The only people who seem to think there was a primary in Michigan are the diehard Clinton supporters. Probably because Clinton's was the only name (worth mentioning) on the ballot.

I don't want to "re-vote." I want to VOTE. Yes to a real primary in Michigan.

Which means if you are not a war monger you have to vote for McKinney or Nader and they don't count those votes anyway, so why don't you get back to more important issues for journalists of your caliber, like the voting on American Idol.

Anyone who wants any of these three MSM stooges in the white house is an idiot.

Oh, dear god. How many times can a state screw up its election process and then, in the end, be in the position of deciding the national outcome?

Michigan, sure.

But please, isn't it time to sell Florida to France?

Moe - Barack - he's the man in charge

Larry - Hillary - different hair do

Curly - McCain - WOOO WOOO WOOO WOOO Bomb bomb bomb bomb iran.

They should never have been disqualified in the first place. I hate the front-loading of the primarues, but if some states can choose to go early, why can't others as well?

The WORST thing the DNC could do now is to let the existing votes count -- that would be incredibly unfair and would certanly tarnish the ultimate results. But we need these two states' votes to help decide this primary.

They have to re-vote.

How about we let the voters of Michigan and Florida decide what THEY want to do? Are the rest of us their keepers, their jailers, their judges? It's fairly disgusting and depressing to see the votes of millions treated as so many chips in a penny ante poker game. At any rate, Florida voters have already spoken in an election the mechanics of which in no way favored Clinton, and yet she won handily. Does this mean nothing?

Who makes the rules the for the Democratic Party? The DNC. Who sets the calendar for the Democratic Party? The DNC. Who has to balance the needs of the nation and all the state Democratic parties? The DNC. Who has to administer discipline when state parties get out of line? The DNC.

Senator Clinton today:

"It's a mistake for the Democratic Party to punish these two states," she said. "I don't see how a Democratic nominee goes forward alienating two of the most important states."

So let me get this straight: if somebody breaks the rules, you punish them--unless they happen to be "important". Yes, let's reward bad behavior. Once the "important" people figure out that the rules don't apply to them they're going to start acting entitled just like . . . Republicans. Next time we can expect CA and NY to bully the DNC and all the other states.

The current system (IA and NH first) is unfair. Several better plans have been proposed and we need to pick one and implement it. But MI and FL acted improperly. Floridians may protest that the Republican state legislature put them in this mess. But how hard did they fight against it? And, after the fiasco of 2000, did they at least redeem themselves by bringing their electoral votes to Kerry in 2004? No, they didn't. And we should worry about alienating them? I think not. They'll probably go red again and vote for McCain anyway.

So yes, lets have do-overs in both states. And make them primaries--not caucuses--so there won't be any whining. But make the state Democratic parties pay for them--even if they have to go into debt to do it. The DNC does not have a lot of money and it should not pay for states who break its own rules.

There are two problems I see with Florida and Michigan voting -

1. Didn't all parties agree not to campaign in these two states in accordance with the Party request (i.e these two states being punished for pushing their primaries ahead of the agreed schedule? While we can all debate the pros/cons of the primary system, isn't an agreement an agreement regardless)?

Doesn't allowing them to now vote fly in the face of that agreement? What was the point of it then? If it were to happen, and I were Howard Dean, I'd be pissed.

2. Given that Obama's name wasn't on the ballots, calling this 'voting again', 'do-over', or 're-vote' seems rather absurd.

By having her name on the ballot previously where Senator Obama didn't, I wonder if that will present Senator Clinton with an unfair advantage? I also find it suspicious that the Florida Governor (Crist-R) is also pulling for a Florida re-vote.

Granted these two states contain a lot of delegates and voters, and will be important in the general election. But that's a problem for the prospective candidate to solve via campaigning in those states.

I think if neither candidate acquires the required delegates for nominiation, it's better to let the super delegates work this out, either before or during the convention.

The abrupt subject line is for whomever is counting noses (that was your express intention, no?)

I wanted to post because I honestly object not only to the fundamental unfairness of a "do-over" for two state parties that intentionally broke the rules knowing the consequences (more of the "everybody gets a t-ball trophy!" paradigm so dominant these days); but I deeply object to Ms Walsh's question-begging logic. We did not grant you the QED of an imaginary "crisis" to resolve with an expensive and internally destructive solution. Rhetoric does not work that way.

I already voted in Florida and see no reason why I should do so again. There was a fair ballot and a record turn out. The

Democratic Party just has to seat the delegates. I voted for Obama and know that Hillary won - but fair is fair.

Now, there is a problem in Michigan because the ballot wasn't fair.

No, FL and MI should not vote again. The DNC and all of the candidates already agreed last fall that MI and FL would not be allowed to seat delegates at the convention and the candidates could not campaign in either stop.

Either hold special elections OR seating the delegates for either or both state would be corrupt. It is changing the rules after the game is over because certain people didn't like the outcome.

Also, if Obama has the most pledged delegates after all of the scheduled primaries/caucuses remaining, then Obama wins. If the superdelegates vote for Clinton, even though he has more pledged delegates, it goes against democratic principles and the very war that we are fighting in Iraq now.

Any other shenanigans would be no different than what happened in FL in 2000. If the Democratic Party wants to drive voters away then, by all means, have FL and MI revote.