Rich — a disagreement with your point about Florida and Michigan. I don’t think Clinton’s critics want those states not to seated because they broke DNC rules. I think those critics, also known inside the Democratic party as Obama supporters, don’t want Florida and Michigan seated because they would help Hillary Clinton. The contest in Michigan was useless, but the primary in Florida had both candidates on the ballot, was perfectly straight-up, and Clinton won big — 50 to 33, if I remember correctly. So of course the Obama people don’t want it to count.

And when did Democrats pay much attention to rules when there were claims of disenfranchisement to be made? Remember when Robert Torricelli flamed out in New Jersey, and Democrats wanted to run Frank Lautenberg? Except that the date to change the ballot had passed? Democrats argued that the rules — in this case, the actual law — shouldn’t count, because the people had a right to a choice. There are plenty of other examples.

Now, 1.7 million Democrats voted in Florida. Another 500,000 voted in Michigan. I know what the powers that be in both states have decided, at least so far, but how can a decision stand that would simply not count the votes of 2.2 million Democrats? Especially in a race as close as this one? And especially in a party that went absolutely nuts about 537 votes in Florida just a few years ago? I don’t know how this is going to work out, but I don’t think the Florida and Michigan issues are over. It is beyond belief that in the closest race in history, with every vote critically important, Democrats would not count the votes of 2.2 million Democrats in two big and critical states. And especially over rules that haven’t been all that important to the party in the past.

Unless, of course, I’m wrong.