I see a lot of righteous fire from Hillary Clinton supporters about the Michigan and Florida situation, laying a lot of blame on Obama.  And if Obama does something to prevent revotes, it's a fair criticism.  

At present, that doesn't appear to be the case at present.  Florida fell through for practical and legal reasons entirely independent from Obama (indeed, the whole Congressional delegation -- Clinton supporters included -- came out against the mail-in vote, which was the only really practical option).  In Michigan, the situation has yet to be resolved.  I see a lot of heat from the Clinton campaign that Obama is to blame, but on today's call, Ickes was completely unable to identify any real facts about anything Obama has done to stand in the way.  Moreover, it appears GOP opposition may be insurmountable, and you can't blame Barack for that.  All that said, if a Michigan revote is possible but falls apart because of Obama, I completely agree that's blameworthy.  As of yet, though, those aren't the facts.

The facts, at present, is that Clinton is hurling charges of disenfranchisement that almost certainly will come back to hurt the party if there is no revote -- and even if there is.  Yet this situation did not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus.  The penalties against Michigan and Florida were set months ago, and Clinton agreed (as did all the other candidates) not to "participate" in those contests.  Harold Ickes voted for them, and he has expressly defended his decision, on the ground that the DNC needed to reign in states that were jumping too early.  And, like any organization (or any parent!) if it doesn't enforce the rules this time, then in the future the rules will be meaningless.

My question is this:  If this situation is disenfranchisement, and if it represents an injustice, and if it represents such a threat to the democrats chances in November, why didn't Clinton speak out on this before her loss in South Carolina?  If there was any single person in the party who was really in a position to challenge the DNC and let Florida and Michigan vote early in permitted contests, it was her.  And similarly, why did Ickes vote to put this situation in place if its such bad general election strategy, as he now claims?

Maybe there is a good reason.  If so, I'd love to hear it.  But without such an explanation, isn't there a real concern about her tactics here?