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?

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.

Moe - Barack - he's the man in charge

Larry - Hillary - different hair do

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.