The volume and pitch of the rhetoric about the "undemocratic" process and "disenfranchising" of Florida and Michigan by not seating delegates according to their primary votes is hitting a level that will seriously undermine our chances in November. As Bill says, please chill out.
I'll start from three propositions that we should all agree on: neither campaign is the original cause of the penalty; both campaigns should bear some of the blame for the fact that revotes aren't going to happen; and there are legitimate concerns about the fairness of the FL and MI contests that did happen. I then argue that the political ramifications of the treatment of these elections is something we can and should limit, by toning down our rhetoric on the subject.
First, neither Obama nor Clinton had much of anything to do with the decision to penalize Florida or Michigan. It was the Democratic Party's decision. Both campaigns agreed to it, and also agreed not to "participate" in either contest. The reason was so that the DNC would have some control over the scheduling of the nominating contests, and most everyone agrees that's an important goal.
Second, both Obama and Clinton have blame for the failure of FL and MI to revote. There were big challenges to revotes in either state -- practically and politically. If both campaigns worked the issue hard from the very beginning, those issues probably could have been overcome. But that didn't happen. Clinton didn't say word one about this issue until it was clear that she needed the delegates to win. She did not push hard for revotes until quite late in the process. She vetoed caucuses altogether (though they were much more practical, since they are party-run, don't necessarily require legislative approval, and are much cheaper). For Obama's part, he could have done more to fight for revotes, and I wish he had - though the idea that he blocked them is overstated and unsupported by the evidence. Don't forget that the Florida primary by mail plan -- the only really realistic non-caucus option at the last minute -- was shot down by the entire Congressional delegation, including HRC supporters. And similarly, Michigan's Republicans (seeing the political benefits) likewise were blocking a second primary there.
Third, there are legitimate concerns about seating delegates based on the the FL and MI contests. The rules were set beforehand and both campaigns agreed to them. Changing the rules now would seriously hamper any efforts by the DNC to control the schedule in future years, since all states and candidates would know that likely any penalty won't be enforced. There are also legitimate fairness concerns about these contests. Obama's name (like Edwards, Richardson, and others) was not on the MI ballot. Many of his supporters did not bother to turn out to vote "uncommitted." That vote is not a real measure (particularly if, as HRC's folks sometimes suggest, Obama doesn't get any of the "uncommitted" delegates). As to both Michigan and Florida, a working democracy requires more than a vote; it requires a real contest leading up to it. Here, neither campaign was able to organize or advertise locally, campaign locally, encourage voter turnout, or otherwise do the things campaigns do. A reasonable observer has to admit that these factors favored Clinton over Obama, because she is so well known and well liked in the party. The evidence of that can be found in nearly every contest, where Obama starts out from far behind in the polls and narrows (if not overcomes) the gap over time with campaigning, advertising, and local organizing. I'm not asking you to agree that the delegations should not be counted. But please just pause and acknowledge that there are two sides to this issue, and it is not as clear as "the votes must be counted!!!"
Here's my ultimate point: given all of this, the overheated rhetoric about Florida and Michigan needs to be toned down. It's a decision the party made, and the more its attacked in such harsh terms in public, the more that the party's reputation will be tarnished. That will hurt either candidate in the fall, in two states we all agree are important, if not elsewhere.
We have already hurt ourselves on this issue, by imposing the penalty in the first place, and by the rhetoric to date. But the more we yell about it in such over-the-top terms, the more impact it is going to have. I'm not suggesting we can't advocate on this issue. But please, for goodness sakes, be reasonable in considering flexible ways to resolve this problem that are good for the party and are fair to the candidates. Charges of "disenfranchisement" and "anti-democratic" action don't help at all. They will only come back to bite us in the butt in November.