Florida.  They had a primary.  Clinton won. The Democratic Party said that it did not count.  So, here is their problem. They could say say:

(1) We are sorry, it really did count.  In this case, Obama has a real beef in that he followed the rules while Clinton made a last minute appeal for Florida votes, saying that she would work had to seat the Florida delegation.

(2) Recognizing the polarizing effect of that decision, they could say that Florida deserves a "do over."  Now, Clinton has a beef.  She won the primary and they are going to take it away.  What hppened to the "will of the people."

(3) The party could hold fast to their original position, but that will never happen because nothing could do more to hand Florida to the Republicans in the General Election than to disenfranchise the entire state.  Heck, it might even allow the Green Party  or Libertarians to grow.  I can imagine how Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney would play this.  I am sure that the Democratic Party does not want Florida to be decided, once again, in court.

Now, repeat all of the above in Michigan.

Add Florida to Clinton's side, which the pundits fail to do, and you have a very different picture.

So, you have a very different view and, just like the Super Delegates, is is all in the back room and never in the hands of the voters.  What will Obama's young supporters do if they see back room deals take it all away?

Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US

Given the circumstance of the tight delegate count, it would be both practical and civil for the DNC and the two candidates to request Florida and Michigan to have another Democratic primary.  The state officials may have to eat a little crow, seeing that their states will still be important and there was no need to push up their primary dates against the decree of the DNC.  But they should not mind, after all; no one should mind, in fact, if there is more campaigning in those states prior to the general election.

As for the possibility of John Edwards' endorsing one or the other, I see no purpose in that at this point, unless it is part of a deal by which Edwards is promised the VP slot or something else he might want.  We Edwards supporters who already voted were as confused as he himself is reported as being.  We either forced ourselves to make up our minds at the last minute; or we copped out, seeing Edwards' name still on the ballot (as was the case in many places), and choosing fecklessly to vote for him anyway.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Clinton can offer Obama a guaranteed endorsement and support for 2012.  What can Obama offer Clinton to get her to give up the fight?  Not sure, but it would have to be good.

   Clinton will also make the argument (and has indeed begun to do so) that many of the states Obama won were won in caucuses.  That caucuses are not democratic, and are not indicative of a candidates ability to carry the state in a general election.  That in terms of primary states, she is actually doing quite well (up until now).

   She may also point out that winning caucus voters is not much different from winning super-delegates votes (Obama must be careful to "win" the super-delegates without alienating them.)

   The Democrats best hope (in some ways) is for one of the candidates to surge and knock the other out.  Clearly.  Cleanly (as much as possible, and there is plenty of mud on both sides at this point).

   Whatever happens, they need a situation in which the loser joins the winner on the platform, promises to endorse and campaign for, and does so joyfully.  Otherwise, McCain gains ground.

   If they are deadlocked, what does each of them offer to the other to lose?

patrick in Beijing