There must be a solid reason for him to be fighting so hard to keep these states out of play in the race for the nomination.  Is the popular vote metric that much more important?

And I think it is far to late for Obama to heal any rifts in these states, especially FL.  There are protests all around the country going on (I think) tomorrow about the media sexism and about the situation with FL and MI.  Obama has let this problem sit out there so long that it's starting to be defined as another example of his sexism toward Clinton.

Remember, this man has never run a truly contested contest.  His method of winning is pretty much slash and burn, right down to having his opponents removed from the ballot.

I think he legitimately believes the outcome of those two primaries was not accurate (because no campaigning was permitted and he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan), and therefore legitimately believes that seating those delegations in their entirety, based solely on those votes, would be unfair.  There were supporters of all three major candidates who stayed home because they were told it wouldn't count, Democrats and Dem-leaning independents in Michigan who voted in the Republican primary there to make a little mischief, and all of their preferences of course weren't reflected in the vote.

Having said that, I have no problem with seating all pledged delegates and superdelegates in their entirety, provided that Obama is assigned the bulk(if not all) of the uncommitted Michigan superdelegates, since exit polling suggests about 70% of the uncommitted voters would have supported him if his name were on the ballot.  That is the bare minimum "compromise" required to make such a seating legitimate in my eyes(and in the eyes of many Obama supporters).  Award Obama at least 70% of the 55, or at least 38.  That's it.  Then Clinton can get her 178 pledged delegates and Obama will get at least 105.

I'm not completely in the tank for her.  I know she's done that because she's been forced there by circumstance and history, but what matters to me now is not the why or the how, but the fact of it - as it makes her a very, very attractive general election candidate.  

The DNC has said that FL and MI delegates will be seated. Clinton needs the delegates from those states, and believes that those delegates would affect the outcome of the nomination in her favor.  That is why she wants them to be considered legitimate, as is, and that is why she is "fighting."

Obama is betting that no one will have the nerve to call him an illegitimate nominee if FL and MI are not counted properly. He also thinks he can distribute enough kool-aid to still win MI, and is convinced he does not need FL at all.  

He's not going to do anything but mouth platitudes about how he is sure the delegates will be seated at the convention. Of course they will, but they will not count.

who gives a darn about the outrageous, unfair and ridiculous Democratic nomination process which needs to be completely overhauled anyway?

That right there is why this conversation about what license those bad little state parties will do in 4 years is so ridiculous.  If the last 6 months have shown us anything, it's that the Democrats' current "system" of choosing a nominee needs a full-on overhaul.

Your quibble is that the delegations will not be seated exactly as the Clinton campaign wants them to be.  Namely 67 delegates for Obama out of the two states, and no more.  

That's why they and their candidate (Obama) don't care about FL/MI.  People will forget when faced with the ugly notion of electing yet another Republican...right?

There isn't anything we can do to get them to care.  And the "sweeties" will come around, they always do.

And THAT without question affected the outcome of this election.

Do you seriously think that if the RULZ committee agrees to fully seat the FL & MI delegations (with all voting & participation rights fully restored) that other states will heave a sigh of relief and think -- "OH, that sounds like fun.  Let's do ours in December next time".

In other words, I think the RULZ committee punished those states and they were wildly successful.  We've all learned that lesson:  Iowa and New Hampshire are supreme.

Why does anyone think the VOTERS require further punishment?

I'm pretty convinced that is what the OC is afraid of. That the ACTUAL RULE WILL BE ENFORCED rather than Brazille and Dean's ad hoc rule.

Read the rule for yourself, it is here:

DNC Primary Rules

The relevant passages are page 12 Rule 11, pg 20 Rule 20 section C(1)a and C(1)b.

Check out Pg. 3 Rule 2 Sec. E. also.

But the problem is that she is doing so most fundamentally because she is demonstrating in a very real way both that Obama does not have legitimacy as a nominee, and that he is intensely disliked by vast swaths of the electorate.

You see, the real problem is not that Hillary has unfairly criticized Obama -- because, face it, the truly damaging episodes in the past few months (Wright, Ayers, Obama's debate performance, Bittergate) were entirely of Obama's own doing -- but rather that, as things have unfolded, Obama's claim on the nomination has become more and more obviously spurious.

What Obama supporters can't stand is that he's being embarrassed by being thumped hard in election after election; that he's going to lose the popular vote; that he's looking more and more as if he is unelectable.

In short, what Clinton is doing is nothing more than exposing his actual weaknesses, through the natural course of the elections, without making any criticisms (especially of late) that could possibly be said to be unfair to him.

The FL and MI situation only aggravates this problem for Obama. Hillary points out the obvious: that is only fairer, and more democratic, to count those votes than not to count them. Obama, to keep the nomination, insists that it is not, making obvious how his own naked ambition trumps democracy for him -- further weakening his perception in the eyes of most voters.

And Obama's supporters absolutely don't want his character faults exposed like this, where he has to make hard choices of ambition over democracy.

So what are they afraid of?

They seem to be desperately trying to maintain the largest possible gap with Clinton while simulataneously trying to force her from the race as soon as possible. I'm wondering if they are afraid of an event that will move large numbers of super delegates away from Obama. Under this scenario, they can't allow the race to tighten if they are to have any hope of weathering the storm.

Do they know something we don't?

Is that why the Clinton campaign seems so relaxed?

This isn't an emergency.  The rules committee is meeting at the end of the month and FL/MI's punishment will be finalized then.  There is no good reason for Obama to make this a big issue.  

1. the RBC imposing any penalty whatsoever, even if it's only imposed on the FL and MI supers?
   
2. the RBC formally assigning any of the uncommitted Michigan pledged delegates to Obama?

Any decision which gives him nothing out of Michigan while giving Clinton all of her FL and MI pledged and supers will be seen as illegitimate by the majority of Obama supporters.

This is NOT a minor issue for them.

[For Obama, enlarging the pool of voters who turn out in November is crucial. Not only will he face stiff competition from presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, who appeals to independents and conservative Democrats, but he has had trouble winning support in the primaries from lower-income white voters, Catholics, Latinos and Jews, which are potentially decisive groups in several of the big battleground states.....

Showing that he has a plan to compete in Florida also addresses a shorter-term concern, as Obama still must win undecided party insiders, or "superdelegates," in order to clinch the nomination.....

To broaden his base in such states, Obama strategists are scouring consumer marketing data for young people, women, African Americans and other liberal-leaning potential supporters who can be added to the voter rolls......

In the fall, the campaign will target high school seniors, many of whom will be 18 by election day, and will work to ensure that college students are properly registered so they can vote while at school.....

Volunteers with clipboards are being instructed to target black and Latino churches for voter registration. Also on the Obama list are registered voters who have a history of not turning out, with a special emphasis on under-40 Republicans and female Republicans. That is territory sought in 2004 by President Bush's reelection campaign, but strategists believe McCain will not have the same appeal.....

Obama strategists hope that finding new voters can make up for any lasting deficits in Florida.]

1. The credentials committee agrees to let the votes stand as is or order a revote (I assume despite so called calendars there is time for this) then Hillary and, more imporatntly, the FL/MI votes, will be happy. SO FL and MI count fully.

2. May 31 doesn't fully count FL and MI but Obama has such a big lead in delegates and popular vote that it wouldn't matter anyway. In which case Hillary has no case to make. FL and MI can't claim their votes didn't count as counting them wouldn't have made any difference. They will still feel aggrieved, though, which is BTD's point here.

3. May 31 doesn't fully count FL/MI but Obama's eventual delegate lead (pledged+SDs) is small enough thst HRC would have been the nominee counting FL and MI fully. This is the killer scenario. No way should HRC accept this and, even if she does, enough of her supporters will feel the election was stolen and refuse to vote for Obama. Not to mention that FL and MI voters will be enraged even more that their votes would have made the difference but were excluded. There is no satisfactory outcome for the Dems with this scenario.

Which obviously is BAD, because the CONTEST is so OVER.  Right.

1.  This is exactly how he won his seat in Illinois - using the "rules" to kick his competitors off the primary ballot. (Chicago Tribune 4/4/07, http://tinyurl.com/3leuum).

2. He took his name off the Michigan ballot not because of the rules (they did not require it), but because he knew that he would probably lose the state and that it would be better for none of the candidates to get any votes than for him to lose.  A pure political decision.

3. He could have, at any time during the past months. argued that the two states should be included.  He didn't.

4. He refused to help fund a revote, although he had the money, and Hillary was willing to take her chances in both states.  

This is not a matter of a stupid decision but a question of character.  Would Hillary have acted similarly if their positions were reversed?  I hope not, but I don't know.  What we do know is how Obama has acted.

On March 13, 2008, NPR interviewed Clinton, reporting:

Hillary Clinton says the results [in Michigan] should count, even if Barack Obama's name did not appear on the ballot. "That was his choice... There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted."... Clinton [says] that the Michigan and Florida pledged delegates should count because both are seen as key battleground states in the general election. But if the national party does not agree, she says, the states should re-do the primaries.[23]

When pressed by NPR, Clinton said "We all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary, and most people took their name off the ballot but I didn't."[23] Critics have labeled Clinton's actions as dishonest, and charged her with trying retroactively to change the rules for her own benefit.[24][25][26]
----------------
On September 7, 2007 Clinton pledges not to campaign or "participate" in the Michigan primary.

On March 13, 2008 "we all had a CHOICE to participate"

If this is'nt dishonest then i don't know what is...this is'nt the first time that Clinton has taken advantage of the perceived ignorance of voters, especially given the scope of the internet in divulging enunciations from the past, including the Bosnia flap, which her husband flubbed horrendously.

Perhaps this is one of reasons for her trustworthiness problem among Democrats.

**
NHPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858
****

Very hard to explain away the comments above or the comments here by Clinton herself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

spoken with fairness and acknowledgement of her previous pledge until her inevitability vanished in South Carolina...it seems clear that Hillary was of the opinion that she would'nt need Michigan anyway.

National polling indicated that by Feb 5th the contest would simply be over and Michigan would be irrelevant...her campaign was prepared for a coronation, not the dogfight that began with Iowa...after each crisis: South Carolina, Super Tuesday, Obama's 11, North Carolina and now Oregon, Clinton has resorted to raising the MI/FL issue...

A primary where the single viable candidate competes against herself strains credibility regardless if the Michigan Democratic Party urged supporters of Richardson, Biden, Edwards and Obama to vote uncommitted so their votes would count...

why Richardson, Biden, Edwards, and Obama elected to remove their names (in deference to Iowa and New Hampshire) is less important than why Clinton kept hers on with the caveat that Michigan "won't count for anything".

"It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot," she said.---10/11/2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html

She figured she was inevitable.

This is true, and it's also true that in November Michigan and Florida will be important states whose voters should be given consideration and not be offended, which is the moral claim that Clinton has used to justify her arguments. But it's odd that it didn't occur to the Clinton team to dispute the RBC's treatment of the two states until after she saw she wasn't invincible, rather than in August 2007.

Leaders in both states were warned repeatedly that continued defiance of the DNC could result in at least 50 percent or even 100 percent of any delegates awarded from a primary held in violation of the calendar being "stripped," i.e., excluded from voting at the convention. Not quite believing that the DNC would follow through, neither budged. Then, on August 25, 2007, the RBC found Florida in noncompliance of its rules. The state was given thirty days to amend its decision, but again did nothing. Since other states were at the time angling to get in on the early voting--you may recall that Iowa and New Hampshire threatened to move theirs to December 2007 in order to remain first--the RBC decided to make an example of Florida. It ruled that all its elected delegates would be voided. The vote of the thirty-member committee had only one dissent.[3] Florida could go ahead with a primary if it wished, but its voting would constitute a mere "beauty contest"; as far as the DNC was concerned, it would be as if the Florida primary didn't exist. Florida sued in a federal court and lost. The same process ensued later with respect to Michigan.