I've got one observation to make early on. The chatter this morning is about a kind of 50/50 split. Seat Florida, possibly in full, and respect the results of their primary, but split MI's delegation by half, and give Hillary's delegates to her, and some number to Obama. And the word on TV -- which is often wrong or at least inaccurate because the full complexity and all the permutations can't really be conveyed on TV in 30 seconds -- is that the Obama camp would accept something like that. That could be right, partially right, right depending on who you talk to, right depending on what you hear when you listen to the Obama camp, or some combination of the above.
Or, of course, completely wrong.
But the important thing to keep in mind is that that would require at least as much RBC rules creation-as-you-go as anything Obama supporters (or anyone else) have ever feared. There's literally no official mechanism whatsoever by which the RBC should really be able to "award" delegates from MI to Obama. Those delegates, no matter what the intention of the voters, are stuck representing the "uncommitted" position, and guessing at how many of the voters who voted uncommitted were really voting for Obama is a ridiculous thing to try to do when it comes to actually translating it into a finite number of actual delegates, and you can be sure the Clinton campaign will say so, and be right when they do. There's not only no real guide for how to get to a number on it, but awarding any delegates at all directly to Obama -- who wasn't on the ballot in Michigan (and we can debate the meaning and/or wisdom of that decision, too -- would mean that the RBC can literally sit down and decide that the actual results of a primary are not to their liking, and that they'll decide the results instead.
I don't think anybody really thinks that's democratic.