"It makes more sense to come to some sort of sane tallying - even if only partial. Thus, you have inflicted a puinshment, but avoided a total, one-off punishment that will have likely nasty consequences down the road."

I agree with that. We need to accomodate. FL and MI need to be seated.

Neither Hillary nor Barack can gain from this process.

I suggest that we do either 1) Split the seats down the middle or 2) Give each campaign seats proportional to their totals after PA.

Once again, the Clinton campaign pushes an idea and Joan carries it forward like a dutiful soldier because she just "can't find any better alternative." How about making the logical and right decision when the total percentage of delegates required to earn the nomination has been increased due to leaving out Florida and Michigan: make the percentage for nomination proportional to the total number of delegates the same as it was before?

Since the delegates seems to be splitting evenly in most contests and the outcome would probably be the same in Fla. and Michigan why not just split the delegates between the two candidates. Revoting seems like it would defeat the purpose of why Florida and Michigan weren't counted to begin with. I think we can all agree Clinton wouldn't be pushing for a recount if she'd lost so it's disengenous to pretend they want to do it for the good of all. And since FLorida will more than likely go Republican anyway it doesn't seem like the Democrats should spend money on a revote when it can be spent campagining in other states that might be able to take this time (given Obama's crossover appeal and/or Clinton's strength in the bigger states).

Joan you may not have experienced where you are but there were 527 TV ads on behalf of Clinton here in Texas the day before the election - it very much reminded me of the Swift Boat ads. I don't think the 3:00 a.m. ad was necessarily bad but I still think Clinton is better off sticking with her strengths rather than trying to weaken Obama because it leaves her wide open on many of the issues she brings up (national security - why didn't she have a security clearance before? voting record - lots of posts on more substantive legislation proposed and achieved by Obama in 2007 than Clinton in several years; and the war - let's not go there). I think by staying positive Clinton and Obama will strengthen both their campaigns - no matter who the nominee is -- and not give ammunition to McCain. I can already envision him using the ad where Clinton touts her and his experience over Obama - "Even my opponent admits I have years of experience. . . " and then following up with his years of security experience, Bill Clinton not serving his country, yadda, yadda. . .

Thanks for your posts - enjoy New Orleans - I'm sure they will enjoy all the positive feedback you can provide.

Uh ... that's a pretty good question. Also consider that a do-over would piss off a new set of voters in that state if the do over did not reflect their original votes.

How on earth did we end up in this mess? Maybe Republicans really are smarter. Is there something in lattes and advanced degrees that makes liberal Democrats dumb? I say this in all honesty as a latte-sipping liberal dem with an MA. Hmm. Maybe I should have tried for a doctorate or maybe just dropped out of high school. Maybe the question we should be asking is why can't Democrats get these basic logistical things right. It was just crazy not to count Florida and Michigan in the first place.

I don't see this is "changing the rules for Hillary's benefit." I think it's a toss up which candidate would benefit from the "do over."

Sen. Clinton was asked the question this morning, and she said "That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me." I might agree with that, but for a quite different reason.

Sen. Clinton is 60 years old, and Sen. Obama is 46. Eight years from now, President Hillary Clinton will be 68 years old - John McCain and Ronald Reagan territory - while a Vice President Obama will still only be 54, with eight years in the number two chair and a clear path to victory. Given that Sen. Clinton is highly competent in the game of politics and would probably do a much better than average job as President, there would be no stopping Obama in 2016 barring some unforeseen catastrophe.

I'm an Obama guy, but this is something I could get behind. Not only is Sen. Clinton an expert politician and would probably make a good, competent President able to pull us out of the hole George W. Bush put us in, but Sen. Obama compliments Sen. Clinton to a large degree. They don't really compete with each other for votes; Clinton appeals to the large states, particular the blue ones we dare not take for granted, while Obama has proven himself able to compete in the red states. Together, they would make one hell of a team, and if they do it while they're more or less even, they both come out looking like winners.

While I admit it's premature and presumptuous to be talking about an Obama capitulation when he's still ahead 100+ delegates, I think this idea has merit, as long as some kind of deal is struck to keep Bill out of the White House. It beats spending $30 million a month beating each other's brains in for another three months. Sooner or later, people are going to be looking at them, then their checkbook, and saying, "no more. Not my money. Johnny needs new shoes/college tuition/braces/therapy/etc." It would be nice to save some of that ammo for the Republicans instead if wasting it on each other.

The only thing that would bother me a little is the idea of declaring running mates before the convention. It tips our hand to the enemy. On the other hand, it would affect Sen. McCain's choice for a VP candidate in a possibly interesting way. If he were to be seen as taking the Obama factor into account when picking his running mate - for example, choosing someone polarizing like Condoleeza Rice - that could be seen as shameless pandering - yet one more thing to make McCain look phony as a three-dollar bill.

There are other advantages to the "Democratic Unity Ticket." It would render moot the noisemaking - which won't go away otherwise - about Obama's so-called "pledge" to neuter himself by accepting the public financing McCain once felt compelled to accept. While McCain may still be legally bound by his decision, Hillary Clinton never said one word about public financing, never needed it, and never will. Clinton/Obama '08 could feel free to use their considerable combined resources to pound the living crap out of Johnnie Mack to their hearts' content, and there would be nothing Fox Noise could have Sean Hannity say about it except, "that sure was clever of the Democrats to put their magic rings together like that."

It would also have the effect of rendering the controversy over Michigan and Florida moot. Clinton/Obama neatly cancels this problem over whether to seat their delegates at the convention. One less problem is always good. I'd still like to see the next DNC chair take national control over its national nomination processes, which means a closed national primary that mirrors the Electoral College, but that's a topic for another day.