Yours is surely the most sensible solution.

Do you live in Iowa?

I absolutely agree with Joan. The old results should certainly not be used, but a new election offers 2 advantages: it may decide the Clinton/Obama standoff, and it may help persuade Florida and Michigan that Democrats are interested in what they think. Yet the lesson that a state is unwise to defy the party in scheduling primaries has still been communicated; under any other circumstance, they would have had no say.

Also, these states by their nature offer an excellent opportunity to test the candidates' appeal in states important in the general election. After all, Texas is as unlikely to vote Democratic in November as is Kansas, South Carolina, and other pro-Obama states.

But I cannot believe how many letters there are from the "Hell Yes! Let 'em Vote" crowd. If the readers of Salon.com are so poorly informed, and so unconcerned with the value of following the rules of the game, then we're doomed in any case.

I can understand some HRC partisans pushing half-hearted arguments to benefit their gal, but are there really so many salon.com readers who think we should just re-vote or (far, far worse), "just count them -- we already DID vote"?

It is to mean nothing that these states leaders decided to try to screw all the other states? It's this kind of thing that given conservatives ammunition in arguing that we're not concerned with fairness and just children who want two desserts.

Since Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan and since he didn't campaign in Florida, those two votes should be re-voted. Then they can count those delegates. Obama is still 100 or so delegates ahead. If Obama has more delegates and the Clinton people win due to super delegates there will be blood in the streets of Denver. If Clinton wins the deletae vote (not counting the super delegates) then fine, she'll be the nominee and John McCain will be the president. I thought she had a lot of gall to suggest that she and Obama might team up..especially since she is losing! It would not be smart of Obama to pick Hillary as a running mate. Clinton's war vote, support of Kyl/Lieberman and refusal to support the Levin amendment were big factors in my deciding against Hillary but the real topper is her hideous 3 AM and your children will burn commercial. It is just shameful... perhaps effective, still shameful. Talk about "Shame on you!"

http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/03/the_clintonlieberman_connectio.html

Confusion and misinformation are two of the most powerful weapons in a desperate politician's arsenal. They were used by Joe Lieberman in the 2006 general election against Ned Lamont, and exit polls suggest that they helped Hillary Clinton blast her way through yesterday's primary in Ohio.

I absolutely agree with you Joan, and I also want to let you know that I agree with what you said about the talking heads at MSNBC and Hillary's negative aids!! What's up with them? Anyway, I enjoy seeing you on the TV as the voice of reason. However, I've noticed that you often don't get much of a chance to speak!!!

Emily P

If the Dems appear to be remaking the rules, which will greatly please HRC and the Repugs, of course, by seating FL and MI after these states "jumped the gun" with their primaries, then the Repugs will pounce on the Dems as "flip-floppers", or worse, as incapable of governing themselves.

The implication is that if the Dems can't manage themselves, how can you expect them to run the country? Duh!!! I can already see the RNC's ads in the fall lambasting the Dems with their lack of party discipline and poor choices.

What's to stop DE and NY from doing the same thing in 2012? Nothing. Therefore, the correct answer to this dilemma is that the elected delegates from FL and MI are not seated but the super-delegates from FL are free to vote anyway they wish. The identities of the super-delegates was never in question so their right to vote was never in-doubt.

Both Obama and Hillary had agreed to the rules. Now that MI and FL could potentially benefit Hillary is no reason to change the game. Should Hillary prevail on this, she can most definitely kiss Obama supporters goodbye in the general elections. This will most certainly pave the way for a third Bush term.

The worst thing about this delegate snafu is that no one seems to care that over a million voters in Florida (where I live and

vote) have been violated. Yes, violated, because their opinions and votes do not count! This is supposed to be a democratic country.

How can you possibly punish a Republican Governor by disenfranchizing the voters of your own Democratic Party? I believe this is not only stupid; but, probably even criminal. The only way it makes any sense at all to this Florida voter is that Obama must have friends in very high places in the Democratic Party because he is the only one who stands to gain anything at all from this.

I, for one, am just waiting to see how long it will take for

the Florida voters to start thinking about protesting instead

of taking this like the cattle the party obviously thinks we are. I am ready to show up with my daughter and a few co-workers and anyone else who wants to come along.

I'd support re-votes in both Michigan and Florida. Such a contest would be a more even match-up between Clinton and Obama. Obama shouldn't be politically penalized for honoring the Democratic Party's rules by avoiding campaigning in those two states.

Clinton has shown she can fight to win, whatever it takes. Obama has yet to show how he can recover from such hardball tactics. Clinton warned about this months ago. She said Obama would not be able to handle what the Republicans have in store for him. Who new she was talking about herself.

The problem, as you adroitly point out, is that they now risk losing the other candidate's support, who may abandon them at the poles come November. If Clinton thinks she's villified now, she should wait until after she's cost the Democrats the election. Women have got another thing coming if they think this lady is going to make them look good.