It's going to be very, very easy for the Clinton campaign to tar Obama with the charge of disenfranchising voters if he raises problems with a revote, or even simply stalls.

This is about voter's rights! I don't care if Obama or Clinton wins FL or MI, or whether they tie, or anything else. This is the U.S. and people get to vote and have their votes counted! Period.

I believe it is unfair to seat the delegates under the previous vote - and not because it is unfair to Obama, but because it would be unfair to those voters who may have supported him. I believe it is also unfair to split the delegates 50-50 - again, because it subverts the will of the voters.

The only democratic thing to do at this point is a primary re-vote.

The Obama campaign has no interest in a revote and remains ambivalent.

Clinton says yes to a revote. And since that revote must be a mail in revote in Florida, Clinton says yes to a mail in revote in Florida.

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is raising red flags about the idea of a revote in Florida to solve the mess over the state's delegates to the presidential nominating convention.

David Plouffle, campaign manager to Obama, noted that the lead advocate for a mail-in revote is Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, is a supporter of his opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton. Plouffle said any revote would need to get U.S. Justice Department approval.

Plouffle again floated the idea of seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan - which were stripped of their delegates because they held their primaries too early - through some sort of negotiated "arrangement." One idea that has been tossed around is to evenly split the delegates between the two Democratic presidential candidates. If Florida's Jan. 29 vote were counted, Clinton would get a net of about 38 more pledged delegates than Obama.

"The easiest...is an arrangement that allows those delegates to be seated,"
Plouffle said. "But not based on those elections. That would not be fair."

The fact that the Clinton campaign can actually gain traction with a message like this one demonstrates that, in fact, Obama's position is not at all clear in the minds of the public.

Seating delegates from MI and FL or holding re-votes are simply an expensive PR move by the Democratic Party in an attempt to salvage a very bad, mostly self-inflicted wound.

The outcome of both elections, if and when they occur, will leave the pledged delegate difference relatively unchanged.  Both campaigns understand this.

Obama is essentially playing out the clock.  Running a 4 corners offense to make an old basketball analogy.

Whether you like that strategy or not most likely depends on which candidate you support, but it is a smart move.

He knows he can't reach the threshold of delegates through the primaries and caucuses alone.  He is working his way through the calendar until he can secure enough S-Ds to get over the top.

Individuals may claim that he isn't leading or is being passive.  Fine.

He's covered his bases by saying he supports the DNC's eventual decision, but also by saying the process needs to "fair".  A nice term that really doesn't mean anything at this point.

Putting off the MI and FL revotes as long as possible blunts their importance.  He'll agree to a revote, but only if they occur late in May. Whatever the final results are, even if Hillary wins them both, they'll have no impact on the upcoming votes in Penn or Indiana or NC.

At that point, the revotes in MI and FL become less important since Obama will be closer to the magic number and will be adding S-Ds.

Clinton needs to have the revotes ASAP so she can get two big victories and claim more momentum and give her a strong argument for the S-Ds she needs before it becomes too late.

Given the nature of the race, both campaigns are handling the issue exactly the way they should.  You can moan about what's "right" or what's "fair", but the current conditions are not the fault of either candidate.