Obama taking his name off the ballot was a political ploy to try to get "uncommitted" to defeat Clinton. He overestimated his support and it backfired. He ought to have to live with that.

Hey Hillary voters, how would they count the votes in Michigan. The candidates, agreed before these elections in MI to take their names off of the ballot. Hilary chose not to be ethical and left her name on. So how do you give out the MI delegates. 40% of the voters put undecided because Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot. So does that mean the 40% "undecided" goes to Obama? In FL his name was on the ballot, so it would be easier. However Obama would still be ahead in delegates. Its the delegates that count, and Obmam has been winning in congressional districts with the most delegates, even in the states he lost.

So teh real question is, to what length are the tough fighters in the Clinton campaign and among her supporters willing to go their win and divide our party?

because there has to be some penalty and disincentive for states to break the rules (otherwise can be a free-for-all in the future). And yes, for democracy, and also for the calculation that we need to have their voter enthusiasm on our side in November (both massive swing states).

Anything wrong with that? It's only fitting, because it was Republican decisions that led to Florida Democrats getting stuck between disobeying the party and accepting a Republican victory on a ridiculous tax measure.

But what about Michigan? Are they so broke they couldn't have a Democratic primary?

One thing it would settle, once and for all, is this: can Obama carry a large industrial state in a primary?

I'd want a primary, too. Nothing dramatizes the questions I have more than Obama's victory in the Texas caucus, while he was losing the popular vote in a primary. It's pretty strange when the populist candidate does with the lower turnout of a caucus. He's apparently winning the Texas caucus by 2,000 votes out of 40,000, as of this writing, while Hillary took the primary by 100,000 out of 3,000,000 votes. Percentage-wise, that's the same result in reverse. It gives him more delegates at the same time as 100,000 more people actually voted for Hillary. How much sense does that make?

Oh, and another detail: Obama got 80% of the black vote, but their turnout was lower than the last time. That was surprising as hell to me. What's happening there?

My question is, is Obama scalable? (He's run a very Internet-savvy campaign, and his supporters will know what I mean.) Sure, in a red state with the governor on his side, he can trounce Hillary in a caucus, while denouncing the superdelegates as unrepresentative. So, let's throw down: Michigan, Florida, fair fight. Who gets the most votes? Who wins the popular vote? Hmm. Are those closed primaries?

Longer term, one of the things we owe to Howard Dean is that we're all getting to know the state Democratic parties. Man, some of those things are creaky, and the party rules are also weird. We need one set of rules on how to award delegates. I myself don't like caucuses, or the strange Texas rule that bases how many delegates who get awarded partially based on how many voted last election. What the heck is that about?

You know, there's despair in the Obama camp today. Don't worry. Your guy is still ahead, and likely will end up the candidate. But if his election would depend on not counting two major states, that's not so inspiring, is it?

Hillary kept her name on the MI ballot to cheat her way to more delegates. There is no other interpretation. Her campaign has had so many of the cheating moments that we forget how scummy so many of the actions are.

No rewards for cheaters. MI represented cheating.

FL as well involved cheating. She violated the rules by campaigning there.

No victories for cheaters.

after Hill and Bill release the tax returns.

No tax returns, no nomination. It's a simple as that.

We need to know what sleazy, corrupt dealings are buried in those tax returns. After all, if there was nothing scummy, they would be out already, right?

Hillary will DEMAND they give her the votes. If so then yes they should have anther vote. However if even they do have another vote, Obmam will still be ahead in delegates if they do. As in Michigan his name was not even onhe ballot and in FL most of the later votes cast were for Obama. He will still be ahead in delegates after TC & Oh all counted.

Hillary finally learned from the Obama cmapaign, and got some people on the ground, and started raising money online. Of course Obama is still way ahead in money, but money did not work this time.

I just am very disappointed because Obama is running a very ethical, decent campaign. For once we had a chance to have a campaign th high ground, but Hillary changed all that with her down and dirty politics. I guess people in OH and TX like down and dirty.

McCain has a real advantaged now and if Hillary will tear the party apart with her dirty campaingn tactics.

You seemed to have forgotten that the issues in play which put doubts into people's minds weren't the NAFTA dust-up or the 3am ad. It was the leaked photo of Obama with the headdress on. The continued sly accusations that he's not a Christian. The horrible underground email campaign to paint him as a Muslim fifth columnist. The nonsense about whether he says the pledge or wears a flag lapel pin. This was the dirtiest part of the primary cycle yet. You convenient left out all the dirtiest tricks that were used. If you're going to try to act fair and neutral, please try harder. Because those are the issues that gained traction and may continue to gain traction and may yet propel Clinton to the victory.

If that happens, if the politics of fear win again, I won't vote in the General Election. I will vote for Nader, I might abstain altogether. But I want to throw out the status quo, personally. And people are voting for Hillary right now because she scared them into thinking Obama isn't one of us and she's running on the record of being first lady.