Point 1 -

Yay! Hooray for Obama...wait until it doesn't matter anymore and THEN push for a full seating of the delegates. Now That's Leadership and change you can believe in...what a joke, pure posturing.

Point 2 -

Maybe he should wait until after the election is over and then agree to the debates. That'd be more in line with the typical campaign strategy.

Alienated voters in Michigan and Florida are not going to be induced to feeling the warm fuzzies for Obama now, months after he suggested that their votes either not be counted, or that he should get a portion of them that he didn't deserve. I'd love to see him offer a reason why he thinks it's so important to include Florida and Michigan now when before he was all about enforcing the rules. Any argument that Obama is in favor of what's fairest, rather than what is most politically convenient for him, is rendered hollow by yet another flipflop, even if this one is ultimately insignificant. FISA, off-shore drilling, now the votes of two of the most significant swing states in the election... who does Obama think he's fooling? He may be the candidate of "hope" but all I'm hoping for is that his next policy reversal doesn't continue to betray his constituents for the sake of appearing 'moderate.'

Obama is making it very difficult to take him or his candidacy seriously.

Right. Whereas Clinton waited until it did matter -- to her -- before pushing for a full seating. Before that, she didn't give a shit, and her supporters on the rules committee supported not seating MI and FL.

Oh, and from the McCain camp there's naught but the sound of crickets about the fact that Repubs will penalize five states for holding early primaries.

Of course he is pushing to fully seat MI & FL. It's feel good time. The Democrats want to win. I want them to win. Its time to take back the country from the corporate right.

Let's move forward and win.

Please don't screw this all up and get your shit together for 2012, ok? Cuz this whole breaking the rules thang has been just such a pain in the arse for all concerned, truly. Thx.

Great assurance to see his decision was based on principled ideas and not just for self-serving political reasons.

"Once he sewed up the nomination, there was no longer any reason to anger Democrats from those two states..."

Oh it was just for self-serving political reasons.

Never mind.

"Once he sewed up the nomination, there was no longer any reason to anger Democrats from those two states, no matter how much they flouted the rules earlier this year."

Lets not start telling this story as if that was all fault of democrats in MI and FL.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-cou_b_94158.html

... football metaphor. I guess I'm not the only one yearning for some gridiron action.

It's all the pundit BS that happens before and afterwards. There's about a 2 or 3:1 ratio between media spin and actual debate, and that's not good for Obama, not matter how well he performs.

Both Al Gore and John Kerry DESTROYED Bush in their debates, and all you could hear from the pundits was how mean they were and how well Bush did to not crap in his pants.

Apart from the Avoidance reason there's two more good ones for Mr Obama to not engage in more than 3 head-to-head debates with Mr McCain:

1. Do not overfeed.

Voters - who are probably already fed up with the long ongoing soap opera called 'Presidential Race' - may simply tire totally from listening to one long debate after another. Many of the debates may not even have particularly interesting themes [to the voters].

2. Avoid arrogance.

As it looks at the moment, Mr Obama is clearly the winner against Mr McCain on charisma. He is also a much better debater and orator. Most voters already know that - no wonder these are the current talking points against him on the Republican side. The more often Mr Obama hammers these pints home himself, for instance by defeating Mr McCain in debates, the less will peopple like it. As John Oliver in The Daily Show explained it, Mr McCain may go for sympathy through looking pathetic [which he did very well over the past two weeks].

I agree with your point but I think that there are many levels of winning a debate...In the case of Kerry and Gore, it was pretty clear that they WON the debates on the most basic level (that is to say that they both handled Bush and gave better, more compelling answers.) Unfortunately, both Kerry and Gore went on to lose a different aspect of the debate (connectibility and relatability) in that they failed to establish themselves with any degree of 'like-you-and-me'edness. It is great to thrash an opponent in a debate and that will always lead to a 'victory' from the chattering class, but to establish oneself as a candidate who can relate to the average person is an equally important goal. Kerry came off as an elite snob who could drone on forever and Gore got painted as a boring nerd.

Before I even opened the comments - I knew exactly what most of them would say. Sheesh can we please move on?

But, okay since we are talking about this:

1. Michigan and Florida democrats did not cause the problem in those states the Democratic party leadership in those states caused the problem. If Michigan and Florida democrats are disaffected they should look to their leaders - they are the ones who tried to break the rules - be angry with them.

2. At the time that the DNC made the decision to impose sanctions on Michigan and Florida, there was no outcry or outrage from the Clinton camp that I recall. If Clinton had major objections to these sanctions she could have gone on record - loud and clear - with her objections. The reason she did not was

a. at the time, she and her campaign were certain she'd be the nominee and the sanctions on Michigan and Florida weren't going to change that

b. setting earlies dates for the Michigan and Florida primaries clearly would have benefitted Clinton - she almost would have sewn up the nomination early because Obama would not have had the time to develop momentum; but although the Clintons had a lot of power in the DNC - there were others who were willing to call them out; however, given the belief that Clinton would be the nominee (see a. above), the Clinton campaign probably decided it was not worth the fight

3. Clinton did not win the Michigan primary - she ran unopposed (all the other candidates took their names of the ballot) - that does not count as a "win." Unfortunately, even the "Amazing Kresgin" can't tell what would have happened if there had been an actual race in Michigan. Ditto for Florida. Yes, the other candidates' names were on the ballots. But who knows what the results would be had their been campaigning in Florida. In both states, but especially Florida, Clinton had very high name recognition compared to the other candidates - that certainly helped her "win." And, who knows how many voters didn't bother to vote because they were told their votes wouldn't count? So, common sense leads to this: most likely, had their been campaigning in both states and had all candidates been on the ballot, Clinton would have won fewer delegates in those states that she did.

4. The DNC could have easily said tough: we said Michigan and Florida delegates would not be seated, all the candidates agreed - so we're sticking with the rule. That would have been a bad decision. So, they did the best they could under bad circumstances. If anyone tried to rig anything, it was the Clinton campaign and the Democratic leadership of Michigan and Florida. Michigan and Florida tried (but failed) to rig things in Clinton's favor when they tried to move their primaries to an earlier date. Clinton agreed to the sanctions imposed on Michigan and Florida. Until she realized she needed those delegates. Then she cried foul, no fair. Well, you don't agree to rules and then try to change them mid-game when it looks like things aren't going your way. That is poor sportswomanship.