Give her what she wants, and maybe people will stop listening to her poisonous rants.

I guess the question at this point is, even with the protests and such, can either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton affect the ruling the RBC comes up with?

I'd be all for letting them be seated in full, although I think something ought to happen to contribute to them jacking the process up- strip their superdelegates or something- but Obama's position so far has been, I think, just do whatever the RBC rules, and be done with it.

But the fact is, Obama doesn't really have a say on Saturday, and neither does Clinton. The Rules Committee is only hearing proposals from the states, not from the candidates.

Would that it were otherwise. Then we could get this stupid debate, and the dishonest idiots who are promoting it, behind us.

The R&B committee cannot and will not fully seat the delegations, regardless of what Obama wants. They are going to penalize the states for breaking their rules.

I think everyone needs to calm down.  As you mentioned, whatever happens later this week won't change anything, so there's no point getting worked up over it.  Plus, once there is a decision, the optics look bad for an appeal in August - it will look like nothing more than sour grapes and will present another roadblock to acceptance, plus this week's decision will have an air of legitimacy - it will be the second decision by the party on this issue.  As for the Democratic leadership, they have no stomach for a convention fight.  Every argument that Clinton could use in August is available now, and still no one is budging, so why would they prolong the contest when it's clear what the result will be?

The only bargaining chip I see at this point is the VP slot.  If that is what is going on here, then it's an awfully high stakes game.

It's not Obama's decision to make.  The RBC has at least some incentive to penalize the states, and since the seating isn't going to determine the nomination outcome anyway, I expect them to follow through with their punishment.  (Probably mitigated though).

This is a bigger decision than just placating Hillary.  Please realize that even if she gets everything she wants she will find a reason to continue the election (her bogus popular vote argument for example).  She will go after the superdelegates full force and will argue that in such a close election where she "won the popular vote and won the most 'important' states, she should see it through to the convention."  She keeps saying that she won't quit, I really don't understand why people keep refusing to believe her.  If Obama gives her an inch she will take a mile, this is not the kind of competitor that you EVER turn your back on.

I have a couple of other issues with doing what she wants: 1) It disenfranchises the voters who believed it when they were told that their vote wouldn't count 2) It sets a bad precedent about the leniency the party will show towards states that break the rules in the future.  It really won't matter how the party changes its rules before the next election, if no consequence is given there is nothing to stop states from holding their 2012 primaries in February 2009.  

Your arguments for seating Florida and Michigan are self-evidently reasonable.  It doesn't benefit Obama to exclude them because he still has a delegate lead and it doesn't benefit Clinton to have two huge states that voted for her not counted.

The fact that this resolution is so clarion and obvious that it calls into question why Obama and surrogates would still oppose it.  Something more must be going on behind the scenes.  It's possible he foresees a convention flight and just wants to be as insulated numerically from defections as possible.  

Hillary seems like the type of person that appeasement would work on.  She definitely wouldn't use any sort of victory Saturday as a sign that her scorched earth strategies are working, and it certainly wouldn't seem to her campaign as incentive  to continue her campaign into the summer.

No matter what happens.  The Clinton campaign has taken on a life of it's own, totally devoid of logic or reason.  It thrives on faux outrage, soundbites, and the false rallying cry of Sexism--their own St. Crispin's Day speech.

This will continue until August, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Look, I'm a Democrat AND an Obama supporter but I think the Democratic primary rules are a joke. Super delegates?  Apportioned pledged delegates?  Give me a break.  With that said however the rules is the rules. The RBC decision is NOT about how it benefits Obama or Clinton, it's about consequences to Florida and Michigan for moving up their primary date.  It's not about settling this election, it's about enforcing the rules for the next election.

who is blocking the delegates -- or the revotes. As the nominee, it's in his interest to make the political organizations in FL and MI happy.

It's always been Hillary and her people obstructing a process she can't win.

But it has to be admitted that spinning it so that even some of Obama's supporters think he's the one doing it is the one thing her campaign has done well.

No, you cannot give them full votes.  There must be consequences or they will pull the same shit next time.

Also, have you ever been to a Democratic meeting at any level?  It's always a clusterf*ck.  Everyone is arguing about the procedure so long that they barely have time for the issues.  Fairness is important, but every time I go to a caucus or attend a county meeting, I understand people's reservations with us.  I have no doubt that nothing will happen with the nominating process, just like nothing happened with the electoral college.  And we'll rehash this same shit in 30 years when it resurfaces.

Irregardless of what Obama or Clinton wants the DNC is not going to invite chaos by having no penalty at all imposed.

It won't hurt the party in the future because this nominating system is dead anyway

What's to stop a couple of states from disregarding the new system if their are no consequences? If the party cannot enforce it's own rules the long term consequences would be disastrous. They will probably go more then half way towards Clinton's demands with Obama's support but even if Obama approved doing so they will not remove all sanctions.

Clinton can want what ever she wants but a lot of her high profile super delegate supporters will not follow her over a cliff. Once the primaries are over and the DNC works out a formula to seat MI & FL Obama is likely to get the needed delegates declaring for him to make him the presumptive nominee. At that point even many of Hillary's Super Delegates will expect the losing candidate to concede.

The Solomonic compromise, as I understand the rules, is to have all of each state's super delegates seated with full voting rights, to have all of each state's pledged delegates seated but with half voting rights, and to effect such other measures as to maintain the approximate margin of delegates which would have occurred between the candidates had the delegates of each state been fully seated.

The point is not to punish the candidates but to sanction the states, and certainly a half seating as anticipated by the 2008 DNC rules is adequate especially in light of the extenuating circumstances that existed, at the very least for Florida.

My suggestion for the additional measures that should be taken as to maintain the margin of delegates which would have occurred between the candidates had the delegates of each state been fully seated would be to strip the Obama campaign, with its agreement, of its Florida pledged delegates for violating the campaigning rule, and to award the uncommitted Michigan votes as uncommitted pledged delegates.

2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/dem ocratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2 008delegateselectionrules.pdf
[Rule 11.A (page 12 of the document; page 16 pdf)]
[Rule 20.C.1.a (page 20 of the document, page 24 of pdf)]
[Rule 20.C.1.b (page 20 of the document, page 24 of pdf)]

 Yep. Give her what she wants, I agree. She's then forced to come up with a new reason to take it to the floor - which will just exasperate the Super Delegates and turn her into a footnote in History.

Regarding Florida and Michigan

Let me predict what the outcome is likely to be.
On May 31 2008. The Rules and By-laws committee will rule that Michigan and Florida will get half of their pledge delegates. Michigan will get 64 Pledge Delegates to be seated at the Convention. Florida will get 93 Pledge Delegates to be seated at the Convention.

In Michigan - Clinton gets 37 Pledge Delegates,Obama gets 27 Pledge Delegates if he gets all of the Uncommited votes.

In Florida- Clinton gets 51 Pledge Delegates, Obama gets 41 Pledge Delegates- if he gets all of the Edwards voters.

Michigan and Florida will lose all of their SuperDelegates- This is too punish the Party Leaders and Elected officials in MI and FL.