I  see   diminishing  returns  in the  Obama  "magic."    

He's doing this because the rules committee favors Clinton.  Of the 28 members, 12 already support Clinton, 7 support Obama.  Several others support Clinton they just haven't made official endorsements.  She may not have a majority on the credentialing committee as the Dean contingency sides with the Obama committee, but neithe can get a majority decision from the credentials committee, but CLINTON has the majority on the Rules committee which rules on whether or not a plan is accepted.  He will never get a caucus.  If Florida wants a primary, it looks like she could get it.

1.  Do we know what Obama's cash on hand is right now?  Have all his small donors been tapped out?

2.  How is it going to play for the candidate who is "above all this politicking" to be calling in the DOJ or bringing in the lawyers?  Excellent article in (I think) the NY Times the other day about how Obama loses when he looks like a politician.

3.  What are the networks going to say?  I see that Oberman is going to spend his time tonight scolding Clinton.  Wonder why he's not going to scold Obama for stopping a democratic vote?

4.  Has Dean commented on any of this?

5.  How does the statement from Obama-man Alcee Hastings from last night (claiming the congressional districts don't support a revote) impact this?

His refusal to recognize the importance of counting the votes in these two major states where millions of Democrats voted, could end up being a COLLOSAL MISTAKE if and when the process moves forward to have the voting take place anyway.

If by then he manages to alienate enough voters, MAYBE, just maybe Hillary Clinton can achieve an unexpected blowout by a large enough margin that allows her to catch up in pledged delegates by the time Puerto Rico is done voting later in June.

If he would just cut his losses right now and move to have the voting before there is too much resentment against him, he would never lose the pledged delegate lead.  But instead, they are going down a very dangerous path.

This is the only realistic way that has emerged for Obama to "blow it" when it comes to pledged delegates.

No redo in Florida.
...
Here's how you seat them -- you cut them in half for breaking the rules, like the GOP did, and then you assign them 50/50 each to Obama and Clinton. Presto! Issue solved.

What the Clinton campaign needs to do is make a clear, emphatic statement in favor of re-dos, with using the original primaries only as a back-up, coming from Hillary's own mouth.

• seating delegates as is is unfair (not because it's unfair to Obama but because it's potentially unfair to voters who didn't vote). But, yes, it's also unfair to Obama.

• 50/50 split is unfair (not because it's unfair to Clinton but, again, because it's unfair to voters). But, yes, it would also be unfair to Clinton.

Wasn't another part of Plouffle's comments that any reseating of FL and MI delegates should not be based on the prior (implies any) vote tallies, but simply a 50-50 split.

It's unreasonable to think that some FL & MI delegates won't be seated at the convention.  How does he expect to get them there?

Certain activities of political parties are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5. A change affecting voting effected by a political party is subject to the preclearance requirement: (a) If the change relates to a public electoral function of the party and (b) if the party is acting under authority explicitly or implicitly granted by a covered jurisdiction or political subunit subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5. For example, changes with respect to the recruitment of party members, the conduct of political campaigns, and the drafting of party platforms are not subject to the preclearance requirement. Changes with respect to the conduct of primary elections at which party nominees, delegates to party conventions, or party officials are chosen are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5. Where appropriate the term "jurisdiction" (but not "covered jurisdiction") includes political parties.

Just in case there is any doubt, section 51.12 provides (in remarkably plain English):

Any change affecting voting, even though it appears to be minor or indirect, returns to a prior practice or procedure, ostensibly expands voting rights, or is designed to remove the elements that caused objection by the Attorney General to a prior submitted change, must meet the Section 5 preclearance requirement.

"Preclearance" essentially means you have to make a formal submission to the DOJ and give them 60 days to object if they find the change would be discriminatory in purpose or effect.