Here's the main issue - another Primary will not be an extreme expense for the Deomcratic Party or Republican Party, it will be an expense for the taxpayers of Michigan and Florida. Primaries are paid for by the states, not the parties. Whether the DNC is overflowing with cash or not is really not a factor.

And honestly, can anyone in MI or FL really call foul here? They were told not to hold their Primaries on those dates, and subsequently told that if they did break the party rules their delegates would not be seated. What happened? They ignored their respective parties and now their delegates aren't being seated. The party knew it, the voters knew it, the delegates knew it. And yet now, everyone behaves as though they've been blindsighted? It's contrary to common sense.

Of course Hillary Clinton wants those delegates seated - Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI and didn't campaign in Florida. Why? Gee, I think it's because Howard Dean specifically TOLD HIM NOT TO. So clearly including the delegates as they are now would not be fair to him. (Let's not forget that John Edwards was obviously under the same impression as Obama when it came to this ruling.)

The only alternative is to have a re-do, the expense of which, unfortunately, will be passed on to the taxpayers of those two states. The whole thing could have been avoided had the party leaders in MI & FL just complied with the DNC rules. Instead, they chose to ignore the electoral rules and now we're in this mess.

Hillary has shown what a divisive figure she is. Hillary after graduating from Yale Law joined the Rose Law Firm, an all white, corporate law firm in Little Rock. She represented big business and corporations and became a partner in a firm with no non-white attorneys to this day. She then joined the board of Walmart. Barak graduated from Harvard and turned down big law firm jobs to become a community organizer on the streets of Chicago. Hillary joined the Childrens Legal Defense Fund but worked there for less than a year. Shame on you Hillary!

Obama's name was on the ballot initially, but he filed paperwork to remove it. It was a political stunt that backfired, so don't feel bad for him.

Did not the DNC ever think if names were on a ballot, people would vote. Even though, no candidate campaigned, In Michigan and Florida large numbers of people voted. In fact, how many voters actually knew their votes would not count. Was their a wide spread effort to get this information to the voter? The DNC, in my opinion, had no alternate plan in place when decided to punish these states for disobeying the rules. You know the RNC would have had a plan. The states do not want another election. They do not want spend the money. Caucuses would make the voters angry. If you voted for Senator Clinton you want the votes to count. Visa versa for Senator Obama following. Seat these delegates.

-- EMStoveken

Rules are rules, why change them to justify Obama? The peoples voices will be heard if they just count them. Up till this point, Obama was happy not to count them. Clinton stated she would fight to get them seated. Now, that Clinton won Texas and Ohio, they are saying revote in Michigan and Florida.

All candidates knew these votes would NOT count because of the violation the states violated.

Yes, I'm a Clinton fan; but, that is neither here nor there.

Let's have a fair and balance procedure.

It doesn't matter one way or the other what you took from my original post. I don't think they should have a revote in either state. One it would cost the people in both states more money. The suggestion of this revoting would just dig deeper into the tax payers wallet.

Let the votes stand as is!!!

Obama could have sent reps to Florida informally, so could have Clinton. The votes have been cast; so let them stand. Count them or hold to the "rules".

First of all, I don't understand why they voted out of turn to begin with and why it wasn't counted to begin with when they were allowed to vote in January.

Since they were allowed to vote in January, those won delegates should be counted. Since I read the delegates were taken away for voting in January, who was responsible for that lame decision to vote in January in the first place?

Every US citizen that is registered to vote should have their right to help choose the candidate for their chosen party. They should not be punished because somebody with some pull decided they should vote in January. AND..it seems unfair if not unconstitutional that their delegates could be pulled out from under them.

All those people that went to the polls in Florida and Michigan had no say in the vote being changed to January, yet they are been punished for it.

Also, it appears you are not as partial as you should be in your position in the News World and since you are writing this column. You appear to have some animosity toward Clinton and have Obama as the "Chosen Child".

How about some equal and fair play since you are influencing the American voters.

Thank you,

Jeane7

Why should either party have the right to say my vote does not count. Is that not a right given afforded to us by the consitution of the United States. I read something earlier and have to agree. They should have all the primarys on the same day just like the elections. That why i do have a choice who i want to vote for and not the right to vote for who ever is left after the others drop out from the first 5 or 10 states. I never gave up my consitutional rights and i dont like them taken away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So a few states said they would hold their primaries early, regardless of the fact that their delegates wouldn't be seated, they decided they would rather affect the feel of the election, than the reality, and are now saying, wait that's not fair. They made this decision with full knowledge that their delegates would not be eligible for seating, they wanted to be emotionally heard, not physically.

Perhaps it's not fair to the voters who had no part of this decision, but it's certainly not reasonable to ask the democratic convention to pay for upholding their own rules - perhaps the few legislators who made this choice should pay for a new election out of their own pocket.

Essentially they gambled and lost (They gambled that the first few primaries would decide the nomination) and rather than accepting the consequences of their poor judgement, they are screaming for someone to give them special privileges. Anyone have a two-year-old? Can you have this child explain consquences and choices to their politicians?