Uh, nope.  NO DELEGATES are to be seated.  Those are the rules that the DNC imposed and which the candidates *all* supported originally or at least didn't protest to the point of having the rules changed.

Yes Obama protested and objected about revoting, because it would cause him to dig into his war chest of funds that would be needed during the general election and because it would make him look bad if a revote was held in states that supposedly had already been won by someone else.

Would Hillary be trying to get these votes counted if the states were Obama states?  Hell NO!  Would she be trying to get these votes counted if the states were Edwards states?  Again, hell no.  She left her name on the ballot rather than telling the people in the state to vote for none of the above because she wanted the ace in the hole/back pocket to pull out later and get the delegates from.  She wanted to be able to welcome the prodigal states back into the fold at the convention where she could look like a peace maker.  Too bad she isn't ahead now and isn't close at all unless those votes are counted, and too bad the majority of the party isn't interested in kowtowing to her whims.

As to your dreams here:

Hmmm, picked up 3 super delegates from Maryland in the last 24 hours.  Picked up a former Clinton big-wig over the last week as another super delegate, and looks to clean Hilldog's clock in North Carolina, and oh yeah, won the Guam caucuses.

Losing support?  You're dreaming again...

You both are right. Hillary is trying to change the rules, and Obama does not have it won. Nor will he unless Hillary quits. As it stands now, they are going to a brokered convention. As it should be. Pledged delegates vote for their pledge first round, then are free to vote for whomever after that.

It will be fun to watch.

Oh and Obama won Guam by like 7 votes and they each got two delegates.  Big win, in his column. 

"the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. "

From the DNC selection rules.  You should also note that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the DNC rules but were not punished.  The DNC is enforcing the rules arbitrarily and not even according to their own selection rules.  Also note that the early primary in Florida was because the Republican Florida legislature passed a law moving the primary date up.  Do you think that it's really fair to take away the Florida Dem's votes for that reason?

http://www.seatourdelegates.com/

Untrue, the rules state that is the MINIMUM punishment that can be increased according to the DNC's decision.

No you shouldn't note that as its an outright fabrication. The fact is those four states had permission to hold their contests before that date. In fact Florida could have held their contest if they had received permission first, something they refused to ask for.

Yes you are right on this one. I got the primaries messed up this year.

However, a candidate shouldn't be judged on the sequence of primary victories.

Odd, though, that many in the DNC camp claim that the popular vote should be all important (see Al Gore, circa 2000), yet Obama leads in the popular vote and suddenly it doesn't matter. Or, better yet, they claim that if the DNC operated by Republican rules, Hillary would have already won (see Hillary Clinton, about 2 days ago), yet ignore the fact that their party made the rules. Or, they complain about the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida AFTER the fact, yet they weren't working beforehand to get them back on the map.

The rules are, play by the rules. Hillary has confirmed everything I've ever believed about her by whining at every turn. How anyone wants this whiner running the country is beyond me.

(Note: I'm sure Obama would be just as whiny if he were trailing, and I don't like him any better, but Hillary has, in my opinion, shown herself to be one thoroughly classless individual).

the two are not even remotely comparable. The popular vote in this contest is exceedingly meaningless seeing as how it disregards any of the caucus states. Its the equivalent of basing 2000 on the overall total vote of 35 of the 50 states.