"Obama taking his name off the ballot was a political ploy to try to get "uncommitted" to defeat Clinton. He overestimated his support and it backfired. He ought to have to live with that."

Well, that's just moronically idiotic. He was actually cooperating with the rules. Hillary was cheating. When you cheat, you should not get ahead.

Hillary loves to cheat, and has done a lot of that in this campaign. Will she try even harder to cheat her way to the nomination? Or will she play by the rules, and work for a re-vote or a caucus in both states?

When you lose a state in a primary, that has NOTHING to do with your success in the general. In fact, if you wish to go that route, Obama will win the entire south and the entire west, except CA. Of course, these notions are advanced by Clintonistas, who don't seem to understand the difference.

The Dem nominee is going to win CA, OR, WA, NY, NJ, IL, DE, ME, VT, MA, PA, and a number of other traditional blue states. This is not a debateable point. What more will the nominee win? That's the question.

Hillary backers, lying at the speed of light, wish to contend that a loss in the primary = a loss in the general. That's stupid, to put it in a clear light.

I don't understand the fear in almost all quarters of a battle to the very end. Why would this hurt the Democrats? The winner of this fight will have been forced to take his or her message to all 50 states, and even Puerto Rico. The winner will have grass roots organization in every Congressional district, and will have spent millions and millions introducing himself or herself to the electorate. This is a good thing.

There has, within the Democratic party, been a fear of conflict that makes no sense. Americans are not stupid. They know people have legitimate differences of opinion and that standing up for what you believe in is more important than just getting along.

What's to be afraid of if the fight goes on until July? That the world will find out that Democrats actually have passions, and real opinions, that they are willing to go to the mat for? That the public is too dumb to believe someone could support Clinton until the very last moment, then switch to Obama in the general election, and still mean it? I will switch if I need to, and can do it wholeheartedly. Neither candidate is a bad choice, and both could enjoy my full support, come general election day. I just think one is slightly better than the other.

Let's re-vote in Florida and Michigan! This is great fun. I'll agree with Michelle Obama: I've never been happier to be an American. For once, Americans really care about an election, and it's in the nick of time. Maybe in time to end the war, save the environment, and save our children from crushing national debt.

And Joan, welcome to New Orleans. You want to go to Mandina's, a hole-in-the-wall restaurant on Canal Street. Best gumbo in town, besides my own. (And no, I have no financial relationship with Mandina's.)

There is an obvious solution: hold unassembled caucuses. For those who don't know precisely what that means, an unassembled caucus resembles a primary more than a traditional caucus. Voting would take place over an extended period of time, perhaps over a weekend -- Saturday and Sunday. Have as many caucus sites as needed. And they are great party builders.

If the national party proposes such a solution, and the state party leaders in these two states continue to refuse, then the national party should hold firm and refuse to seat these delegations, and the blame for that situation should rest squarely on the state party leaders who put us in this situation in the first place. They would be the ones disenfranchising their voters in this situation, not the national officials.

It is an interesting irony that two states that wanted to move their primaries up in order to influence the selection process early, now may have the opportunity to nail it for one of the two remaining candidates at the end of the process. I agree they should hold primaries in those two states again - it's like a runoff in a tied election.

I hope I am seeing this fairly (I live in MI), but I am not sure why the FL race wasn't "good enough." Unlike MI, all candidates were on the ballot. People who cared enough to be informed could vote -- I suspect "campaigning" clouds issues as much as it illuminates them.

In MI, the case is a bit different because a) only Clinton was on the ballot & b) it's easy to vote in either party's primary. Because I wanted whoever ends up being prez to be anti-torture, I voted for McCain, but don't plan to vote for him in Nov.

The state is in a huge budget mess (we had the recession first). A second primary would cost the state, not the party money. That would be a hard sell. Using a caucus system would be more fair for that reason. & what about people like me who voted once on the other side? Could I vote? Should I vote? What about people like my son who have turned 18 since the election -- could he vote?

The other confounding variable is that you don't really know whether a victory by one candidate is related more to the momentum one side or another has built up (i.e., where the candidates are now) or whether it's related more to place. If place really makes such a difference, then maybe there should be a do-over. If it's point in time in the election cycle, then a do-over isn't right. If the candidates had been on the ballot when we first had the primary, I would have voted for Edwards.

I hate to bust everyone's bubble here, but you can't have a Florida & Michigan do-over, even if someone comes-up with enough money. The people who run elections aren't contract workers. They are (mostly) state workers and volunteers with other commitments. You need lots of lead time for something like this. You can't just say, "Here's the money, now go do another election, already". Just to start with, there's the daunting task of getting all the necessary public officials to agree to such a thing, and in a timely manner. A do-over is just not going to happen.