Correctamundo. In voting, as in baseball, there ARE no do-overs.

The "loss" of the delegations was silly to begin with, as were the events leading up to it. Now, to undo it all, the fairest resolution would be to hold caucuses, and let all of us have our say(I boycotted the primary). I saw this morning one Democratic Party poobah say there were too many details to work out to make a do-over feasible. Nonsense. Pick the locations, print out the ballots, round up volunteers , and just like that you've got yourself a caucus. Certainly, Sen. Clinton and her supporters will find this unfair, since she was the only one to try to get around the DNC ruling on the early primary. Too bad. Michigan and Florida Democrats have a right to their say in all this and it was denied by childish pettiness over "who's first".

Regarding the expense, the cost of all this would by rights fall to the DNC and state Democratic Party (obviously the Republicans have no need for a do-over). It was their wrong-headedness on both sides of the issue that started all this, so to hammer the taxpayers for a primary would be patently unfair. Hold the caucuses, seat the delegates, let the campaign run its course, then unite behind the winner and take this country back for the people.

It would be extremely unfair and destructive to Hillary's chances for harvesting more delegates if Florida and Michigan now opt for caucuses instead of their traditional primaries with daylong voting opportunities.

Astonishingly, no one has seemed to figure out why Obama does so well at caucuses -- even in Texas where Hillary was a clear favorite

Pundits claim Obama wins the caucuses because his voters are more committed and therefore make more of an effort to get to the caucuses.

But everybody has missed the point --that women, who are Hillary's strongest supporters, find it much more difficult to get out in the evening. They're clearing up in the kitchen and tending to the kids.

Whether working or homemaking or both, women with families simply can't easily get out for hours and hours on a weekday evening.

The whole evening caucus system is always going to work to the detriment of a woman candidate. This simply hasn't come up before because there was no woman running for president.

Among other things that should and must change to accomodate women, it's the caucus system -- which seems pretty antiquated, anyhow.

Joan Walsh writes:

"Hillary Clinton threw 'the kitchen sink' at Barack Obama, and her negativity paid off big time. She won Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, by large margins in two of three states, while losing Vermont."

I guess winning 187 delegates to Obama's 183 could be seen as winning big time somewhere in the universe, but on Planet Reality I'd call it "barely eking out a bigger delegate count" or, more elegantly, "dodging a campaign-ending bullet."

And she's still too far behind in delegates to win. Big victory!

PghMike: As a fellow attorney, HRC, et. al clearly understands the difference between black letter law and the "spirit " of the law --obviously we would not be having this discussion if she played fair in the first instance - not on ballots. It is clear, the rules only apply when they are or she perceives they should be in her favor. HRC gives less than a rat's ass about the FLA/MI citizens - they are but a means to an end - premised on her & Bill's activities via the old and tired black - brown debate - when the blacks would not come out to "play" - HRC found her some "new negroes" (come on - get the sarcasm). Rules only applies if HRC is ahead -- if not she is "morally outraged" and turns into the "consumate Rocky fighter" I will fight for you, yada , yada. e,g. caucus challenge in Nevada; primary vs caucus threat of Texas litigation; and NOW the great granddaddy of them all - FLA and MI.

Why don't we let HRC have her way -seat the delegates, declare her the winner - and the ultimate "mentor" for Obama as HER VP (HRC is bright - she needs his votes & obviously he has a lot to learn at her feet. Of course, Bill will graciously contribute his part to the "miseducation" of the naive - "just words" Hope guy - and then, in Eight years - he will be "ready" - That is for all the writers who would love a "dream ticket" with HRC on top --and already the stage is being set - if the Hope guy declines - he is arrogant, ungrateful (after all white America, the media, the party "allowed" him his day - Now back to the end of the line!!). What a day in America.

Finally as to tuckered Pup: Your thoughts are wonderful, analytical and would work BUT FOR dishonesty; HRC's campaign position; swiftboating; outside campaigners; the state machines, the DNC, the state parties, etc. In my judgment, it would be like asking the Hope guy to "voluntarily" lose an arm (already at a disadvantage given the HRC early and of late maneuvers, Clinton name recognition; HRC's campaigning style/ negative ads) before being thrown in shark infested waters - with the blood spouting; and ultimately being told he cannot complain about the outcome. Now having said that, I believe, as Americans we should be honest, stop the bleeding -negativity (is he Muslim - is he going to overthrow America - is he black, yada, yada) - stop pretending - we really are complacent - we "bitch & moan " about change - but we do not want to change here or our reputation in the world - we continue to disrespect other cultures/beliefs - we are all about others conforming to our ideals - even if we can not personally reach them- So at the end of the day, the beat goes on!!!

tmross: "Astonishingly, no one has seemed to figure out why Obama does so well at caucuses -- even in Texas where Hillary was a clear favorite"

It could be that Obama's supporters are much more enthusiastic, or it could be that Obama tends to attract more votes in urban centers where the caucuses occur (Obama is the primary choice among both minorities and the well-educated).

tmross: "But everybody has missed the point --that women, who are Hillary's strongest supporters, find it much more difficult to get out in the evening. They're clearing up in the kitchen and tending to the kids."

Now this is hilarious. It almost sounds sexist.

tmross: "Among other things that should and must change to accomodate women, it's the caucus system -- which seems pretty antiquated, anyhow."

It is truly too late to complain about the caucus system. Anybody who has ever watched a Democratic primary should already be well aware of it and how it works. The time to complain about it would have been long before these elections.

Anglophile: "Hillary Clinton threw 'the kitchen sink' at Barack Obama, and her negativity paid off big time. She won Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, by large margins in two of three states, while losing Vermont.""

Thank you for pointing out how inaccurate Joan Walsh (and many others on Salon, including Rebecca Traister) have been in decalring Hillary's performance in Texas as a "win." It was a primary win, not a delegate win. It may even be a delegate loss, which in the grand scheme of things can be summed up as a loss.