In the run up to the primary it was made clear that those opposed to Senator Clinton should cast uncommitted votes. Why not just give him the uncommitted votes -- that's more than generous since it would be giving him Edwards' votes too.

We've been blasting the caucus system all season. Why should it be okay now? Because it favors Obama? Fewer voters participate in caucuses than primaries. They are far less likely to accurately reflect the views of all the registered voters in the state.

Either (1) seat the Florida delegates and hold a new primary in Michigan or (2) redo both.

It will be resented by those who already voted.  I've heard that from the horses mouth, both on blogs and people I know personally.  They made the effort the first time, so a second chance (at a primary--NO caucuses) would be an inconvenience and would essentially disenfranchise their first vote.  

I hadn't thought of that.  It's a very good point.  Even if the previous votes in Florida and Michigan should not count from the point of view of fairness (which we really don't need to argue about any more), it may actually be in Obama's interest to do it this way.

Now that the MSM has picked up on this story can she bring the above points to light without looking like she's trying to break/change the rules?  

Look, It's Very Simple and
A Modest Proposal

Having Michigan in play again could be interesting.  Looks good for the party.  I mean, what kind of party gets it together enough to really make sure an election is fair?  Image points there I think.  I also think it's ironic that each candidate has so much money, yet there's so much squabbling over who will fund these redos.  

That possibility can very much undermine Obama's entire candidacy, because if you add back in to the overall result anything like the sorts of results we have already seen in FL and MI, then Hillary gets tremendously close to Obama's current position. Ultimately, including results from FL and MI, even in a do-over, could make or break his position.

In general, democracy pushes very hard toward accepting delegates from FL and MI, and Obama's electoral prospects push very hard in the opposite direction.

Somehow, even though the Obama campaign has not of late said much one way or the other about seating the FL and MI delegates, I just have a feeling that the move to seat them is ultimately going to meet with some very hard opposition from Obama.

Florida has issues with their vote not being counted. For a candidate to come out in favor of every vote counting even if he loses....Huge, HUGE brownie points for Obama if he comes out strong in favor of a revote. It also gives him a chance for Florida voters to meet him which will close the gap from the January primary tremendously.

Plus, doesn't back up her the general argument that she won these states?  Because anyone who offers half does so because they think they'd lose both.

He might suggest that the Edwards delegates in FL be either sent as uncommitted, or that they be split between the two of them.

Here's what he wrote recently in OpenLeft:

"Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change."
He then goes on to say, "I'll work hard to help elect him, but I also don't intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President."

You can't make this stuff up.

.....it shows a more magnanimous and graceful brand of politics than the win-at-all-costs mania we're witnessing from the Clinton camp......

my, what an arrogant twit. gee, i guess poor old sen. obama is trying to get along as best he can, no overweening ambition there boy!

you know what? tough cookies! both clinton and obama abided by the DNC rules in FL & MI. the results are what they are. if obama doesn't like it, too bad, he can drop out in protest.