blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obamas_running_mate_hunt_jarre.html

I do agree that it isn't his fault in the first place but the fact that he has failed to stand up to the voters shows a severe lack of leadership ability. The fact that he has let this drag on and on also shows a lack of leadership.

Do you honestly think that he's actually going to do something about it now? I don't.

This does not necessairly mean that they will be allowed to VOTE for the POTUS nominee.  Watch the weasel words!!!

1. Wiggle words on seating.
   
2. Throwing his prime constituent (Brazille) under the bus.

So blocking them has now served its purpose, now he's ready to make a meaningless gestured (as far as the primary is concerned) aimed at assuaging Florida voters, in a state that he's bound to lose to Mccain...

[OBAMA:] The key for me is just making sure the Florida delegation is seated. I don't want to get too deep in the weeds of the DNC rules.

Does that mean teh Roolz aren't as important as seating the delegates?!!

[cue the immediate pretzelification of Kos et al.]

Oh, and I guess we can all stop moaning and groaning about how Harold Ickes was HRC's surrogate on the Roolz Committee now? Because if Obama isn't responsible for Brazile and her ilk, then HRC certainly isn't responsible for Ickes.

I think the people that he is referring to when he discusses rules is not Brazile, but Clinton people.

He may be giving Donna Brazile a de facto stiff-arm now, but if this is reeeally how he feels, and if he was so sure that he was going to end up shaping the party, he owed it to the party and the country to have stiffened that arm a loooong time ago.

Leaders lead - if he wants to lead the country, he should have started with the DNC, but that would have meant putting his own interests at risk - does Obama have any principle or belief he is not willing to sacrifice for his own interest?  If so, I'm not seeing it.

Someday, "we want the delegations seated," and "we want all the votes to count" will be on the same list with "the check is in the mail," and "of course, I'll respect you in the morning."

They've allowed as how a 50-50 split would be OK -- meaning that FL has no effect on the nomination.

and

"Obama's is saying, 'don't look at me, Donna Brazile did this.' And he has a point."

Still trying to sell Obama are we. Won't work.

Obama once again managed to say absolutely nothing.

Appears the reporter didn't know what questions to ask and Obama wasn't about to lend a hand.

BTD is starting to do some selling.

Now that Obama has made an overture to Jewish voters in FL, he may be willing to accept a re-vote, and Hillary would be in a much better position to claim she's got the popular vote if those two states' results actually show that.  

We can utilize equipment and infrastructure already in place, and follow policies based Oregon's successful 100% mail-in process that undermines electronic fraud by establishing an audit trail.  It would be cheaper to do the mail-in than try to repeat the vote through each state.  Since the point would be to get a true sense of which candidate the party should nominate, it shouldn't be hard to utilize this alternative method.  Plus, a re-vote now puts both states back in good standing with respect to the DNC timing of elections rules. Bingo.

This solution is expensive, but it puts to rest the issues of disenfranchisement, establishes a new standard for reducing election fraud, and creates a route for Hillary to establish that she really is more electable.

Then, when they're "seated," he can refuse to treat the Florida delegates with respect, just as he treats Clinton -- and her supporters.

"In fact, most of the astrologers on the panel weren't sure if the winner of the election would be the same person taking the oath of office on Inauguration Day."

Somewhat similar to Humpty Dumpty: