The Leaders of the Democratic Party seem to have a penchant for creating division. It's the voters stupid, should be their new mantra.

The DNC and other party leaders should think before they open their mouths, "how will what I say effect the electorate".

That is why I say, even though I have been for Obama all along, respect has to be given to the Clinton campaign, especially her supporters.

Candidates and elected officials represent the will of the people. In that sense, it's not about them, it's about those who elect them.

Right now, to me, the most important thing for all party members is respect for intra-party opposition.

Let's be respectful of all the Clinton campaigners by letting the rest of primary voters vote. It is only 4 more weeks left to the primary season. Let their voices be heard, let them have their ownership of this process.

When people perceive that Party leaders think that not every voters voice matters, that's what makes people think that their vote doesn't count for much. That's why we don't have every potential voter actually vote.

Sen. Clinton must let the voters vote before she says it is over.

The DNC et.al. should redesign the whole primary season so that it engenders maximum participation.

Sent by Richard Silva-Stump | 10:11 AM ET | 05-10-2008

Well, I love Bill, like Hillary and dislike BO. I like McCain so I'll end up giving him my vote.

To be fair, I didn't like Bill 'til he played the Sax on Arsenio. If BO can somehow entertain me, I'll give him a second look.

'Till them I'm going with the former PoW. I love having a chance to show the respect that's long overdue.

Sent by Zippy | 4:15 PM ET | 05-11-2008

I could not beliee what I was hearing on NPR Sunday am when I heard Faye Anderson's comments about Hillary Clinton and her supportrs. I then went to her blog to read what she had to say. She presented numbers in such a way as to create an illusion that OB's win in NC was far more impressive than it really was and completely negated HC's win in Indiana. Then she went on to blame the division in the democratic party on Clinton and her supporters. Unbeleivable! No wonder there is such aminosity within the party. It is comments like this that creates the problem. Does she not know how to show respect towards others? Susan Backus

Sent by Susan Backus | 6:13 PM ET | 05-11-2008

A vast majority of voters have already made up their minds if they will vote democrat or republican. In my personal experience, I have never met someone who I would say was a true "swing voter." In November, the Dems have an advantage that most of the press seems to have overlooked. The drawn out primaries have allowed a huge number of voters to meet Obama and Clinton, giving them a sense of personal investment in the candidates. Normaly, in a state like Indiana, we are supposed to be motivated by news reports and a campaign ads. The connection voters feel with Obama and Clinton from having met them or seen them speak in person will motivate them to actually vote in the general election. The Evangelicals that propelled Bush to a second term are going to stay home because they are not invested in McCain.

Sent by Nathan Vanderpool | 7:35 PM ET | 05-11-2008

If the Democartic Party had not messed up Michigan and Florida, we all know Clinton would be winning, as she has won most all of the other big states. So Dean and his pals are trying to choose the candidate for the voters. It make me think he has a secret contract with the Republicans, as he is handling over the election to them

Sent by kelly | 12:45 AM ET | 05-12-2008

This will be the end of the democratic party.
The working class such as myself, will not support another elite to squander the country's cash-sinking it further into debt.
Myself and the working class are sick and tired of paying taxes to be wasted away-while we do without basic needs such as health care.
Obama will be no different than Bush. Bush took care of the rich.
Obama will take care of the leftist elites who sit in their mansions sipping tea, while imposing huge gas taxes,inadequate public transportation and huge road tolls on the working class.
Once again the working person will pick up the tab for the trendy "You deserve it because you did not educate yourself." Stealing conservatives.
or:
"We cannot give people a gas holiday." That spells no relif for the middle class and more hardship.
I was voting for Hilary-who worked hard for what she obtained.
Now I will vote for MCcain-a working candidate in the middle.
The green movement is nothing more than a scam to be imposed on the working people-hence more sacrificing and worker oppression.

Sent by evelyn adams | 12:03 PM ET | 05-12-2008

"Let's Make a Deal!" Monty Hall circa 1963

It is becoming clear from the Presidential Primaries that Democrats like both candidates, a lot. Public debate on the concept of a "dream ticket" has started, but typically the question is put backwards. It is the VP that makes the offer to give up the chance for the top slot. This much is obvious or there is no deal. So the real question that needs debate and resolution is what should the VP get in return?

Minimally the VP should be a close advisor to the President, like Al Gore in the Clinton administration; maybe a formal administrative position appointment, Secretary of State or Attorney General. But even an "inner circle" VP position falls short of a fair trade. A good deal should have balance.

Consider the current/former British Prime Ministers - Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. To avoid a split party they made a deal. Blair ran for PM first while Brown got the commerce position. Then Blair stepped down so that Brown could lead. In our case, the candidate getting to run for President first, should counter by limiting their own term in office to 4 years and fully promoting their VP to be President for the next two terms. In other words the one who goes first gets four years; the one who goes second gets a shot at eight. Who is best suited to go first is something for the candidates to decide. However, it is possible to at least imagine both candidates going either way and that is an indicator of a good deal.

In the heat of the current campaign, initial response to this deal idea can be negative: "Those two will never work together!" But consider two simple truths: As Democratic Senators these two candidates have worked together repeatedly. Also, as politicians, they will do so again in the future.

But who benefits from a deal? We do - the Democrats and the Nation. Even against a united party, the "Rove political machine" is quite capable of putting John McCain into the White House Nothing less than a "deal based" grand coalition gets us into the proper position to take the White House, makeover the Congress and the put the Nation back on track.

What about after the election? As the country navigates the rocky waters we all worry "may be round the next bend", it will be useful having two respected national figures to inspire, to show the flag, and to urge the public forward. Why not bring John Edwards into the administration? Remember that he was the candidate pounding away about the economy back when the rest were still debating the Iraq disaster.

Should this deal put a stop to the primaries yet to be held? No! It may be a fluke that Pennsylvania and the other "late" states get to influence the primaries. But this is a good thing. However, the candidates do need to re aim their artillery pieces to bear upon the past seven years, to illuminate where we went wrong and to show what we need to do to get back on track. Seeing which candidate has the best aim on this target is exactly what Democratic voters need to hear and vote on.

And let's ignore all those pundits that selectively pick through party rules to "prove" that this candidate must win or that one can not. The fact is that either candidate can win this primary. Also either candidate can win the White House. Rules are best set before the contest starts. Trying to color them after the voting begins has little merit. In particular, if super delegates get to vote any way they want, then THOSE ARE THE RULES.

But the real question is what do we want? It's our primary, our election and our country. If a consensus for a dream ticket gathers steam, then we should tell the candidates what the deal is, not ask them. And if one of the candidates refuses to dicker while the other moves to put the interests of the nation in front of their own? Well then, the decision for any super delegate becomes a very simple one indeed.

Let's make a deal.

Mark Selikson
Radnor PA

Sent by mark selikson | 10:33 AM ET | 05-18-2008