"Visiting New Orleans (my first trip since Katrina, I'm sad to say) should keep the right issues at the forefront as I think about how the Democrats move forward."

As if Salon could not have covered the "right issues" in the context of the campaign for the past year. Instead, Salon gave us repeated articles on Obama's racial makeup.

The Democrats are not "moving forward." Clinton's wins are a blow to the party's chances in the fall. Walsh may be correct that the "the Nevada and South Carolina races were arguably nastier," but is that all we expect of the Clintons and Salon, to be better behaved than they were following South Carolina? And is it really progress that Clinton herself is now baiting Obama on religion instead of Bill baiting him on race?

I'm not sure resurrecting the Florida and Michigan primaries will resurrect the Clinton's legitimacy.

But I do believe the fix is in.

I don't think the Clinton team is particularly interested in democracy or fairness -- they just want to win, however they can get there, and if that means supporting flawed elections, they'll do it (and that's certainly been their stance to date, talking about "justice" for the MI and FL voters, when really they're talking about advantage for Clinton -- the "justice" talk only came up once they realized she needed every vote).

I don't expect them to agree to a do-over unless they're dragged to it by the exigencies of the moment, if they can determine they can garner an advantage from it.

And while you talked about the diversity of the states Clinton won, was her electoral base diverse, or was it her usual base: poorer, older, less-educated voters? Did Clinton make new inroads into the electorate, or was it falling back on those voting blocs that have stuck with her. Maybe Clinton's people will calculate that there are enough poor, old, and less-educated voters in MI and FL to give then a win if they risked another vote in those states, but I don't expect them to go there unless they absolutely have to.

And, of course, that would set a precedent for bucking party rules whenever it seems advantageous to do so, which can't bode well for the Democratic Party. Clinton abided by the rules when they suited her, but when things went south for her campaign, she changed her tune. Bad precedent.

If anyone wants the delegates seated and will sue for it, push to hold a legitimate vote for MI and FLA all over again. Good Luck on the delegates HRC!

There is no way around voting again in Florida and Michigan. The state parties should bear the major part of the cost since they put themselves deliberately in that spot.

The Clinton camp cannot be so politically blind as to insist on advantages from the (non-)primaries. They might win the nomination but it would turn off too many Obama supporters in the fall. It just would be political suicide.

On the other hand, the Democrats cannot afford to not seat delegates from Michigan and Florida. As nominating the candidate is the primary responsibility of the delegates, just apportioning half of the delegates to each candidate would amount to pseudo-participation.

As many commentators, I do not foresee that Florida and Michigan will resolve the superdelegate "problem". But instead of the inane ritual of a preprogrammed hoopla: How about an open discussion among superdelegates at the convention on the few issues separating the two camps and on the candidates? Someone wrote that they are leaders, and while I do not think you should leave it to them to hash things out in the legendary "smoke filled rooms" - No smoking anymore in closed rooms! - they should be able to have a decent and honest discussion. Some of the elders like John Lewis could explain to the country how torn they are, and why it is a blessing for the Democratic Party to have two such talented politicians ready to be president.

I know that is a dream as Americans are extremely competitive but it would show the nation and the world that there are RESPONSIBLE politicians in your country.

The world has seen far to few of those these last seven years.

An electoral mulligan is yet another embarrassment for American democracy, but the alternative--Clinton lobbying to seat delegates seized in Putin-ite mock-elections--is far worse. Even in the unlikely event she succeeded, she wouldn't be forgiven, and in Nov. Obama's flock would vote McCain or (more likely) simply stay home. It's the National Review's wet dream!

In fact, if Hillary was savvier she be leading the charge for a re-do: without MI and FL delegates she still has no realistic path to the nomination, and, as it happens, both states are packed to the gills with the demographic groups among whom she's consistently performed well. Legit wins, too, could only strengthen her argument that all but a few of Obama's wins have come south of the Mason-Dixon or in states where Democrats are outnumbered by antelope--places we all know are utterly out of play in November. For Obama it's slightly more of a risk, but, really, all he has to do is split the delegates or come close and he still wins.

Really, where's the down side? (But a YEEEEEEEEEEEARRGH shout-out to Howard Dean for allowing things to come to this pretty pass. McCain's prospects look better and better.)

There won't be any do over. Where were the complaints about Florida and Michigan when the party set the rules 6 months ago ? Sorry, I don't see how changing the rules for Hillary's benefit is going to fly. It is interesting how the pro-hillary crowd now thinks it's an outrage these delegates don't get seated, when there was no such outrage when the party set the rules in August.

Can't we let this primary race die? I know Joan's thought is that it's good for both candidates to be "battle-tested", but let me present the opposite - the thought of seven more weeks of election makes me sick to my stomach. And I live in DC, where politics live on indefinitely. It's as if the candidates woke up yesterday morning and saw some sort of mutant groundhog shadow.

I cannot help but think if Clinton were the one with a near impossible-to-overcome lead in the delegates, who had won "impressive" victories in the great majority of states and sizable majority of the popular vote but still had not delivered the knockout blow, the chorus for Obama to withdraw would be deafening. His presence in the race would be deemed "bad for the party" by all those media outlets who are of course uniformly anti-Clinton. And his increasingly nasty tactics, whether or not they were par for the course in politics, would be thought of as a heresy.

I am also pretty sure, that if Clinton had a near-insurmountable lead in delegates, she would not be in favor of any of the proposed "options" that you suggest are the only ones available - let the superdelegates override the popular vote or re-seat Florida and Michigan. I'm pretty sure she would want the primaries to run their course and want the candidate with the most delegates to be chosen by the superdelegates. Makes sense, right? I'm sure she would have thought so a year ago.