obama and Clinton and will be an enthusiastic supporter of either in the general election--something I hope all Democrats can say, regardless of how much in favor of one candidate or the other they currently favor (although I'm a bit worried that won't happen).

Having said that, I'm concerned about that the "do-over" route is being so casually thrown around as a possibility.

True, there are some practical reasons why some might want to go that way. But the party made the rules clear ahead of time. Those rules were broken. The consequences of breaking them were known.

Were the rules wise? Maybe. Maybe not. That's not the question, though. The fact is that, however byzantine the process, those are the rules that were forumulated. I think it sets a bad precedent to decide, "Oops, we don't like those rules anymore--let's change them!" That's bad form not only in party politics, but in life generally. Let's change the rules in the future if we want, but to thrown them out in the middle of the process they govern is unwise.

Who would profit most from a "do-over" in Michigan and Florida? I don't know. Clinton needs a chance to win the delegates, but on the other hand, Obama's advantage in fundraising might allow him to use these states as an opportnity so solidify his lead going into the convention.

But who such a decision helps or hurts (to the extent anyone can tell ahead of time) isn't the point. As much as the concept of "Superdelegates" is nauseating to any democratic (not the small "d") sensibility, the idea of changing agreed-upon rules to game the system to produce a result we want is even more disturbing.

I am a Michigan resident and I am very angry over the fact that my vote does not count. I was never given the opportunity to express my opinion to move the voting date and if I had I would have said “NO”. I do not feel that Florida or Michigan should go through the trouble or expense to vote again. We voted once and that should count. Many say that Obama’s name was not on the Michigan ballot, but did he not have the opportunity to place his name on the Ballot?

I have tried to e-mail Howard Dean about this mess and all I got is a general letter which never even addressed my concerns. This also is a problem. I feel not only is my vote not counting but I can not even have my voice heard by the head of the Democratic Party. I am one angry Michigander.

You want to throw the rules are rules logic at the idea of having a revote, yet feel that the rules which stated that FL and MI would not have delegates at the convention should be thrown out the window.

Can't eat your cake and have it too. I would have been find with you saying count the first votes if you had not tried to justify your obvious Clinton boosting with this "rules are rules" justification.

The lack of campaigning in MI and FL led to primaries determined almost entirely by name recognition. No candidate should be determined in such a manner. If we are to count MI and FL, then there must be a revote so that residents can vote based on more complete information than they were given the first time around.

Granted, the outcome could be quite similar as Clinton could present herself as the woman of the people who has called for the votes to be counted all along, but still Obama (and any other candidates from back in January) should have the opportunity to present their cases.

Simple answer: There should be no seating of delegates without a proper campaign and revote.

More complex answer: The entire election process needs a ground-up rewrite; Election 2.0. Talk about disenfranchisement, my state (Oregon) won't even have it's primary for a couple of months yet. A local news anchor asked, I think it was Cokie Roberts, whether that means our vote means anything. She pointed out that this year that means we could come down to being a state that decides the issue. But decides what? I, and most of my friends, were looking forward to casting a vote for John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich — a candidate with true populist and progressive ideas. Now, we MIGHT be a state who gets to cast a vote between a third and fourth choice. How exciting.

Third: Dress it up it however you want, but I can tell you from watching it from afar, on the sidelines, that for the past few weeks Senator Clinton has only been telling me all the scaredy cat reasons I shouldn't vote for Senator Obama. If I see her one more time delivering just a speech deriding him for making "just a speech" I think the irony overload might make my brain explode.

Obama offers hope (that bastard, I certainly "hope" we are not foolish enough to buy into that!"; Clinton talks as if her proposed policies are like cold hard money in the bank certainty. Neither position is the slightest bit more substantive and real than the other. But Clinton should know that her tactics are pissing me off. I am so fucking tired of people trying to scare me all the time. It never fucking ends.