First, the votes should count!

Hillary respected the voters of Michigan and Florida by remaining on the ballot. Obama choose not to be on the ballot. So who is playing politics? I want to support a candidate who is there for me no matter what the obstacle.

A candidate of change would not ignore the voters.

All candidates made the decision on supporting the voters of Michigan and Florida by making the effort to be on the ballot.

Second, are we a third world country where we need an outside country monitor a free and fair elections?

"But everybody has missed the point --that women, who are Hillary's strongest supporters, find it much more difficult to get out in the evening. They're clearing up in the kitchen and tending to the kids." Tmross were you even thinking when you wrote this. You might not realize it but its now the 21 century.

I live in one of those states that had a caucus, due to really bad planning and massive turnout. We had to caucus outside in barely 20 weather with the wind blowing then rain and finally snow. Those women that you said that were home clearing up the kitchen and tending to their kids. Well, actually they were standing in the freezing cold with their kids. So Tmross next time you speak, be careful not to open mouth and insert foot.

That would actually be kind of cool. Could they get ready to do it just before Memorial day? Their delegates chosen in the forbidden early primaries and "contested" only by Hilary Clinton because the other candidates were sticking with the Party's decision, should NOT be seated under those circumstances. They broke the rules, and based on what has turned out to be false premises. Maybe Obama and Hilary could donate some of their campaign money to help fund a Re-Do.

Bill Lamb

Leaving aside the real issue here, which is that states should not be allowed to break party rules with impunity, I'd like to address the folks who say we should just count Michigan as-is.

On the one hand, you claim to be oh-so-concerned about the right of the people to have their vote counted, and on the other hand you say that it's just tough noogies that none of the voters had a chance to vote for Obama. This very clearly illustrates your hypocrisy, and your true motives. Essentially, you are saying that only the people who voted for Hillary deserve to have their votes count. When Obama removes his name, it's "rules are rules." When the DNC wants to enforce their rules, it's "disenfranchisement."

As far as pissing off half of Floridians and Michiganders, is that worse than pissing off half the Democrats in the entire country?

A revote is the fairest way to resolve this issue. Asking the DNC to pay for it is like asking the referee to pay your fine when you flagrantly foul your opponent in the NBA.

Hi again from Sarkozy County,

Just a reminder about the supers (and *to* the supers). The "super system" was never intended to go against popular vote. It was intended to prevent our Party to drift too much towards the liberal left. Today our two contenders are both centrists, and Barack more so than Hillary.

Which, incidentally, is why I sometimes feel wierd supporting Barack, as I consider myself a radical. My Mom and Dad are both Deadheads, no way you can get over that ;-))) Especially when Lesh, Weir and Hart get together again to play a "Deadheads for Obama" gig. For those who missed it, that was at the Warfield in SF on 02/04. And Barack lost CA.....

Anyway, the Party and the USA don't face any "leftist threat" anymore. So the "super system" has to go or be radically changed. If we want supers, then let them be pledged dels. They vote as their congressional district did and everyone is happy.

But do we still need supers ? I think we don't. They've outlived their original purpose.

Even in 84 The result of the national election would have been the same without the supers. They chose Mondale over Hart. And then Mondale lost 59-41 and carried only his home state. Hart would have lost 61-39 and carried only his home state just the same. So why bother ? We don't need the supers, actually we never needed them.

Let's get back to our roots : popular vote is what counts.

Hell no!!! they should not have voted the first time. Obama,Osama, what the hells the difference ,all the candidates suck!

These are adults that went into this situation with their eyes open.They KNEW if they changed their date they would not be seated. That was THEIR choice. Now they regret their decision? Is not our problem.

What's good for the Goose (Hillary) is good for the Gander (Joan Walsh and Salon)!

To go back and repair this blunder by the party big-wigs in these two states will require a small miracle. Both candidates agreed to adhere to the party rules, i.e. there will be no counting of delegates from these states. Now, Hillary, the big-wigs from the republican party (FL) and a Hillary partisan in MI are calling for a re-do. For this to happen the party and both candidates will have to agree on If, When and How. The cost of any re-do should be placed on the two states.

Another suggested alternative would be to seat the delegations based on ratios established between the two candidates after all caucuses and primaries have been decided.

I said :

1655 HC vs 1732 BO. So what ? Let's just do it and call it a day. BO has won, period.

Amerigo said :

Except that there are still some states to go, aren't there?

Yep, and Hillary will carry PA, WV, KY, OR and MT. Barack will get the others. End result : 280-300 more dels for Hillary, 310-330 more for Barack. End of story...

Who decides then : either the supers or John Edwards. Best educated guess : the supers won't go against the popular vote as they know the Party would explode (and the whole "super system" itself would go down the drain). So it's up to John. Whoever convinces him to be her/his VP has won. And a Barack/John ticket would definitely look better, at least for this Obama supporter...