But if her campaign tries to change the rules in the middle of the game with regard to the Florida and Michigan delegates  delegates who, according to D.N.C. rules, were supposed to have been off limits to both candidates  then I will no longer support her as the Democratic nominee, and I suspect that I will not be alone.

Alexandra Olins

Winooski, Vt., Feb. 15, 2008



To the Editor:

Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein (Op-Ed, Feb. 15), writing about the superdelegates to the Democratic convention, posit that the superdelegates are more likely than other delegates to transcend emotions to find a reasonable outcome to the Democratic contest, including whether to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida.

But no outcome brought about by the superdelegates other than ratifying an otherwise clear choice of the Democratic electorate will be seen as fair by the loser or his or her supporters unless the candidates have agreed to the role of the superdelegates.

I am a Democrat who above all wants a unified party after the convention. So I propose that Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama agree now that if, at the convention, the pledged delegates for one of them  apart from any delegates from Florida or Michigan  exceed the other’s total by more than 5 percent, the superdelegates should support that candidate; but that if the difference between them in those pledged delegates is less than 5 percent, then the choice of the superdelegates should be respected.

Tom Litwack

New York, Feb. 15, 2008



To the Editor:

In “Superdelegates, Back Off” (Op-Ed, Feb. 10), Tad Devine draws comparisons between the current Democratic nomination race and that of 1984, in which both he and I were involved. My recollection of the circumstances of the 1984 contest varies from that of Mr. Devine in significant degrees.