It upsets me to see letters saying that Michigan doesn't deserve a "re-vote." What revote? We never had a vote to begin with! Maybe supporters of Clinton or Uncommitted (whoever he/she is) would disagree, but by the clearly stated rules of the game, THERE WAS NO MICHIGAN PRIMARY, period. I'd love a chance to vote -- for the first and only time!

As an Obama supporter I was of course disappointed by yesterday's results, since, like many, I had hoped he would decisively knock her out of the ring. I ultimately agree with the argument, though, that it is healthy and wise for Democrats to endure a hard fought and competitive series of primaries. The "Tipper Gore" analogy, where we desire an early consensus because we fear harsh words or feelings, touches those many of us who don't like to endure conflict.

Whoever turns out as the eventual nominee, the drawn out selection process brings benefits to us Democrats. We will have the extended discussion and will observe the tactics the candidates used to win our opinions and we will judge them accordingly. Florida's and Michigan's primaries should absolutely be redone because we will not accept disenfranchised voters. If the entire democratic process gets a full airing, as it appears that it might, in the end we will have an outcome that is more-or-less transparent and fair (or not). The eventual candidate will be the one who wins the largest share of the delegates. Personally, I think the superdelegate system is a poor one, but it's what we have in place and was designed with the best interests of the party involved at the time that it was made. If the nomination process needs to be revisited after the election, I imagine that will happen, too.

Seat the FL and MI delegates without a redo. The idea of NOT seating them is total bs for the democratic party -- especially after W (and the USSC) disenfranchised the FL voters against Gore. Oh, but if that happens, Hillary is in the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote and the Kennedy clan will lose it's puppet candidate. (and please don't tell me that BO's name wasn't on the ballot in MI -- he removed his name right before the primary for just this reason -- the ensure MI's delegates would not be seated). So now that they see BO can't win a state that isn't a caucus, they are talking about doing some farce caucuses in FL and MI that they can manipulate to give BO those states. Talk about desparate and pathetic -- the fanatic BO supporters can lie to themselves, but the American people will not stand for it. Recent polls show that 10% of BO supporters will not vote for Hillary if she is the candidate while 25% of Hillary supporters say they will not vote for BO if he is the candidate. That's right -- looks like BO isn't going to "get all of her voters" like he thought he would. And you know why? Because we are sick of the way the DNC is trying to force BO as the nominee.

For the record, BO lost CA, Mass., NY, NJ, AR, FL and MI before the 3:00 a.m. ad -- so his "Hillary had to go negative to beat me" argument doesn't hold water. BO lied to the American people when he said "that didn't happen" (ie the conversation between his top economic advisor and the Canadian government) and BO is the one who associated himself for 17 years with Rezko. BO is the one who immediately ran for President after being elected to the US Senate instead of doing the job he was elected to do. He has no one to blame but himself.

Furthermore, he outspent Hillary 3-1 and still couldn't close the deal -- he lost OH (despite his illegal shennanigans with that judge in Cuyhoga county) by 10%! After spending money like a drunken sailor, he lost by double digits!

Finally, with the exception of IL (his home state) the "victories" that he touts so loudly are all in states that are going to go RED in the General Election -- really, he is hanging his hat on LA and Alaska for his argument that he should be the nominee. HA! LA is going 35% Democrat and 65% Republican in the GE and everybody knows it -- same with all his other "wins" -- Hillary is the overwhelming choice of the Democratic base and it is time for BO (and Ted Kennedy) to drop out of the race for the good of the party.

There should ABSOLUTELY be a revote in those two states. Sure, they were naughty to push their primaries before the party-decreed Feb 1 date, but the punishment was excessive. The Republicans were more fair, for once, in stripping just half the delegates. What these states were seeking is relevance. Well, now they've got it, in spades!

If the Democratic party wants to carry those states in November, they can't afford to alienate them now! They should definitely get their chance to help determine the nominee. What's more, Howard Dean should pledge that the Democratic party will fund the re-vote in those states. Then he should send out one of his famous mailings -- I would be glad to give generously to an emergency fund of that sort. Gov. Crist is very nice to offer to pay for Florida's re-vote, but after 2000 I'm leery about letting another Republican arrange a Florida election :-)

I'm a Clinton supporter, but I'll give Obama this free advice: *HE* should call for the re-vote in those states. That would be a master stroke of statesmanship which will gain him many admirers -- and votes -- in both states, and around the country. It's consistent with his message, and he should be true to himself.

The Democrats of this country are screaming to these candidates, "Hey -- we like you both!" While I would love to see Hillary as the next president, I would be nearly as happy with her as VP. What I absolutely do NOT want to see is a circular firing squad wherein members of the party tear into each other to win the right to "preside over the rubble," as a Republican in the 1910's put it.

Luck to alL!

Helm