Posting blatant lies does tend to undermine your argument. Obama has consistently said:

1) He will abide by whatever the DNC decides and
2) He supports fair revotes where all the voters originally eligible get to participate.

He has never “insisted” they not be counted, though he did sign the same original DNC pledge that Clinton did where it was indicated that they would not. He has said that it is wrong to be disenfranchising the voters who did not vote in the original unsanctioned primaries because everyone (including Clinton and there’s a YouTube video of it) said the election wouldn’t count.

Ms. Clinton is correctly demanding that the Florida and Michigan votes be counted. Mr. Obama, up ’til now, has been insisting that they not be counted. This reflects well on Ms. Clinton, and does not reflect well on Mr. Obama, regardless of any attempts by Obama supporters to have the votes counted and attempts by Clinton supporters to have the vote suppressed. This does not seem very difficult to follow, unless you’re appropriating the philosophy of IOKIYAR, erasing the R, and crayoning in an OS.

And I believe that your recollection of events is either mistaken or maliciously incorrect.

Clinton NOW equates this DNC decision (which she previously supported and which some of the highest level advisers in her campaign voted for) with the most vital and important voting rights struggles in the history of our nation. So why on earth did she ever help cause the problem to begin with, and what miraculous event occurred to suddenly enlighten her with how horribly wrong it was?

Perhaps it was the Floridians being lynched and chased away from voting booths with baseball bats.

No one did anything to the Michigan Democrats to put them in this situation other than . . . .

the Michigan Democrats.

(This has been brought to you by the “Have Your Cake and Eat It Too” brigade.)

” the DNC’s own rules stipulate that,

Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants. [my emphasis]

In the absence of a binding primary, the presidential preference must be judged by the preferences of the participants in “the convention and/or caucus.” MI had district conventions, on April 19. And Obama supporters vastly outnumbered Hillary supporters–generally by at least 2 to 1, and in places by much greater margins. In other words, the legal preference of MI’s voters is that Obama–not Hillary–get the larger proportion of delegates.”

Heh