Failed in New Hampshire, failed late on Super Tuesday in California, now failed in Ohio and Texas............All the late deciding voters are going to Hillary now. Obama would be a disaster in the general. He can't close a sale. And believe me, he's a salesman.

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002".
this is the kind of disrespect that has brought america down. unless that is to become Down, Down, Down, clinton must lose - and soon.

if obama had won florida and michigan would you want a do over? it is wrong to make people keep voting till they produce the desired outcome. it undermines the legitimacy of the process and would weaken obama's claim to a clear victory if the 1.75 million *unsatisfactory* votes are thrown out. since 500,000 people did indeed vote for him, we are going to have to assume that people were plenty aware of him and could very well have voted for him if they had wanted to. the arrogance of the do-over rationale is creepy--if obama had campaigned in florida, of course everyone would have seen the light and voted for him.

on the other hand if hillary wins florida again, it would be fun to see what the do-overites would do with that... once MORE with feeling?

Yes, they should re-vote, regardless of the effect on the deadlock. To alienate or disregard any voter is supposedly not the "Democratic Way." The party needs to restore voting rights to two important states. And, just maybe, they'll return the favor and a clearer nominee will emerge as a result.

(Michigan definitely needs a do-over (who can nominate "Undecided"?) Florida, I feel, was won by HRC. But, if MI gets a do-over, then I guess FL should as well, to keep the process above reproach. Both candidates could contribute equal amounts to help pay (but really, it's not the candidates' "fault" that this happened).)

But.

As other posters have said, this probably won't change the delegate math: we're still pretty much deadlocked, with a slight edge to Obama.

As the convention gets closer, I'm starting to think that and Obama/HRC ticket might be what's "inevitable." Earlier, I'd doubted such a thing would be possible, let alone desirable for either candidate. But, as the race continues, and each candidate remains strong (or strong-ish), but not able to knock their rival out, maybe a shared ticket will be the best way to "bring the party together" and usher in that "change" we're all yearning for.

Certainly, die-hard supporters of either candidate would be unlikely to defect if their chosen one were in the VP slot. Obama and HRC are so close on most issues, they'd present a united platform. Beyond that, their strengths and weaknesses complement each other: he inspires crowds in big rooms, while she endears in small gatherings; he communicates the big picture, while she delves in the details.

This would be a throwback to the earliest nomination process: the candidate with the most votes was elected president, and the runner-up became the VP.

Granted, the two candidates would have to reconcile their differences, and they would have to hammer out a true power-sharing plan. But, I think it's doable. And I think an Obama-Clinton ticket (since Obama has the edge) would be tough to beat, maybe tougher than any other Obama-X or HRC-X ticket would be.

I wonder: one one hand, it's very much in the interest of the democratic party as a whole to hold revotes in Michigan and Florida, insofar as leaving things as they are makes the party look like it's preoccupied with using complicated rules to disenfranchise its own voters, a perception that will be aided no doubt by the republican parties of those states.

On the other hand, I could also see a legal fight over paying for the cost of the revote emerging, between the states(especially Florida) and the dems.

As far as the candidates not piping up goes, I'm guessing they're both just waiting for the other to call for it first-- that way whoever calls for revoting first looks more "desparate", and the other one looks self-assured and magnanimous when she(?) seconds the notion.

(It's a pity we've devolved to that, but what with national news stories about the significance of Obama not wearing a flag pin, I can hardly blame the candidates if this is in fact how they're approaching the matter.)

Both Florida and Michigan should be voting. Why not use mail-in voting and send it out to both registered democrats and independents. Using independents in Florida will upset the GOP. So why not upset them.

I think the two states should revote, but I don't think it would make much difference. I do think the game has changed in the past 24 hours. Before, it was always Clinton that would need to add Obama to her ticket should she prevail. Now, I think the reverse is true as well. Both factions will likely become implacable over the next 7 weeks, and the only solution for either candidate to ensure party unity will be a unity ticket.

Few objected before the FL and MI primaries about the injustice that we voters here were submitted to by the maneuvering GOP Legislature and some dems. Howard Dean did not miss a beat punishing all of us. I live in FLorida and contrary to what many say now, we had Barack Obama's TV advertisements before the vote in cable channels, and I personally received several calls. He was the only candidate to do so as far as I know. Clinton came to fundraisers, I heard, but I haven't seen any advertisements from her.

They did effectively cancel our vote beforehand and still we voted, fair and square. Shame on the party that allowed this to happen.

When it comes down to one on one "debate chit-chats" one is easily able to state that Hillary or Barack are more closer than apart,more alike on viewpoints or policy proposals.

The real enemy the DEMs face and will come up against in what is likely to be a brutal and ruthless political contest in the fall of 2008 is John McCain and those who want more of what G.W.Bush and Dick Cheney have been selling in and from the WH since 2001.

Hillary and Bill in ways far too similar to past DEMs such as Hubert Humphrey,Walter Mondale and Al Gore seem to believe they are entitled to this Democratic Party nomination.

Call it "it is my turn,my time" political illness and blindness. When one combines this ailment with the sad sack DC DEM "leadership" that seems more afraid of doing what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong it is truly a let down.

That sappy campaign moment the Clintons started out with(what will our theme song be?)fully underlined this.

Hillary seems more interested in Clinton power politics then in the Democratic Party winning in November 2008. That "it is 3AM"ad she threw at Barack Obama was about fearmonger tactics being used to pull Barack Obama down.

Do you think the GOPers did not note this primo "go negative" ad and will use it next fall when they have an array of catapults lined up and are mounting all out attacks?

Hillary has no more experience than Barack. It is a phony buzz point and point flare. Why give John McCain such an opening?

No...Hillary Clinton suffers in any rule of inversion comparison with Barack Obama. If Hillary had won eleven straight primary elections she and Bill would have insisted Barack was not in the game and would shelve and repress any talk of Florida or Michigan redos or delegate count stands.

Hillary is all about Hillary and both the Clintons seem to truly suffer from overt political power lust. Are they really interested in what the Democratic Party needs or should be or are they more concerned about their self-entitlement and self-reward/award quests?

When the Clintons moved to New York State to gain access to that states U.S.Senator slot it seemed overly opportunistic and all about Clinton's political gaming.

Still does.