It would be changing the rules to have a redo. The party leaders in those states broke the rules that were set forth, therefore there cannot be a revote. I am an Obama supporter but I can't agree with something just because I think it will benefit the candidate I want to see elected.

Who told blacks not to vote?! There were other things on the ballot besides the Democratic primary.

I think the vote for Michigan could be done again because not everyone was on the ballot but in Florida Hillary won without campaing and Obamaaa name was on the ballot,so to me its clear they wanted Hillary.

I also think that should it go to the convention it should be Hillary because let it be know of the 9 states Abamaaa won they were just voting against hilary as 9 of the states always go with the republicans.REMEBER THIS IS WHY THEY HAVE THIS RULE AS WELL AS ANY OTHER.To keep telling Hillary to get out I believe.crazy, because to many AO dont like her because they know she will do a good job.Since niether one can really win before the convention let the super-dels do there thing .Its ok with me.

Hillary has not been treated fair by her own party or the Media,Obamaa has had a free ride because cant talk about his race but it ok to be sexist,well I dont agreee.

I agee that with Hillary winning the big states she can win the Nomination.the other states were mostly repbulicans places and when the times comes they will vote for McCain as I will if Obamaaa runs.Hillary is the one to help get this country back,and trust us who support her and it has nothing to do with her husband altho he was a good president and I firmly believe his personal life is non of my business or anyones else.

I cant understand all the stuff about taxes,who care,sound like Obamaa doing a little wineing dont you think.He should be worried about his wifes comment,better that she doesnt speak at all.I also feel that Obamaaa started this race thing all by himself as there was nothing wrong with want Bill clinton said and why is Obamaaa ashamed of his own name,that name means nothing to me but the lying and dishonsty about Nafa,there will be more stuff out there,and the Repbulicans will win over us with Obamaaaa. And this guy on trail,you can bet that Obamaaa is not free of doing wrong,he did wrong and I know because I sell real estate,and what they did was dishonest,IS THAT WHAT WE WANT FOR A CHIEF IN OUR WHITE HOUSE,DONT THINK SO.THANK YOU FOR READING AND ALLOWING MY COMMENTS.I APPRECIATE.

When you want something to be done for the best of the country and around the world its Hillary I trust .

and is she doesnt win GOD HELP US>

Those who wanted to vote, did so.

Count the votes and let it go at that! PLEASE!

We who live in Florida are sick and tired of

getting wacked with the smelly end of the stick!!!!!

@ KcM

Let me break it down in a football metaphor, since people seem to have so much trouble with the math.

Obama is up 34-7 in the fourth quarter. Clinton just scored a touchdown. It is now 34-14. But there are two minutes left and Obama has the ball. He can just take a knee and end this thing (although he might as well run up the score.)

There's only one problem with your analogy. The rules of the game say the first team to score 50 points wins. Now what?

I have to put this out there because I keep reading over and over how whoever has the most delegates wins. But this is not the DNC rules. If the rules said "most delegates win" it would mean that a mere plurality was required. But the rules don't say that. The rules require a majority, not plurality, that is 50% + 1 of the available pledged delegates. Neither candidate will have that going into the convention. By the way, the general election is similar, requiring a majority of electoral votes, not a plurality. If nobody gets a majority, it goes to the House of Representatives. In the DNC rules, if nobody gets a majority of pledged delegates, it goes to the super delegates to put someone over the top. Sorry folks, them's the rules.

There is nothing in the rules that tells the super delegates how to vote. They can vote for "the will of the people" as some suggest, or they can vote for the "good of the party", which, loosely translated means, the candidate most likely to win the general (or a little more cynically, the candidate most likely to help me!). But what exactly is the 'will of the people"? Is it the candidate that has the most popular vote? That would seem like a reasonable definition. In the case of super delegates who are elected officials, would it be the candidate who won my state? If that methodology is used would that mean Kennedy and Kerry would have to switch their support to Clinton? Or might it be the candidate who won my congressional district yet lost the state? Interesting choices. I'd be curious as to which of the above criteria people think they should use. Somehow I don't think that the criteria of "they should use whichever method gives my candidate the nomination" is gonna cut it.

I have to say that I find it a bit encouraging that there seems to be a consensus building for a combined ticket. While I don't think it would be a guaranteed win, I think any other outcome would most probably be a guaranteed loss. Putting aside the "your candidate just sucks" crowd, I could actually see the level headed members of both camps coming together around such a ticket. Let's face it, this race is essentially a dead heat. It can only be determined by the super delegates and whichever side loses is going to feel somehow cheated. If such bad feelings come out of the convention, I cannot imagine how wounds would be healed in time for the election. I admit that I am old enough to remember the 1968 democratic convention. I wasn't old enough to vote :-) but was old enough to watch it on TV. It was not pretty, and it got us Richard Nixon.

I tend to agree with whoever said (I can't find the post) that where Clinton is weak Obama is strong and where Obama is weak Clinton is strong. I think this could work. But... I have to say that the only way I think it could happen is if it's Clinton/Obama. I just don't think Clinton would take VP and I don't think Obama would want her as VP. But that's just my assessment. I could be wrong and it's not up to me (or anyone else here). I'm encouraged to see a number of Obama supporters who have come to this conclusion as well, calmly and logically. Thing is, in order for this to happen, Senator Obama has to come to this conclusion as well. I'm not sure he's there yet. Perhaps after Penn. And think of this, if the candidates and party leaders could somehow work out this arrangement before the convention, there would be no need to re-vote anywhere. The FL & MI delegations could be seated because it wouldn't matter any more. If we want them to vote in November, we had better let them vote in August (maybe Michigan could send a slate of uncommitted delegates).

@ AKA Smith

How on earth did we end up in this mess? ....Maybe the question we should be asking is why can't Democrats get these basic logistical things right.

I confess I haven't done the math, but I suspect that if we had winner-take-all primaries as the republicans do, Hillary would have been the nominee by now. It seems that democrats are sometimes too damn... well... democratic. Sometimes I think the founding fathers may have just been right about decrying the establishment of political parties and direct democracy. Maybe we ignore them at our peril. BTW, I appreciate your humor. It helps to break up the vitriol.