I didn't like disgreeing with Digby a while back, and this is a lot easier for me to get on board with this revised take on the "unauthorized" Michigan and Florida primaries:

Since legitimacy is a problem with this whole thing and I've heard talk of "marching in the streets all the way to Denver" I think we can assume that seating those delegates in a way that would tip the results is a non-starter. So, I'm for a new election. It's not that difficult.

And the DNC should be taken to the woodshed for doing this. The Democratic Party "sending a message" about "rules" by refusing to count votes in Florida is simply mindboggling. They should have found another way.

*Before any of you start calling me a Hillary shill and claiming that I'm doing this because I'm on her payroll, please read this post in its entirety and note that I believe the party should hold new primaries. It would be the most legitimate tie breaker possible with and probably offer the winner a real mandate. It would certainly be better than having a bunch of fat cats make the decision. So hold your fire. This isn't about advocating for a particular candidate. Somebody needs to keep their eye on something other than this interminable pie-fight.

The earlier parts of the piece point out that Florida Democrats didn't have a choice—their Republican-controlled legislature set the primary date for them, and they pleaded for mercy because they couldn't change it. This should, of course, provoke sympathy. But also consider:

• Are the Democrats going to let any state controlled by Republicans move the Democratic primaries into January? Or December? Or November? Is the DNC obliged to let the GOP set all of its primary dates?

• It's important because Florida is a big state, and the candidates would have spent tens of millions of dollars campaigning there. It would have taken attention away from South Carolina and Nevada, which would have made them move their primaries up, moving New Hampshire up, moving Iowa up, etc., etc. The entire point of these rules is to stop primares from moving further back. The DNC described a punishment for states that did it anyway. Florida did it anyway—even if the GOP did it to the Democrats. The alternative is to let the GOP start the Democratic primary season whenever it wants.

• This sad story of GOP malfeasance does not apply to Michigan, which went for an early primary anyway and now wants forgiveness so it can do it again in four years, forcing New Hampshire to December, etc., etc.

• If the people of Florida are disenfranchised by this, they have a clear solution: vote the idiot legislators who did it to them out of office forever. If Florida's citizens get rid of these yahoos, the party apparatchiks in every other state will learn not to move their primaries too early.

• I agree that new elections are the best solution, provided that the DNC makes it abundantly clear that this solution will not be offered or accepted after 2008. It's no solution if the GOP makes the DNC spend millions on new elections by moving them before the primary date, too.

• Perhaps a few states with very solidly blue legislatures should consider setting the dates of the Republican primaries before their deadlines and see how well that goes over, too.

I'm unhappy about what's going on with Michigan and Florida, too, but if everyone caves in like Michigan and Florida's planners expected, the primary season will get earlier and earlier, and by 2020 we'll know the two party candidates by July 2019. It has to stop. States that keep moving primaries earlier must be punished for this, and states that had it forced on them by the other party need to work to make sure that the other party is punished somewhere else. It would be nice if Ohio and California lost their GOP delegations in 2012 for similar reasons, wouldn't it?