I like this! But...........there is a problem with his changing his mind about rule breaking, also Howard Dean. After all there should be a price for breaking rules. It might backfire but readily agree it could solve a very sticky situation.

I've been saying something like this for weeks. If he puts it in terms of healing the party, he wins with it, has gravitas.

But a few caveats: He has to get delegates in MI -- she can't get them all. That's crazy.

I have also proposed that he offer her a deal where she still benefits but doesn't get the delegations seated, as is. She'd turn it down, and then who would look craven and mean-spirited?

But the concept of offering her some kind of deal -- I've even emailed the campaign about it.

For some reason, they don't take my sage advice.

I'm lazy and behind a deadline with a brief. Can someone briefly state the numbers if the MI and FL delegates are seated as currently designated?

It's a brilliant proposal and goes along with his "she should run as long as she wants" proposal. You just know that there's a lot of back-room maneuvering going on right now; if Obama's guys in the back rooms start advocating seating the delegates in any way that appears to favor Clinton, I bet the whole thing could happen before PA, making Obama look all gracious and presidential and stuff. And seeing how little MI and FL change things could both sway Clinton's supporters and allow her to bow out with at least a shred of dignity.

Really like your ideas about the high road & giving her FL, but MI is quite a different situation, could create a whole new flack about rules. There are many, myself among them that feel they deliberately did that, the Fl party leaders, not the people, which makes it even more convaluted. I'm a Foridian so i know first hand how tenuous this is.

You make a very good point about the disengenuous & dismissive time point.

This even more important if you consider the fact that in Texas, where people could vote twice, all votes were counted, while in FL/MI - none. So we have a situation that Clinton won the popular vote but Obama won the delegates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Even if you count FL and MI (where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot), Obama is ahead in the popular vote. It's a small lead, under 100,000, but he's still winning the popular vote even then.

If either of them wins, it has to be done by counting all votes and then letting the superdelegates get one of them to the "magic" number 2,024.

And that only works for Hillary if the super-dels can be convinced to overrule the pledged dels, in spite of the damage that would do to the party. Hillary supporters pretend that in scenarios in which Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, Obama is still doing well in the polls, Obama is still way ahead in fundraising, and Obama still has better "favorable" ratings than Hillary (who is currently at a seven-year low and close to a fourteen-year low), the super-dels could overrule the pledged dels and Obama supporters would just shrug and say "oh, well, you win some you lose some." It's a delusional argument.

Hillary needs some sort of major catastrophe to hit the Obama campaign in order to have any chance at all. And let me point out that in those sorts of circumstances, it's also possible that the pledged dels and super-dels would converge on Edwards or Gore, i.e., they'd pick a candidate who could unite the party. Hillary is a viable candidate in the same sense that Edwards or Gore are viable candidates, and the scenarios that could possibly work for Hillary, scenarios in which there are deep rifts in the party, may actually give someone like Gore or Edwards who might unify the party a better chance than Hillary.

Your argument is honorable, I think, but the timing for it is not so good. MI and FL will be the last issues on the table.

Obama's concentrating now on the primaries coming up and can't afford another huge media distraction from his message to voters in PA, NC and Indiana. Should this MI/FL idea be brought up now, all kinds of hoopla would ensue, including heated arguments from Obama supporters in both states that THEY never went to the polls because he wasn't campaigning there (or even on the ballot in MI) and that THEY were disenfranchised! Oy, the complaints, the complications - much less the rule-breaking issue - are numerous....

I'm sure, though, Obama and Clinton can deal with all this once the remaining states are done voting. It doesn't look like a re-vote's in the works, but we'll see who's in a better position by then to negotiate any MI/FL delegate splits.

Allsberg...I agree with you and have advocated this approach on another site I frequent. I'm a Clinton supporter but think this would be a wise thing to do on Obama's part. It resolves two major problems and he still keeps the lead. But if he was going to do it, I doubt he'd do it before PA.

The only way he should do this is IF he has the superdelegates in the bag, and some guarantee of their support. Which is to say, the day AFTER he announces this "brilliant, valiant and magnanimous" plan, the superdelegates announce their support for him.

Of course, the easier way is for the requisite numbers of supers he needs just go ahead and endorse him now rather than waiting until all of these bogus "deadlines" -- August, July June -- come and go, and she slogs on.

as a chess player your premise is wrong so to your whole argument.

in chess and in life you dont sacrifice your queen and then hope for the best.

its done only because it works.

They won't do it before PA primary. Issue of perceived momentum when the media dissect the PA results assuming Hillary wins (likely). It has to be done after a recent loss or tie. I would expect this after NC and Indiana primary at the earliest. I suspect the DNC will not settle this until after all other states/territories have voted and then it won't make a difference.
FL/MI will be seated eventually.

The FL/MI narrative only serves to draw this whole mess out further which is what she wants. I think they would use this gesture to augment their "superior" state argument straight thru until Denver.

This gesture is like giving your hand to someone who is sinking in quicksand. Sure, its noble but not very smart. They're just going to pull you in and drag you down. Better to extend a stick/rope in this case the DNC. Let them finally settle it.

No, no, NO. Obama should NOT do this - it will only embolden Hillary and her supporters. They will *never* accept this graciously or gratefully, and will make a stink out of how he'd tried to held off what is RIGHTFULLY hers until he couldn't. They will also start crowing about how much CLOSER the race really is, and she should fight harder for the Supers to throw their weight behind her. This is one of the worst things Obama can do strategically, Hillary is clutching at straws and you're about to extend her a whole yardstick. Do you think she'll be grateful to Obama for saving her from drowning? She'll push him right into the shark-infested water.

I thought this blog post had sunk to the TPM oblivion it so richly deserved hours ago.