To go back and repair this blunder by the party big-wigs in these two states will require a small miracle. Both candidates agreed to adhere to the party rules, i.e. there will be no counting of delegates from these states. Now, Hillary, the big-wigs from the republican party (FL) and a Hillary partisan in MI are calling for a re-do. For this to happen the party and both candidates will have to agree on If, When and How. The cost of any re-do should be placed on the two states.

Another suggested alternative would be to seat the delegations based on ratios established between the two candidates after all caucuses and primaries have been decided.

What's good for the Goose (Hillary) is good for the Gander (Joan Walsh and Salon)!

These are adults that went into this situation with their eyes open.They KNEW if they changed their date they would not be seated. That was THEIR choice. Now they regret their decision? Is not our problem.

Hell no!!! they should not have voted the first time. Obama,Osama, what the hells the difference ,all the candidates suck!

Hi again from Sarkozy County,

Just a reminder about the supers (and *to* the supers). The "super system" was never intended to go against popular vote. It was intended to prevent our Party to drift too much towards the liberal left. Today our two contenders are both centrists, and Barack more so than Hillary.

Which, incidentally, is why I sometimes feel wierd supporting Barack, as I consider myself a radical. My Mom and Dad are both Deadheads, no way you can get over that ;-))) Especially when Lesh, Weir and Hart get together again to play a "Deadheads for Obama" gig. For those who missed it, that was at the Warfield in SF on 02/04. And Barack lost CA.....

Anyway, the Party and the USA don't face any "leftist threat" anymore. So the "super system" has to go or be radically changed. If we want supers, then let them be pledged dels. They vote as their congressional district did and everyone is happy.

But do we still need supers ? I think we don't. They've outlived their original purpose.

Even in 84 The result of the national election would have been the same without the supers. They chose Mondale over Hart. And then Mondale lost 59-41 and carried only his home state. Hart would have lost 61-39 and carried only his home state just the same. So why bother ? We don't need the supers, actually we never needed them.

Let's get back to our roots : popular vote is what counts.

Leaving aside the real issue here, which is that states should not be allowed to break party rules with impunity, I'd like to address the folks who say we should just count Michigan as-is.

On the one hand, you claim to be oh-so-concerned about the right of the people to have their vote counted, and on the other hand you say that it's just tough noogies that none of the voters had a chance to vote for Obama. This very clearly illustrates your hypocrisy, and your true motives. Essentially, you are saying that only the people who voted for Hillary deserve to have their votes count. When Obama removes his name, it's "rules are rules." When the DNC wants to enforce their rules, it's "disenfranchisement."

As far as pissing off half of Floridians and Michiganders, is that worse than pissing off half the Democrats in the entire country?

A revote is the fairest way to resolve this issue. Asking the DNC to pay for it is like asking the referee to pay your fine when you flagrantly foul your opponent in the NBA.

That would actually be kind of cool. Could they get ready to do it just before Memorial day? Their delegates chosen in the forbidden early primaries and "contested" only by Hilary Clinton because the other candidates were sticking with the Party's decision, should NOT be seated under those circumstances. They broke the rules, and based on what has turned out to be false premises. Maybe Obama and Hilary could donate some of their campaign money to help fund a Re-Do.

Bill Lamb

"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." Tmross were you even thinking when you wrote this. You might not realize it but its now the 21 century.

I live in one of those states that had a caucus, due to really bad planning and massive turnout. We had to caucus outside in barely 20 weather with the wind blowing then rain and finally snow. Those women that you said that were home clearing up the kitchen and tending to their kids. Well, actually they were standing in the freezing cold with their kids. So Tmross next time you speak, be careful not to open mouth and insert foot.

First, the votes should count!

Hillary respected the voters of Michigan and Florida by remaining on the ballot. Obama choose not to be on the ballot. So who is playing politics? I want to support a candidate who is there for me no matter what the obstacle.

A candidate of change would not ignore the voters.

All candidates made the decision on supporting the voters of Michigan and Florida by making the effort to be on the ballot.

Second, are we a third world country where we need an outside country monitor a free and fair elections?

Since all of the candidates were not represented on the MI ballot, I agree it is only fair to give Sen. Obama a shot at grabbing those delegates if MI voters feel they can afford another primary - and I do mean primary, not caucus. I'm certain though, after the vociferous stance he and his supporters have made against including them, he may have shot himself in the foot should a do-over happen. But, Florida has already voted.

I voted for John Edwards in the closed FL primary and though my candidate was not the "chosen one," I at least got to have my say. A do-over here, at our state's expense, should not even be considered. The FL vote should stand as is.

The fact none of them campaigned here is not relevant. Not only did Sen. Obama run television ads here and fundraise here, he was the "media darling." Trust me, we knew who he was. The implication that our choice was somehow ill-informed is pretty insulting. We are not, after all, cut-off from mainstream society! We have the same television, radio, newspapers, and internet access as everyone else. That Sen. Obama was not ready on day one with a message other than "Change You Can Believe In" back then, should not be a reason to vote again. Now that he's had plenty time to fine-tune his message with a chance at being the presumptive nominee, the "Change You Can Believe In" slogan really seems hollow. Here's an interesting Tampa Bay article about the seating of FL delegates that was written back in September 2007:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking - from then to now, sounds like politics as usual to me.

If Sen. Obama continues to fight to disenfranchise millions of people in the name of making "history," that "history" will be forever tainted and branded "revisionist" because not ALL the people had a say. As a Black woman in America, I've had enough of tainted and revisionist history. I would think most of us have as well.