There is no way around voting again in Florida and Michigan. The state parties should bear the major part of the cost since they put themselves deliberately in that spot.

The Clinton camp cannot be so politically blind as to insist on advantages from the (non-)primaries. They might win the nomination but it would turn off too many Obama supporters in the fall. It just would be political suicide.

On the other hand, the Democrats cannot afford to not seat delegates from Michigan and Florida. As nominating the candidate is the primary responsibility of the delegates, just apportioning half of the delegates to each candidate would amount to pseudo-participation.

As many commentators, I do not foresee that Florida and Michigan will resolve the superdelegate "problem". But instead of the inane ritual of a preprogrammed hoopla: How about an open discussion among superdelegates at the convention on the few issues separating the two camps and on the candidates? Someone wrote that they are leaders, and while I do not think you should leave it to them to hash things out in the legendary "smoke filled rooms" - No smoking anymore in closed rooms! - they should be able to have a decent and honest discussion. Some of the elders like John Lewis could explain to the country how torn they are, and why it is a blessing for the Democratic Party to have two such talented politicians ready to be president.

I know that is a dream as Americans are extremely competitive but it would show the nation and the world that there are RESPONSIBLE politicians in your country.

The world has seen far to few of those these last seven years.

If anyone wants the delegates seated and will sue for it, push to hold a legitimate vote for MI and FLA all over again. Good Luck on the delegates HRC!

I don't think the Clinton team is particularly interested in democracy or fairness -- they just want to win, however they can get there, and if that means supporting flawed elections, they'll do it (and that's certainly been their stance to date, talking about "justice" for the MI and FL voters, when really they're talking about advantage for Clinton -- the "justice" talk only came up once they realized she needed every vote).

I don't expect them to agree to a do-over unless they're dragged to it by the exigencies of the moment, if they can determine they can garner an advantage from it.

And while you talked about the diversity of the states Clinton won, was her electoral base diverse, or was it her usual base: poorer, older, less-educated voters? Did Clinton make new inroads into the electorate, or was it falling back on those voting blocs that have stuck with her. Maybe Clinton's people will calculate that there are enough poor, old, and less-educated voters in MI and FL to give then a win if they risked another vote in those states, but I don't expect them to go there unless they absolutely have to.

And, of course, that would set a precedent for bucking party rules whenever it seems advantageous to do so, which can't bode well for the Democratic Party. Clinton abided by the rules when they suited her, but when things went south for her campaign, she changed her tune. Bad precedent.

"Visiting New Orleans (my first trip since Katrina, I'm sad to say) should keep the right issues at the forefront as I think about how the Democrats move forward."

As if Salon could not have covered the "right issues" in the context of the campaign for the past year. Instead, Salon gave us repeated articles on Obama's racial makeup.

The Democrats are not "moving forward." Clinton's wins are a blow to the party's chances in the fall. Walsh may be correct that the "the Nevada and South Carolina races were arguably nastier," but is that all we expect of the Clintons and Salon, to be better behaved than they were following South Carolina? And is it really progress that Clinton herself is now baiting Obama on religion instead of Bill baiting him on race?

I'm not sure resurrecting the Florida and Michigan primaries will resurrect the Clinton's legitimacy.

But I do believe the fix is in.

It cannot be Florida and not Michigan or vice-versa. Obviously, you will see Hillary supporters embracing a Florida do over and they keep the Michigan delegates too (big surprise there since Obama was not on the ballot), or a Florida do-over which they think favors them without Michigan which would be more even.

Nonetheless, its simple, you want to change the rules mid-primaries, you do it in a way that is even handed -- that means both do-over or neither.

What? This is totally...ner mind..for the record: Finally some "folks" ... "Americans" opened their eyes to Barack Hussein Obama!! How would it sound in a Islamic Country with a name like Christian Max Hitler. Wouldn't the guy question about changing it, before attempting such a feat. HMMMMMMMMM....

It is done in a timely matter. I think the Republicans relish a long, protracted battle for the Democratic nomination. It gives them more time to raise money and for McCain to begin his national campaign. If there is to be a 'do over' of the Florida and Michigan primaries it should be ASAP. Waiting until June or July will only serve to weaken the party.

There's no question they should go again. It would help whoever wins (which I too think would be Obama, but hey, Clinton did have a good showing tonight.) Either way then the Democrats in those states won't be unduly pissed off at the Democratic nominee whomever he or she might be.

As I posted on Walter's article, party elders/leaders need to sit down with Clinton and Obama campaign chairs and co-chairs and leaders in these respective states to develop a strategy regarding these two behemoths. They are too important to ignore and Michigan is a "battleground" state. Florida might also be in play for Democrats this year, given the huge voter turnout among Dems. in their (not supposed to be) primary.

My concern has always been that ignoring these states disenfranchises voters. My stomach does flip-flops when I hear Clinton and her campaign staff say things about "seating" delegates determined in their primaries. But the disenfranchisement issue is one that clearly bothers me.

I don't know what the solution is, other than a "do-over." This I'm sure will p*** off party leaders there, but it will at least solve the delegate issue. I can't believe that the DNC can't find the money to do this. They are raising money hand-over-fist, from what I read and hear. If, OTOH, money is a factor, then there conceivably could be a sharing arrangement: 1/4 = state parties; 1/4 = DNC; 1/4 = Clinton; 1/4 = Obama. Other important players (at least in Michigan) are unions. I'm sure that IAM, AFSCME, SEIU, HERE, UAW have funds available (either through their locals or through the national unions) that could be induced to contribute something toward a "do-over." (I HATE that term...)

RE: Super-delegates. I think you (Joan) and others are worrying way too much about this, propelled by the MSM, which seems to want to fan these flames; this, in turn, just gives fuel to Obama's followers and makes it increasingly difficult to explain how and what these delegates do (not that they would listen, at least not to me...

Super-delegates are LEADERS. I think that we, the voters, can and should encourage these delegates to take their leadership role seriously and responsibly before we arrive in Denver. I believe we will have a nominee before that. For now, I would urge super-delegates to sit tight and let the voters speak.

Oh, and I'm not sure that the only argument that can be made to super-delegates is the number of pledged delegates each candidate has. It has to be a combination of factors that includes this measure, certainly, but that also takes into account popular vote, leadership, ability to get voters out, organization, "battleground" state wins, our country's current state of affairs, both foreign and domestic, and seniority/ party standing, among others.