The voters who voted in the Michigan primary voted either for Hillary or for undecided.  That should be the slate accepted to the Democratic National Convention in precisely the percentages the votes occurred.

The point of the popular vote argument is to try to convince that sliver of about 200 uncommitted superdelegates to embrace her candidacy.  It is a long shot.  It is a VERY long shot.  But it is a shot Clinton has earned by keeping the race so close.

So I will, once again ask:

My Obama supporting friends:  You're likely to win the nomnation.  But take it easy and be nice, particularly to Clinton supporters.  They've brought just as much energy into this process as you have, and have earned the right for a last Hail Mary pass to try to win the game.

My Clinton supporting friends:  Remember there is no dishonor in having run such an awesome campaign, even if it comes up short by a very little bit in the end.  I think you have to brace yourself for the possibility that your preferred candidate will not win.  It is okay.  She is still a totally awesome senator.

...In a memo just circulated in response, the Clinton campaign denies the charge that it's planning to campaign in Florida; says the Obama campaign is pushing the Michigan-doesn't-matter line only because its efforts to get Democrats to vote "uncommitted" isn't working; and seems to be hinting that it may fight to have delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention after all.

"While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."

From January 15, 2008.

Clinton's argument: neither can reach the 2210 without superdeez, it is a tie and I am most electable.

It's a question of support, of political legitimacy, and of buzz.

In this context, it's subject to a wider array of perspective and arguments.

Pretending the MI U's didn't vote for Obama is like pretending the FL Primary didn't happen. It preaches to one side of the choir only, and wins no converts.

Per the exit polls, 46% of respondents said they would have voted for Clinton if all names were on the ballot. 35% said "Obama" (including 18% of Clinton voters). Edwards got 12% and others got the leavings.

Real leadership would have the man who presumes he will be the nominee standing before the people of Michigan and the rest of America and saying that he accepts that his decision means that he is not entitled to count any of those uncommitted votes as his own, or be awarded any delegates for the same reason.  He should be saying that when we start fiddling with votes and delegates because of hindsight, or as a way of making up for the bad decisions of others, we are opening up the election process to manipulation for far more sinister purposes.  He should be saying that people have a right to know that the votes they cast will be counted as cast, and not subject to the decisions of others in power to change the results.

He should be saying it because it is the right thing to say: when I cast my vote for Candidate X or Candidate Y, I want to do so believing that no one is going to change my vote for any reason.

These are basic small-d democratic principles that someone who aspires to the highest office in the land should be absolutely rock-solid on; no one should walk away having the impression that a President Barack Obama can and will game the system when it suits his agenda because he did it as part of the election process.

The blankety-blanking DNC should also be saying this, but all I hear are crickets.  And what is going to happen is that millions of people are going to end up telling the DNC that if that's the way they intend to "makeover" the Democratic party, they will go elsewhere - many have already done so.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone thinks that all of this manipulation and parsing and contortion will, in the end, be worth it.  Some people will just have to pardon me if I am not willing to let go of these principles for any individual - much less for someone who shows all the signs of being oblivious to, and dismissive of, what is at stake for the country and the process.

Other than that if the MI delegates are going to be seated, at the convention or before, it seems that the "uncommited" Obama supporters are going to be represented, so why should their intention not be counted. If the point is to energize voters rather than punish them, tough luck is a bad answer for those who would have voted Obama.

Now that Obama has made an overture to Jewish voters in FL, he may be willing to accept a re-vote, and Hillary would be in a much better position to claim she's got the popular vote if those two states' results actually show that.  

We can utilize equipment and infrastructure already in place, and follow policies based Oregon's successful 100% mail-in process that undermines electronic fraud by establishing an audit trail.  It would be cheaper to do the mail-in than try to repeat the vote through each state.  Since the point would be to get a true sense of which candidate the party should nominate, it shouldn't be hard to utilize this alternative method.  Plus, a re-vote now puts both states back in good standing with respect to the DNC timing of elections rules. Bingo.

This solution is expensive, but it puts to rest the issues of disenfranchisement, establishes a new standard for reducing election fraud, and creates a route for Hillary to establish that she really is more electable.

That horse isn't even in the race.

The popular vote is not directly relevant to the nomination process in any way explicitly mentioned by DNC rules.

The popular vote is relevant only in an indirect way and only to the extent that a superdelegate finds it so.

Rep Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) switched from Clinton to Obama today, citing distaste with Clinton's tactics in trying to change the FL and MI rules in the fourth quarter.

Second Obama ALREADY HAS DELEGATES from Michigan. I don't know how many he actually won, but an article on that aspect of the contest here suggests he won a decent portion though not all 36 uncommitted. I've seen some accounts that he may have as many as 27. If nothing else he could be awarded the popular vote proportion that corresponds with the number of pledged delegates that he already has since he clearly has enough support in state to get them.