Remember when those New Hampshire-hating big states rushed to the front of the presidential nominating calendar, fretful that states voting late in the year would have little clout in the election?

Their calculus was wrong, wrong, wrong. Trouble is, what happens now? In an already crazy year, the only answer is something perhaps suitably unprecedented: a Democratic do-over.

Florida and Michigan, you'll recall, defied Democratic National Committee rules and held contests in January. The candidates agreed not to campaign there. The DNC stripped the states of their delegates, rendering the results mathematically meaningless. But symbolically? That's another story.

In Michigan, Hillary Clinton was the only major candidate whose name appeared on the ballot. No surprise that she won - though activists for Barack Obama put up a spirited fight, encouraging supporters to vote as "uncommitted."

Clinton won in Florida too and, despite forgoing a campaign there, jetted in for a surreal victory party on election night. Her campaign now wants the DNC to count the delegates from both states, despite the rules established from the get-go.

All of this, as the DNC might have anticipated in its inability to force an orderly nominating process, has created a messy conundrum.

Does Clinton really want to win the Democratic presidential nomination on the basis of votes seen as contaminated or illegitimate?

Does Obama really want Florida and Michigan's large and enthusiastic blocs of Democratic voters disenfranchised?

Do Democratic supporters of either candidate relish the notion of a general election campaign in which the Republicans can question the very legitimacy of the Democrats' nominating process.

Americans are clearly hungry for a new course, and that should be a huge advantage for the Democrats. Surely they don't want to sour voters on their party or their candidates before the general election even gets going.

DNC rules allow Florida and Michigan to hold caucuses late in the season and have their delegates count - and that's what they should do. As in grade school, those who try to cut in line are not banished but simply sent to the end.

Such a plan would allow the candidates to campaign there fair and square. It would bring out voters in large numbers - including those who presumably stayed home in January, convinced their votes wouldn't count. It would bring attention to two states whose size and diversity - both economic and racial - make them important electoral battlegrounds. And it would be an object lesson to large states that they can play a critical role in the election by voting not first but last.

Practically speaking, the race is so tight that Michigan and Florida contests at the very end of the line could be a deciding factor, surely a more appealing thought than a insiders' fight over super-delegates.

Obama, obviously, has more to gain from this sort of effort, but Clinton should quickly embrace it too.

The bitter taste of the 2000 presidential contest has yet to disappear. No good can come of yet another disputed election.