I could go on for two or three pages about the whole Michigan and Florida issue, but instead, i will make this very short and to the point by simply stating all of the obvious.  I simply don't understand Hillary's argument.  I really need one of her supporters to explain it to me.  Before the primaries were held in both Michigan and Florida both Obama and Hillary agreed to the sanctions that would be imposed on the states if they broke the rules.  If you are a Hillary supporter please think about this for a few seconds.  Seriously, think about it.  That means that when the party told Hillary: "Hillary if Michigan and Florida break the rules, their delegates will not be seated."  For clarification, this means that they will not count.  Which means that no matter how many people vote in each of the two states, the delegates in those states will not be seated in the convention.  Which means that in a hipothetical situation, if Hillary Clinton gets 55% of the votes in one of those two states, the delegates will still not be seated.  If she gets 60%, the delegates will still not be seated.  And guess what, if she gets 100% of the votes, the selegates will still not be seated.  However, if she only gets 10% of the votes, the delegates will still not be seated.

Now, i may not agree with the nomination process.  Perhaps they should have all of the States vote in one day.  Maybe that would make more sense.  Perhaps they should punish states who move their primaries differently.  But regardless of what I think, the fact is that when Hillary was told what the punishment will be, she didn't mention how unfair that was.  She was not concerned about only counting 48 states and not 50.  She didn't mention that she believed that the punishment was too harsh.  But even if she did complain, what we know is that she agreed.  She agreed.  Think about that.  That means that when she was told what the punishment will be she said: "fine."  She agreed witht the punishment, which means that she understood that MIchigan and Florida will not count.  She knew that.  Knowing, as in, i know that my name is Hilary Clinton.  She agreed, as in, I agree with the punishment.  So Hillary agreed that the delegates should not be counted if the two states brake the rules.  She said, "Ok." as in "Yes."
So can someone please, please, explain to me how after Hillary agrees with the punishment she disagrees with the punishment.  How can anyone make the case that it is not fair, and therefore they should seat the delegates the way the votes were counted.  How?  How?!  Is that fair?