Well, that's another fine mess you've gotten us into

What to do about Florida & Michigan? It's all the talk of the Democratic party these days. The conundrum is centering around Hillary's inability to close ranks on Obama's delegate lead. Her only hope is to try to force the primaries of Michigan and Florida to count. Of course this would only favor her, and give her a boost past Obama. But is it fair to count an election where in one case, the only name on the ballot is Hillary Clinton, and in the other, people were told not to bother voting because it wouldn't count?

In Michigan, the rules were not to file to put your name on the ballot, and not to campaign there. Hillary, while not campaigning there, got her name on the ballot. No other Democratic candidate did. So to count this election would be akin to the likes of Saddam Heussein in his last election, or Fidel Castro in his. Having only one name on the ballot doesn't mean the person with the most votes, (or the only person with votes), is who the voters really wanted. It was their only choice. That's not democracy.

I guess you could work out a deal where Obama gets all the people who voted for "Uncommitted", but I'm sure some of them were John Edwards or Kucinich supporters, and they'd balk at the idea that Obama would get their vote. So the only fair solution, besides sticking to the rules set out for it not to count, would be for a re-vote. It seems the best and easiest way would be mail-in ballots.

In Florida, we have a slightly different scenario. All the major candidates were on the ballot, but nobody (excluding a private function with Hillary) campaigned there. In fact, the turnout in Florida was one of the lowest percentage turnout so far in the primaries. People were told not to bother voting because it wouldn't count. So does that sound fair to suddenly turn around and count them? It seems like to do so would disenfranchise a large number of voters who would then feel like they were hoodwinked in to not voting.

Again, short of sticking to the rules and not counting Florida at all, the only fair solution is to hold another re-vote. Again, the easiest way to do that would be mail-in ballots.

Of course this could all be avoided if Hillary would just admit she has been defeated. We could get on with the battle against John McCain, and not risk our chance of winning the White House. But the Clinton's have never been ones to play fair, and let things die. And now I'm beginning to understand the reason why the Republican's HATED Bill Clinton so much.

Hillary is a monster, and we all know it. She is risking the White House for the Democrats by playing dirty to defeat Obama. She still believes if she injures Obama badly enough, she can clinch the nomination. But by doing so, she will have turned off so many of the new voters that have been brought in to this election by Obama. And I'm sure she's okay with that, as long as she believes she can still defeat McCain.

The problem that Hillary doesn't want to face, is that she's not going to win. And, like George W Bush, she doesn't want to see the reality, but instead futilely fight on. Even if she wins Florida and Michigan, like Texas and Ohio, her margins would most likely be too small to give her any net gain. And by the time the DNC figures out how to fix this mess, any "momentum" she might claim from those victories will be too late for anyone to notice except maybe some of her most die-hard super-delegates.

Give up Hillary. Save some face, and keep the Clinton legacy somewhat intact. If you play nice now, maybe YOU could be on the ticket as VP.