Yes. They should. They should vote to move their 2012 primaries to conform to the Democratic Party rules.

Throw that kitchen sink!! I'm glad things are as close as they are between The Hil and The Obama-man, because I've decided that this presidential election isn't going to be the slam/dunk many of us are hoping for.

No the Demoncrats aren't necessarily any nicer than the Reptilapublicans, but the Reptilapublican record of dirty tricks, disingenuousness and poisonously inverted polemics is pretty well established. Whoever comes out on top is going to have to be tough, hard and completely centered... Something like political ninjas, or something.

Should Florida and Michigan vote again?....No. I live in Michigan and I VOTED already. Let me tell you what the ballot looked like....The Democratic options were Hillary Clinton, and some other names no one knew, and....the option of "Uncommitted" (for Obama and Edwards). I live here, so let me tell you what....there were plenty ads, just like any other state, and of greater quantity than Clinton, that advertised to Obama AND Edwards supporters to vote "Uncommitted". Wanna know what happened on that terribly cold, windy, slippery and snowy day?.....Clinton won. She won. She not only won, but won over 55% of the vote, while uncommitted, which represented Obama AND Edwards, received less than 40% (for BOTH candidates). As a Michigan Voter, whether our delegates are seated or not, I am NOT impressed with either Obama OR Edwards (if he was still running) because they did not even bother to listen to our concerns in Michigan. They didn't even visit, because they knew we were stripped of our delegates. Clinton refused to remove her name off the ballot because she wanted to hear our voices and what we had to say, even if our vote didn't count towards her presidential nomination. That, America, is a REAL candidate. One who cares about EVERY American, not just the areas of the US with the most "delegates". Michigan has suffered one of the worst in terms of economic crisis, and we wanted our voices heard separately from others, so we held our primary early. Only Clinton listened. She should get the proportionate number of delegates won for these states. She won fair and square.

--The Good Dr.

While I, like pretty much everyone else, figured this is a no brainer, consider the following:

1. Charlie Crist, the Republican governor who recently endorsed the idea of a Florida mulligan primary, is doing so for Republican reasons, namely

2. He probably wouldn't schedule the thing until near August, thus extending the blood letting in the dem party until then, which only helps his buddy, McCain

3. It wouldn't likely change the math appreciably. Even though Hillary won TX (a republican state) and OH, and by a pretty good margin, too, even THAT didn't move the delegate count much.

4. It would reward Florida and Michigan for breaking the rules. Not only do they get another crack at it, they would get to be potentially THE DECIDING STATES. Not a good lesson for your kids about obeying the rules.

5. The other candidates who dropped out would cry FOUL, and rightfully so. How do we know that, at this point in the race, Biden, Dodd, or Edwards wouldn't be doing well?

6. It's Florida. They cheat in Florida. I don't want Charlie Crist deciding who the dem nominee is (see number 1, above).

Bush has destroyed us, I am general a republican I was not a Bush fan from the start.

I will not vote for McCain because he supports the Bush destruction plan.

All this money we are spending aboard and we could be rebuilding America, bridges, roads, boarder control, military build up. This same money could be used to develop alternitive fuels to become free of countries that supply us oil which are all destroy america beliefs.

Imigration, yes land of the free the consitution it needs to altered we can not continue to have all come join us. I agre at one time this was good when the country started there was nobody here.

We need population controled by a number saying our country will only support this number, where do we put everybody.

This is an english speaking counrty and that should be the United states languge. I have been in a public school and they were teaching in a foriegn languge.

I appoligise for bad spelling, the point is not the spelling but my opinions.

Fairness alone -- a chance for the voters of these two large, important states to be part of the process -- in my opinion is reason enough to have contested votes in Florida and Michigan.

But another reason is to strike a blow against this whole trend toward front-loading the primaries and moving the dates so early in the election year.

There will always be a lot of candidates, except in those years when a semi-decent (or better) incumbent is running for term #2, which makes the whole primary season moot when it happens.

The job of the states early in the process will be to narrow the field, and the job of the later states will be to make the final determination. If you buy that premise, it makes a lot of sense for the early states to be smaller with cheaper media markets, leaving the latter states for those that survive the narrowing process.

Michigan and Florida could learn that they will get more attention(and probably more election-related tourism by the campaigns), by being closer to the end of the process than by cutting in line to be part of the beginning.

It's pretty sure to pay off for Pennsylvania!

And remind me why we as a country really need to know who the nominee will be until maybe just before the convention.

Hello Joan,

I'm a disenfranchised Michigan voter who voted "uncommitted" in our Democratic primary, and wrote to the state and national Democratic party, as well as to Sen. Carl Levin, to complain and ask for a bonafide election.

I would suggest that if new elections can't be held in these states, that Democrats simply subtract the number of original delegates from Michigan (156) and Florida (210) - or a total of 366 votes from the U.S. total of 2,025, leaving the goal of delegates 1,659 to be achieved.

Lucille P. Nawara, Michigan (artist/landscape designer)

Below is the response to my email to Sen. Carl Levin:

From "Friends of Carl Levin"

Hi Lucille. Sorry for the delay in the response.

Thanks for your email regarding the delegate selection process. We appreciate your input on this issue.

Senator Levin has long been a proponent of changing the way by which the Democratic Party chooses a presidential nominee. For too long, two states - New Hampshire and Iowa - have had a hugely disproportionate impact on our presidential nominating process, with more access to candidates and visits from candidates than probably all the other states combined during the primary and caucus season. Senator Levin believes that all states should be given an equal opportunity to have the candidates discuss issues important to them and to influence the selection of our Democratic presidential candidate.

But sometimes change doesn't come easy, and Senator Levin certainly understands your feelings about this process.

Senator Levin is committed to working with the DNC and the presidential candidates to ensure that Michigan delegates are seated at the Democratic National Convention in a way that is fair and acceptable to all interested parties.

Thanks again for your thoughts and input.

Sincerely,

Friends of Senator Carl Levin

From: Lucille P. Nawara

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:36 AM

To: lnawara@comcast.net

Subject: Michigan's aborted primary -- Friends of Levin Website

Please help us Democrats who support Obama to have a real caucus or primary

so we can have our votes count. I voted "uncommitted" in the official

primary as my only way of implying that I was pro-Obama, but feel robbed of

our democratic right to vote by our party leaders' misguided attempts to

speed up our primary. Help! Having Bush in the White House for 8 years

was bad enough. Now we can't even vote!?