Obama is playing around with disfranchisement as a political power tool.

That's Hopiness and Changeiness, see.

Michigan counts as is AND Obama doesn't even get the uncommitted votes?  That's going to seem really fair to Obama fans.  Keep promoting that and odds are that the solution will be to just stick with the rules as given.

So your solution to disenfranchising Michigan's voters is to... disenfranchise Michigan's voters? Instead of perhaps disenfranchising 5%, and it's not really clear that it would even do that since turnout at the first primary was pretty skewed, you'd rather seat an election that disenfranchised 45% or more? That's better how?

All the candidates in fact signed a pledge to not participate in any primary which would not count. Obama did the right thing. For that he and his campaign should not be punished. And, in any case, this is supposed to be about the voters, right? Isn't that what disenfranchisement means? What argument can you present that says it's more fair to the voters of Michigan to disenfranchise 45% than 5%?

If one is wrong, the other is 9 times as wrong.

..reveals why she shouldn't quit her day job.  For one, the 50-50 proposal is not an "Obama proposal."  Chris Dodd originally floated the idea, and while he has endorsed Obama, I don't believe he was speaking for the Obama campaign.

Fine, then don't seat any delegates from Michigan.

They broke the rules and now Clinton wants to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Screw that.

Chris Dodd did make this proposal and it's beyond ridiculous, and I said before that he's compromised his integrity in even suggesting it.  Either count them or don't - if they want a revote and someone offers up the money, have it.

I've already given up on their being a legitimate solution that will make everyone happy and I blame Dean for faulty reasoning on this matter - how the GOP managed to screw this up less than the DNC is beyond me.

As Texas Gray Wolf adeptly points out, seating this delegation "as-is" disenfranchises the 45% of the voters whose candidate's name wasn't on the ballot.

That is the WORST of all scenarios.  At least the option of not seating the delegation at all "disenfranchises" ALL Michigan voters EQUALLY, rather than the most unfair situation where ONLY Clinton votes are counted.

And Obama's supporters try to say Hillary is attempting to cheat to steal the election?  I'd heard that Obama supporters have floated this idea of a 50/50 split, but not Obama himself--that greatly disappoints me and throws yet another shadow over his entire campaign in my humble opinion!  But as I've suggested elsewhere, perhaps there's some validity to splitting the already taken votes--for the "uncommited" portion of the votes already cast.  

That is, we know the outcome in FL, so seat those delegates according to the actual votes--they did have 33% higher turnout than ever before, so I don't think there's much validity to saying people stayed home because they didn't think their vote would count.  Besides, they had a property tax issue on the ballot as well, so concerned citizens were certainly out voting.  I know the Obama supporters don't like that suggestion--but in all fairness, he's the only candidate who disobeyed the rules and actually had commercials running in FL, so he should be glad to even get those votes.  

But in Michigan, it is more complicated because Barack opted to take his name off the ballot--and, yes, he opted to take his name off, there was no pressure from the DNC to remove his name, and it would seem fairly obvious that this move was part of a calculated strategy that may now backfire.  Four candidates were listed and received votes--while apparently three candidates, Obama, Edwards, and Biden, were represented by an "uncommitted" entry on the ballot, which is what their camps campaigned to have their supporters vote for.  Still Clinton got 55% of all votes placed, and the "uncommitted" entry received 40%.  So with 156 delegates available, give Clinton 55% or 86 of those.  Then split the 40% "uncommitted" votes evenly between Obama, Edwards, and Biden, meaning Obama gets 33% of that 40% or 21 delegates.  Again, since he opted to remove his name--this seems more than generous to give him these delegates.  

Bottom line, we are the United States of America, not the United States MINUS two--and these two states are too critical to the General Election, so the DNC cannot run the risk of disenfranchising these 2.2+ million Democrat voters!  Together they represent nearly 10% of all votes cast--and nobody can pretend they didn't vote.  They did vote, and we know the results!  So why put anybody to the cost of holding another election (hasn't this Primary cost enough money already?)!  Punish the state party by withholding future funds, but don't damage our chance of winning the White House back by taking away voters voices!  

Not only that, but we're the country who fights for other country's voters to have a voice and run fair elections.  What example do we set for the world, and how much worse could our reputation get, if we can't even run a fair election ourselves that gives every voter a voice?

Absolutely not to 50-50 tricks!

This a nightmare for both sides.  Lets face it both sides are juggling for positions.  I blame the DNC Howard Dean, Donna B and the rest of the executives