DEMOCRATS ARE on a collision course with themselves unless they can solve a problem (like so many of them) entirely of their own making.

I refer to the Florida/Michigan delegate imbroglio, which is not a dispute over bragging rights at the August convention but an issue that could cost Democrats the election in the fall.

To recap, both states decided to flout the party's wishes by moving up their primaries to Jan. 29 - ahead of the mega-primary on Feb. 5 that was supposed to decide the nomination battle. To spank them, the Democratic National Committee stripped the states of their delegates - and the candidates agreed not to campaign in them.

But the super-primary turned out to be a mere teaser for what was to come. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are locked in a war of attrition with as much chance of peace breaking out before the convention as the polar ice cap has of reversing its melting trend. Suddenly, in the fierce state-by-state competition to reach the 2,025 delegates needed to win (excluding Florida and Michigan), every one counts.

Predictably, the incensed governors of both states - Republican Charles Christ in Florida and Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan - seeing little advantage in going to their conventions with no countable delegates, have demanded they be seated.

The Republicans know who their nominee is, so for Christ this is just political posturing.

For the Democrats, seating of these 366 delegates in violation of the party's stern ruling would have the effect of converting non-binding elections into binding ones in both states - an outcome that would favor Clinton, who won both states. Obama supporters have cried foul.

Democrats are at odds about how to resolve the dilemma. Marin/Sonoma Assemblyman Jared Huffman, an Obama supporter, says: "The party and all of the candidates agreed to a set of rules, and that agreement included consequences for states that held their primaries in violation of them. Most candidates honored that commitment and declined to campaign in Michigan and Florida, though the Clinton camp hedged its bets. She should not be rewarded for going back on her word."

The problem with strict rule application is the difficulty in seeing how the Democrats can prevail in a close general election without the participation of Florida (the state that would have put Al Gore over the top in 2000 if the vote count had not been stopped) and Michigan, which is reliably Democratic. Democrats would ignore these states at their own peril.

To allocate delegates in accordance with the primary results also would give Clinton an unfair advantage without offering Obama the opportunity to contest his right to a fair share of the delegates - something that could not be determined without a re-run of the elections. Some influential party leaders have signaled they will protest any arrangement that disenfranchises Obama's voters.

Huffman is not so sure a do-over election would work. "Because of the way things unfolded," he says, "there is no way for Obama to have a fair shake in a 're-vote' in those states." But both camps are suggesting they might be willing to support a second write-in election.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a Clinton supporter and super delegate, said flatly: "As to Michigan and Florida, we should do everything possible to see that both delegations are seated."

She added: "I am a Hillary supporter right now at this point. If she is a player, I will be there for her. But if there is a total swing in the popular vote, I could change my mind."

Whatever the outcome of this brawl, Democrats now are looking much like a headless school with the children running amok.

Richard Rubin writes a monthly column for the Marin Independent Journal. For more information on the author or to read his past articles, contact the Marin Independent Journal or visit their website at http://www.marinij.com/