Apologies if someone has made this suggestion before, but I would strongly suggest that the Obama campaign sieze the iniative on FL/MI by announcing (a) that Obama accepts the Florida vote and (b) that the campaign will raise the money to have a re-vote (not by mail and not a caucus) in MI provided that the vote is held no later than June 3rd. I say this because I think that FL/MI have the potential to be a disaster for the Democrats. And, I say it because the benefits to Obama of doing so far outweigh the risks.
I won't go into great detail as to why FL/MI is a potential disaster. Suffice it to say that Hillary will certainly not drop the issue, and as long as she doesn't, there will be no consensus that Obama is the presumptive nominee (barring perhaps an Obama win in PA, which I think is rather unlikely). In other words, until there is a resolution, there is a real threat of a nasty convention.
On the other hand, if Obama accepts FL and funds an MI revote, he can virtually ensure that the nomination is resolved in his favor by June 3rd. As part of his announcement, he would say that his reason for taking this bold step is that he believes it is important that the party have a nominee before the convention. Therefore, he would say, let's have all primaries completed by June 3rd. At that point, the superdelegates would know who had won the most states, who had won the most elected delegates, and who had won the greatest number of votes--the greatest number of votes counting EVERY state, large or small, red or blue, caucus or primary. It would then be incumbent on the superdelegates to make a prompt judgment so that the party would have a presumptive nominee by early June. If he made such a bold, statesmanlike move, I think he would set the terms of the remainder of the campaign. If he then went on to win a majority of all votes (counting EVERY state), the superdelegates would indeed crown him the presumptive nominee in early June.
There is the possibility that if he accepts FL and funds an MI revote, he could lose the popular vote. But, that's very unlikely. And, it is the very fact that he could conceivably lose that makes the move bold. Other than the inclusion of the existing FL vote, the other parameters of the popular vote count would be on Obama's terms. EVERY state would be counted; hence, Hillary's distinctions between large and small states and caucuses and primaries would seem ridiculous. WA, IA, NV and ME, where caucus votes have to be estimated would also be included. By the every state criterion, Obama would have a 500,000 vote edge with PA, IN, NC, Guam, WV, KY, OR, SD, MT, MI and PR remaining. Hillary could pick up 300,000 or so in PA, but a big chunk of that would be wiped out in IN and NC, at least 100,000. Hillary will do well in the remaining states but would be very, very hard pressed to make up a 300,000 vote deficit. Could Hillary do even better in PA ... say win by 20% and pick up 400,000 popular votes. Sure, it's possible, but he'd have to lose the white vote by close to 40%, much worse than he did in Ohio. I'll take my chances on that one.
This bold move would also help steer the dynamic of the race in Obama's favor. He would be seen as bold, proactive and statesmanlike, precisely the qualities folks want to see in a Commander-in-Chief. Much of the focus would come off of Pennsylvania. And, in general, the media would eat it up and reward Obama richly. Obama would be back above the fray and Hillary's negative campaign would fall flatter and flatter.
Senator Obama: you have the opportunity to take firm control of the campaign with this bold move. Do it.