Interesting that it is Hillary and not Obama calling for unity after a nominee is selected.

Maybe she knows something...

For all the complaints folks have on the HRC and the supers, I'm just not sure I can see enough of them gathering up the gumption to force this hand.  But that's me, and only time (about a month) or so will clarify that picture).

So the answer, from the crowd that has been harping on the importance of not disenfranchising people...is to count primary elections that were not contested.

Yeah...sorry for flipping out in the comments, but you are joking, right?

She is willing to fight for the rights of fellow Citizens in Florida and Michigan. I believe she will fight for my rights too. I love someone who isn't afraid to do what is right.

The disenfranchisement of Florida  in 2008 would be much worse than the Republican Disenfranchisement in 2000. The DNC rules are much slighter and make less sense than the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris.  1.7 million votes in Florida tossed out. Incredible that anyone can suggest that in America. The Omamaniacs have learned a lot from Rove and W. They are worse.

And they disenfranchise one of the Gayest States in the Union and make the least Gay state, Iowa, #1. Iowa is 50th out of 50 States in Gay percentage of the Population. I don't know who these Obamaniacs in the middle of the country are, but he is not winning the big Blue States that are full of a rich diversity of different types of people.

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/state s/iowa/2000Census_state_ia.htm

You go, Hillary!  Seat the Florida and Michigan delegations!

Go Hillary, Go.

Go Hillary, Go.

See you at the convention!!!!!!!!

These scenarios are getting awfully convoluted.  The number of steps required make it very unlikely.  Plus, one would have to consider what the effect of a completely fractured party as late as August is going to accomplish.  If that were to happen, it would almost require a joint ticket to heal everybody's feelings in time to have any hope of defeating McCain.

Listening to the two campaigns it's almost like they're talking about two entirely different topics.

Obama: "Rules are rules!"
Clinton: "Democracy now! Credentials fight later!"

They're two entirely different arguments. I think this whole thing will be a lot closer than anyone expects at the beginning of June, and then we'll see what happens. Clinton going down without MI & FL though, that will bitterize a lot of people, especially in Florida.

Seating Michigan as it is now, would be BLATANTLY unfair.

I agree not revoting MI and FLA gives HRC the path to get the SDs at the convention, BO will have shown he cannot win the base Dems in big blue states if he cant get PA and shutting out FLA and Mi makes his nomination look illegitimate in the eyes of HRC supporters who feel the party leaders have had this thing framed this way since Aug 07 when Brazil and the rules cmte cut FLA and MI out...

I THOUGHT THE DUMBEST THING THE OBAMAS COULD DO WOULD BE TO STOP THE REVOTES,CAUSE THEN WE'D END UP WITH MORE DELEGATES, MAYBE ALL.

I KNOW HILLARY PRETTY WELL, LOTS BETTER THAN A DODD, THESE FOLKS DONT KNOW OR UNDERSTAND DOROTHY'S DAUGHTER ONE BIT...

SHE'S TAKING THIS TO DENVER, NO ON WILL STOP HER OR US.

THIS IS HUGE NEWS.

(oops caps.  btw, doing this with Greta shows how special this statement was.  good eye Jerome!)  

I'll concede your point,  Jerome.  But I don't understand its relevancy.  I'm not apoplectic about Florida and Michigan counting.  But it simply isn't going to happen.  And who cares if Clinton is going to "go to the mat?"  All the raging in the world won't make it happen.

"A member of Hillary Clinton's national finance team has started to circulate an online petititon that urges the Democratic National Committee to recognize the delegations from Michigan and Florida or else promise to hold new elections."

Obama should join in this effort.

He will be on "The View" tomorrow talking about not vetting his pastor.

... but it's not so much a lifeline as a kamikaze attack.

Did Barack or his campaign (Plouffe, etc.) ever say that MI and FL shouldn't count?  I know they said the only way they would allow for them to be seated without a revote was 50/50, but I don't get the part where they told MI, "No, we don't want a revote."  At least not explicitly.

The stance they had, as far as I can remember, was that they would play by whatever rules the DNC dished out.

Please, I'm sure there are a bunch of you who are ready to jump all over me now with sources.  Please, I'd like to know.

She campaigned in MI and FL "just in case." She deserves MI and FL like a good student whereas Obama ignored MI to diminish her predicted win there. You know the story of the hare and the tortoise.

Wow.  I guess we're going to the convention floor in Colorado for a Credentials fight.  I can't wait.  If you think it's nasty now, just wait until three months before the GE.

I love it and hope she does it.

Jerome - I don't get it. DCW has 1406-1249=157, and I thought the differential even with MI and FL was only 50 or so (i.e. even with them taken into account, Obama will be in the lead by 100 or so pledged delegates). How do you get 46-56? What am I missing?

The problem with your math is that she doesn't really gain that many delegates from Florida - the bulk of her gain comes from the fact that Obama gets zero delegates from Michigan under your scenario.  And I don't see how she winds up with the benefit of an "election" where Obama wasn't on the ballot, and she said "really doesn't count for anything" under any (contested) circumstance.

I understand that she is now trying to spin that Obama killed re-votes in both states, but that's a tough case to make, with Obama having publicly stated that he would go along with whatever the DNC said, and that re-votes appeared to break down by the failure of state legislatures to come to agreement.  How does that fall on Obama?  The idea of reversing the outcome in favor of the guy who was the winner of the contested primaries by counting votes that the party said in no uncertain terms would not count -- by reversing that determination after the voting is over -- is frankly not much different than having superdelegates overrule the determination of the electorate.  Both smack of unfairness and cheating.  Which is why neither is particularly likely to happen.

Could you imagine the pure-hell that the media, so-called-progressives, and Democratic "leaders" would raise if it was Clinton who was blocking the Florida and Michigan re-votes?

But I have a question for you:

Under what circumstances would the original, so-far-against-the-rules-the-candidates- agreed-not-to-be-on-the-ballot-or-campai gn-in-those-states primaries for MI and FL be ALLOWED to count?

it's all well and good to say that Clinton can win if we just count those delegates.  We can all fly if we can just get rid of that pesky thing called Gravity.

But gravity exists for a very good reason.  And MI and FL aren't being counted for a very good reason.

Can you give a COMPELLING reason why we should just do away with those rules and seat those delegates that have absolutely NOTHING to do with how it affects the outcome of the nomination.

Becuase let's be honest here, the fact that it WOULD have an outcome on the nomination is the reason you're for it isn't it?  You wouldn't be this gung ho to count these delegates if they were pledged for Obama, would you?  Can we at least be mature and admit there is a biased reason for asking for these states to suddenly count?

This is political masturbation.

As a Florida voter, I'm glad Hillary is fighting like hell for my vote and fighting like hell to get FL in the Dems win column in the general election. Go Hill! She's in it to win it! With Hillary drawing so much attention to Florida -- empowering FL voters who have been critical in 2000 and 2004 -- this is a win-win scenario for Dems.

She has to fight on.  I also believe the conspiracy from Donna Brazile.  But seriously, let's see this out at the convention.  Because we all know if she drops out they will then seat the delegates SHE won from FL and MI.  By not doing a re-vote they guarantee her going on to the convention.

... full-throated defense of voters in Michigan and Florida when she and her team discounted nearly every state that Obama won.

The problem is Hillary doesn't have a foot to stand on with the DNC or the Obama Campaign.

She is playing politics and they all know it. She agreed to the rules when they all thought it would be over for feb. 5th. Then after she it became obvious that every delegate would count. she went and said that Florida needed to be counted.

she is being a hypocrite about it, so when she is behind closed doors with no cameras, facing these people face to face.

she has no leverage to bargain with here. Behind closed doors they will have problems with her. THAT is why the parties aren't going to do a re-vote. She has no leverage behind closed doors to push for them to count.

They will compromise, and it will be in away that wont affect the race enough. say Hillarys net win out of florida being +19 instead of +38

Jereom,

Help me out, because I seriously may be missing something here.  If there isn't a re-vote, and it doesn't look like there will be, the only way that Florida and Michigan can count is if the credentials committee agrees to seat their delegation.  Whoever is in the lead after all the primaries end will control the credentials committee, right?  

Under those circumstances, I don't see how HRC can dictate how those delegates are seated.  So what would stop Obama's folks from simply seating Michigan and Florida with their delegates split 50/50?  To me, that clearly seems like the most likely conclusion, but maybe I have my mechanics wrong somwhere.    

Will anybody in the media pay attention?

She'll campaign with what money?

determines the nominee - achieving the support of enough delegates to reach 2024 or whatever number the size of the delegations from MI and FLA that will be seated( or not) which will bring the number to possibly up to 2207  for the nomination - is close and that Pennslyvania will give not just a psychological boost to the Clinton Campaign if she wins big. She is preventing Obama from winning.

What Hillary Clinton is doing is achieving stalemate; the longer she stays in the more likely that a core group of undeclared super delegates start to look at Al Gore as the DH( now that baseball season has started that term fits). He's rested, he isn't touched by the acrimonius backbiting that is going on and they are looking at the polling concerning McCain.

I wrote in the comments on another thread that his name wouldn't logically be placed in nomination unless and until 4, 5, or 6 ballots have gone by with no nominee: everyone in the nation would have seen by then that the process had been open, no doubt bitterly divided, and entrenched. After that had been concluded people would be looking for a way out and for a way to unite.

Unless undeclared super delgates start proclaiming their preferences now and Obama or Clinton actually gets to the Convention with enough delegates to be nominated on the first ballot then  we are looking at numerous ballots  no-one can take the spectre of Al Gore getting the nomination out of the equation. I just don't see how either candidate ( HC or BO)can  win unless they win on the first ballot.

Anything other than one ballot gives us another nominee.

It is interesting.  This idea about striking a balance.  Is it better for the party to either have a revote in Michigan and/or Florida or seat their delegates at the convention or is it better for the party to not seat them because there won't be an incentive from stopping any state to move their primary up and Iowa and New Hampshire will continue to retain the first in the nation status.  I don't know what you do....  Does anyone know what the legal consequences of the federal judge in Michigan ruling that the lists weren't private and had to be distributed to everyone? (I could have that issue completely out of whack, my apologies if I do).  I would guess, based on that,, that possibly the results from the Michigan vote couldn't be considered accurate... Is that possible?  

It's all crocodile tears.  She didn't give a damn about them until she fell behind for good and realised she couldn't snag the nomination without them.  She uttered not a single word about it until she was losing, and now it has become the central theme of her campaign.

She does seem to be willing to go nuclear over this.  Meaning, she is willing to push a dangerously divisive convention fight simply to advance her own interests.  Hers truly is a scorched earth campaign, if that is true.  She will burn it all down rather than allow someone else the win.  She can turn the convention from a momentum builder into an enormous weight to drag around.

She will not win the presidency in 2008, nor 2012, nor ever, because of this.  Her name will be mud within the party.  But she can do much damage to the fortunes of the Dems and progressives in 2008.

She cannot win at this point.  What she can do is either help or hinder.  And a bloody convention fight is the absolute worst kind of damage she can do.

I am an Obama supporter and i expect her to say those exact things. Of course, you listen to the press and they exaggerate and twist things and you come here yelling and running like chickens without heads. Did you expect her to say "Oh no no, i am losing let me drop out from the race....i am turning all my delegates from Fl/Mi to Senator Obama..oh..please pardon me."

Folks, what she said is totally normal and any other candidate would have said the same thing. If Senator Obama were in her spot, i would urge him and expect him to say the same things. She is talking to her base and her supporters and she is sending them a strong message so they stay involved and excited and not be discouraged and stay home on election day.

Let us relax...take a breather.

You wrote: "Including MI & FL...".  Okay, stop right there.  You can't include MI and FL, because the contests that were held were not sanctioned by the DNC; BOTH CANDIDATES PLEDGED NOT TO PARTICIPATE NOR ACCEPT THE RESULTS!  Hence, your point is moot from the very start of your argument.

You wrote:  Obama's got everything going for him....  They [the Obama camp] don't want to chance Clinton winning two more big states...."

It's funny how you know exactly what the Obama campaign thinks; it's actually quite extraordinary.  

Besides your ability to read minds, there's this: Quick, besides MI and FL (two states that were stripped of their primaries by the DNC), name one state where Obama has been afraid to compete against Hillary; quick.  The answer is: ding, ding, none!  He didn't try to get the results of AR thrown out, nor TN, nor CA, nor any of the states where she was leading before the contest nor after the contest was conducted. He's even competing with here here in PA, where a few weeks ago Hillary was leading by 26; it's down to 10.  Your argument is weak.

You wrote: "...but by not going along with it [a re-vote that would have disqualified anyone who voted in the Republican primaries, including many Obama supporters]they give Clinton a lifeline via her ability to count those states as they stand...."

Again, there is no way, I repeat, no way that the results will stand as is; they each signed a pledge not to count the states' illegal primaries!  How can it be more simple and straight forward?

The bottom line is this: Hillary agreed with Obama and the DNC at the beginning of the primaries because she thought she would waltz right into the White House.  Well, what a shock, now that she realizes that she won't waltz right into the White House, she goes against her word, her pledge, and her bond and now disagrees with herself.  She's so complex.  

The MI courts have already ruled that the vote was not valid, and the DNC has been very clear that the vote, as conducted WILL NOT COUNT.  No matter how many times you say the sky is green, it is not green.  The sky is blue, MI and FL will not count, and your candidate is in dire straights.

So lest see, Clinton agreed in writing to the rules that now may prevent FL and MI from being seated. Now however needing both to be seated to secure the nomination she is fighting for them? Nom, she is fighting to ignore the rules which she first agreed to because it suits her. This woman was not talking about disenfranchising voters when she agreed to it with the belief she was the shoo in candidate. She is as friggin hypocrite and if she were to get the nomination by such scheming, I will cast my vote for McCain......I am not even a big Obama supporter. I was an Edwards guy.....but I will not support a candidate who wont abide by the rules that they all agreed to.

She will try, but Bowers brings up a great point... Obama is going to control rules and credentials via his PD totals.  At that point, he can seat Mich and FL however he wants too.  This is a LONG shot, an 80 yard hail mary pass that probably won't connect.  When Obama runs Rules and Credentials, he will put through a 50-50 split of Michigan and FL or leave FLorida as is and that's the ball game without a lot of SDs violating the will of the people.  

One more note, Obama will nevr allow those votes to count as stand considering they all agreed to the rules. Without his consent the DNC wont allow it. And if Clinton tries to use some legal maneuver to make them count I can guarantee......the democratic party will be in shambles....the youth vote will stay home and blacks will turn their back on the party for at least the next decade.....

After lying repeatedly about her Conquest of Bosnia With Her Bare Hands, I don't think Hillary's credibility is going to be sufficient to get many superdelegates to go with her, no matter how much fancy math her supporters come up with.

And don't I recall that it was those of us in the Obama camp who were dismissed as members of the "math club?"

She seems somewhat upset.

I think the problem with that issue is that it is unrealistic.  Hillary's pretty much only good day for pledged delegates was with Ohio and she got like 9 pledged delegates.

And that was with obama focusing all of his attention on texas.  That wont be true this time.

She simply doesn't have the organizational strength to back up her desperate grasp at that last tuft of grass.

She is mixing DNC decisions with Obama's decisions and trying to lay it all on Obama's lap.

The DNC decision to not count the Florida and Michigan original primary is not Obama's fault. He and Hillary both agreed to follow the DNC's rules.

Then,

Florida tried to workout a revote and couldn't. Florida not re-voting is not Obama's fault.

Michigan developed a re-vote plan but independents and republicans who voted in the original primary could not vote in the Dem re-vote. That is unfair to Obama because he attracts more of those voters. So he didn't agree. That's not an unreasonable position.

Hillary has no valid beef against Obama. She does have a  valid complaint that here she is, pretty close to Obama, and those big states won't count when they could really help her. But there is no basis to blame Obama for the situation.

Yep.

I thought all along that Obama should have let MI revote, and take his lumps if that were the case. (screw Florida - that's McCain Country).

His failure to do so exposes his own fear that he doesn't have enough game.

I'm totally in the tank for Obama, and I think this was a bad call.

Now Hillary seems posed to amplify this bad call into Democratic Party civil war.

It's a bad situation for Democrats, whoever we favor.

as it stands, those two states will not be seated nor should they be (a caucus or primary needs to be redone).

it's also worth talking about the danger this precedent would give any state to go against DNC rules in the event she wins this fight (which she has a 0% chance of accomplishing in the way Jerome has devised the delegate split).

Any of you "average" Americans should not be so blinded by the fact that in the future, establishment candidates can stack the primary schedule in such a way to kill off any potential net or grassroot candidates. There needs to be a strong message that toying with the primary schedule in a manner that MI and FL took will not be tolerated.  

it's worth fighting for a solution to this problem but not as Jerome so carelessly addresses it.

A lot of you seem to be concerned with taking into account the will of the people. However, I haven't seen anybody addressing the issue of Democrats that voted in the Republican primary, estimated to be 400,000, because they were told their vote won't count. How do we make sure that their will counts?

Hillary was happy to sign on to the DNC rules when she thought she didn't need FL and MI. Since at that point she was pandering to IA and NH she had no problem with sticking it to FL.

She has her fat cat backers threaten the DNC and the super delegates. She goes on Fox and dares the party to stop her at the convention. Bill says the kitchen sink is just the beginning let's saddle up and have it out. It's no wonder her negatives are rising rapidly and her positives sinking. The path to the nomination gets more and more convoluted and far fetched by the day.

She has become a desperate caricature of herself ready to do and say anything to get the prize. Well, knock yourself out Hillary. You are doing more damage to yourself then anyone else. I think the super delegates are going to act eventually and not at all in the way she is hoping. After being threatened and dared to challenge her I think they will be happy in the end to respond in kind.

What I've never heard explained is how the heck do you sell this to Obama voters?  Here it is late August.  Obama has a solid pledged delegate lead.  Then suddenly, that's reversed due to an election that it was agreed on would not count and where his name wasn't on the ballot.

You then have a little over two months to suddenly win back all of the Obama supporters.  How exactly do you intend to do that?  Until you can explain that detail, this plan is nothing but a suicide pact, guaranteed to make the name Clinton more hated among Democrats than Nader.

You are in denial of the potential reality of all that above?

Five comments on this sentence:

1. Does thinking this is a wildly unlikely fantasy count as being "in denial of the potential reality"?

2. And while we're on the subject, what did the English language ever do to you?

3. Do we really need a front page diary on one Clinton supporter's imaginary world where FL and MI are going to be seated? Even the Clinton campaign gave up on that when they decided to promote re-votes.

4. Obama did more than his share for a re-vote by promising to support whatever remedy the DNC and the states came up with. They broke the rules, they paid a price, and you expect him to bend over backwards to extend this trench warfare even further? You expect the winner of the contest to help you go back and re-write the rules to the benefit of the other side? Do you for a second believe that if their positions were reversed, and Clinton held an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, that she would be supporting re-votes?

5. The question is not whether one can imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. One can, although it requires an increasingly vivid imagination as the race wears on. The question -- for the SDs and the recognized leaders of the party like Gore and Edwards -- is whether an extremely small chance of a good thing happening for Hillary Clinton is worth an extremely large chance of something bad happening to the party and the county as the fight drags on.

Bottom line she is not going anywhere. Nor are the voters from Florida/MI. (Well actually many will go Republican in the GE.)

The DNC wrongly decided to strip FLA/MI of their votes. It now refuses to correct that mistake because its leadership has sold out to the Obama campaign.

Play all the pledged delegate games you want - pump up any false number of polls you desire - even revel  in your wildly outrageous personal claims against Hillary.

But don't imagine for a moment that Obama will not pay a price for your antics. You have alienated significant portion of the party (most of whom don't live on a computer screen). Equally as significant you have cut away at the crucial 20% that swing every election.

One note to Jerome. If Gore steps in, it had better be with a different Vice-President. Otherwise the Party really can kiss off Hillary's supporters. If all Obama was truly fit for was the VP spot, then it should have been as her VP.

OK lets start.  First on PR:

It's possible that 2 million could vote in that primary

still be behind!  And the Pennsylvania ground Hillary could make up she'd then lose in NC and Indiana (which are both 15+% margins according to the most recent polls).  

aren't ending this thing now, b/c they don't want to anger Clinton supporters.  They're hoping that she'll concede, but that looks like a no-go.  They'll probably ride this out till June and then do their mini-convention to settle it.  

This theory is nice and counting FL might be a possibility, but counting MI as it is won't happen unless there is re-vote.

but it's all over but the shoutin'. Your endless Clinton rationalizations will be coming to an end soon.

Here is a translation of Armstrong for all of those who understand that he is too stupid to be read: OMGZORS HILLARY STILL HAZ A CHANCE PLZ

the michigan primary was ruled unconstitutional.
 there is no way that michigan is gonna get seated because of that.

though florida should get seated with half delegates

Can we get a solid cite on Obama preventing the re-vote in Michigan and Florida?

Clinton ready to throwdown over Fl and MI?

Sounds like a job for "Rambo"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTcsWneLqKw

Convenient that the uncommitted delegates from MI are left out of your explanation.  I suppose from the Clinton perspective, it disenfranchises voters who supported Clinton to leave them out, but those who voted against Clinton and Kucinich should just have no voice at all?  Even counting SOME of those uncommitteds would be reasonable, though you could also argue that all should belong to Obama.

To omit them from the discussion is irresponsible, and, given your thorough math, intentional.

re: Puerto Rico. It's much more a color blind society then say other latino groups from the mainland. They don't have the tension between latino and black that is somewhat more common here in the states. So Obama doesn't already have preordained baggage in that regard.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Puerto Rico for Hillary just yet. Although it does help her that so many Boricua live in nY.

I blogged here the other day that he had 31

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/22/2 2530/7864/179#179

and some said in response that Edwards only has 18 now??

Jerome, do you know which it is?

Here's how I explained it to my 6 year old.

(Feel free to swap HRC and Obama below if it makes you happy.)

Obama is fresh baked bread.
HRC is stale, hard bread.
McCain is cat poop.
Bush is horse $hhhh!

Now even though our dog recommends cat poop as the most palatable kind of poop among those that eat poop, we do not recognize cat poop as food at all. While we might work harder to have fresh bread, we would never pick cat poop over stale bread, period.

The above comment was inspired by MyDD member - "itsthemedia"

This, I think, is more your lifeline Jerome than Clinton's... it seems to be your only way to keep the myth of a Clinton nomination alive.

MI/FL won't count as is unless they don't change anything.  It's as simple as that.  The only way they count if they actually switch something is if Obama decides that Clinton should be the nominee, since he will control the credentials committee.

If the supers just say "Go Home Hillary" without addressing FL and MI all hell will break lose. I would also add just because the supers vote for Obama Hillary can fight on to the convention, she doesn;t have to drop out and she can fight in the credintials cmte

Good for her!

This seems pretty desperate to me. I am sure this is one of those you see it as you want to see it kind of deals, but watching that video did not make me feel I had witnessed and been impacted by a winning strategy. Felt forced and there is just not enough concrete evidence that I have seen that Obama blocked revotes. OF course as the frontrunner he has more to lose and any person, Hillary included, would be wishing for no revotes. But to say he blocked them, I have not seen this demonstrated in a way that satisfies me.

What is the purpose of posting one stupid diary after the other if you people do not engage in conversation? I asked about the Republican primary voters in MI and nobody responded. Now Jerome Armstrong wants to count the MI results. How on earth will be able to justify this? Honestly, can you convince the DNC about that? And if there is a revote, how do you deal with the voters that already participated in the Republican primary?
If they can have a revote in Florida, I think they should do it.

It is becoming painfully obvious that you do not care about the rules or the will of the people. You only care about winning. That's fine - but don't come here and lecture us about the will of the people. The first time the Clinton campaign raised the issue was a month ago. This screams hypocrisy and this is what the American people don't like. Maybe that explains the huge negative numbers of Hillary Clinton.  

How exactly do MI and FL get seated at all when Dean is tilting the credentials committee towards not seating them, and Obama gets to pick >50% of the rest of the committee?

Also, if MI and FL were seated, how do you justify not giving Obama the uncommitted vote? That's an awfully small concession, given he likely would have split the vote there. If you add those back, that lead is back up over 100.

I don't think anyone denies a perfect storm of circumstances could theoretically give Clinton the delegates, but it is basically going to take 2/3 of: (1) very strong upcoming primary performances, (2) Seating MI and FL somehow (esp. whilst denying Obama the 55 from MI), (3) Superdelegate coup (by which I mean them overriding the pledged delegate count).

The only way she can pull it off and still have any chance of being elected in November requires (1). If she can give Obama the uncommitted Michigan vote and still have a lead in pledged delegates - or be tied - then it is possible, imo, for her to win without disaster.

If she has to deny Obama the uncommitted vote, it gets sketchy.

If denying Obama the uncommitted delegates from MI  doesn't even get her the pledged lead, she needs to go back to the Senate. Having the most tilted-toward-Clinton FL/MI seating still requiring the supers to overturn the pledged delegates is just absurd.

Frankly, people want some semblance of fairness, and giving Obama 0 delegates from MI cannot be called fair by any measure. And that's what the "Clinton closes the gap" scenario hinges upon.

Anyhow, my understanding is that the mechanics of the credentials committee means that FL and MI will not be seated unless: (1) Obama has the nomination completely locked up anyhow, or (2) Obama would rather seat them and let Hillary win than not seat them.  Given that their primaries were voided by the DNC through no fault of Obama's from the start, I don't see why he should feel any obligation to do that.

As a commenter mentioned above, Bowers had a diary on this which everyone should probably read before taking this line of reasoning too much further.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=4798

Myth: Clinton can use Michigan and Florida to catch up
Fact: The Obama campaign will dictate what happens in Michigan and Florida
Some delegate totals include the Michigan and Florida delegations projected based on the result of the January primaries in those states. This is a mistake, and not because of any arguments about democracy or rules or whatever. Instead, it is a mistake simply because it is inaccurate. The fact is that there will be no revote in Michigan and Florida. The fact is that any pre-June deal on the Michigan and Florida delegations will have to be approved by the Barack Obama campaign. The fact is that after June 10th, the credentials committee takes jurisdiction over the matter. The fact is that Barack Obama will control the credentials committee, since its members are elected by pledged delegates. The fact is that even if the credentials committee submits a minority report on the Michigan and Florida delegations to the floor of the convention, Florida and Michigan delegates will not participate in that vote. In other words, the fact is that unless Clinton catches Barack Obama in non-Florida and Michigan delegates, then Obama will be able to dictate how Florida and Michigan are seated at the convention. As such, Clinton cannot use Florida and Michigan as a means to catch up unless the Obama campaign allows her to do so.

In other words, FL and MI WILL be seated. They just won't be seated in such a way that will lose Obama the nomination. And if you see a way that Clinton can prevent this, you have a responsibility to explain how.

Maybe Clinton's campaign should dig up Einstein or Heisenburg from their graves and see if they can come up with yet another hypothetical victory strategy. Not that it'll matter. The numbers are against them. Someone needs to screw up the courage to tell her that it's over, and that to the extent she keeps on going, she'll ruin what remains of her reputation in the party.

There, I said it.

Count ALL votes...and Hillary wins. Its pretty simple, really.