Ok, first of all, let's put to bed the myth that today is the first time the Clintons have said that Florida and Michigan broke the rules. They're not stupid -- you can call them crazy, insane, illogical, irrational, but they're not stupid. They can read. They know the rules were broken, and they have said so. But they have also made arguments that they should be forgiven, that they should be allowed to revote, that the voters should not be punished (sanctioned) because of decisions made by state party leaders. Their primary argument has been that the Democratic Party should not disenfranchise the people who took the time to get out and vote in Florida and Michigan because we need them in November. Now, I disagree with their argument, but that is their argument. Their argument was never that Florida and Michigan did not break the rules!

Most of us can probably also agree that the reason she is making any argument is because she's losing, but that's beside the point.

A diary on the DailyKos rec list right now argues:

The Clinton campaign cannot protest [seating only half the delegates], since they admit that rules were broken.

I beg to differ. Not only can they argue (wrongheadedly of course) that the full delegation can be seated even though the rules were broken, they are arguing that the full delegation should be seated even though the rules were broken.

I. The RBC has the authority to seat all of the delegates from Florida and Michigan with full votes.

The RBC can and should seat all of the delegates from Florida and Michigan with Full Votes. In a recent analysis, the DNC staff observed correctly that the penalty imposed on Florida and Michigan exceeded the guidelines established in Rule 20(C)(1), which would reduce the voting power of pledged delegates by no more than 50% and unpledged delegates by 100% if a state holds its primary too early. But the Staff then concluded that the Committee "does not have the authority to reverse...these automatic sanctions" for failing to comply with the schedule set out in Rule 11. This conclusion is incorrect.

The RBC has broad powers to fully reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegations. Rule 20(C)(7) allows the RBC to forgive violations when a state party and other relevant good faith to bring the state into compliance with the DNC's Delegate Selection Rules. With the support of Senator Clinton, both states made good faith attempts and took provable, positive steps to bring their systems into compliance with the DNC Rules by trying to organize re-votes. In fact, the RBC Co-Chairs specifically acknowledged that the proposed Michigan legislation for a re-vote "would fit within the framework of the Rules." (Letter from the Co-Chairs of the RBC, March 19, 2008). Although the states' efforts to establish new processes that would comply with the Rules failed, under Rule 20(C)(7) the states' attempts do provide a sufficient basis for the RBC to exercise discretion and to restore the entire states' delegations with full votes.

Under the Rules, the RBC clearly has continuing jurisdiction over this matter and has broad authority to fashion any appropriate remedy Rule 19(D)(1), Rule 19(E), Rule 20(C)(5). Any of these provisions would suffice to reinstate Florida and Michigan's full slate of delegates as elected.

It is a bedrock principle of our Party that every vote must be counted, and thereby every elected delegate should be seated. The States have already been punished because no campaign activity was conducted in Florida and Michigan. There is no requirement or need to punish their duly elected delegates who represent the 2.3 million voters in Michigan and Florida who participated in the nominating process.

Not only is Clinton still making the argument that the delegates be seated in full, she is trying to justify it as inappropriately punishing the delegates and voters.

Clinton further argues that the rules do not allow transferring "uncommitted" delegates to Obama:

Neither the DNC Rules nor the Michigan Delegate Selection Plan allow arbitrary reallocation of Uncommitted delegates to a candidate or arbitrary reallocation of delegates from one candidate to another.

...

...the intent of the more than 238,000 individiuals who voted for Uncommitted cannot now be determined. The voters may have been truly uncommitted or they may have supported Joe Biden, John Edwards, or Bill Richardson.

mspicata offers the best rebuttal to this:

By my count, that reduces Clinton's Michigan numbers by 55, because we can discern something about those 238,000 people.

Those 238,000 people voted against your candidate, Mr. Ickes.  That was their intent.  That means they should be committed to a negative vote for your candidate.  Fair's fair, right?  Voter intent and all that?

The final argument that Clinton makes foreshadows the convention floor fight that many people believe the Clintons want:

IV. The Florida and Michigan Challenges Should Be Resolved Promptly by the RBC Rather than Waiting for the Credentials Committee to Act.

The RBC has jurisdiction over challenges pertaining to the submission, nonimplementation, and violation of state Delegate Selection and Affirmative Action Plans. Thus, the RBC has jurisdiction to resolve these challenges, and it should do so. Millions of voters in Florida and Michigan have waited patiently for more than four months to know whether their votes will count and whether they will play a meaningful role in determining who will be the Democratic nominee. It is time to resolve this pivotal matter.

Let me just repeat this because this is the most important statement of the day:

Challenges Should Be Resolved Promptly by the RBC Rather than Waiting for the Credentials Committee

Ladies and gentlemen, if Florida and Michigan appeal the decision of the RBC, the Credentials Committee will make its decision at the Convention.

For anyone who thinks Clinton is conceding sanctions, think again. Not only is she demanding the full delegations be seated, she is saying to the RBC that if they don't seat the delegates in full that this thing is going to the Credentials Committee -- that is, she is taking it to the convention.