Democrats in Florida and Michigan are in two very different situations. Sunshine Staters have given up the prospects of being allowed to vote a second time, while Michiganders have sent their own June 3 re-vote proposal to both candidates for their inspection. After the developments yesterday, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sent out statements that once again have both of them misconstruing the process to make themselves look good.

"Today's announcement brings us no closer to counting the votes of the nearly 1.7 million people who voted in January. We hope the Obama campaign shares our belief that Florida's voters must be counted and cannot be disenfranchised," read Clinton spokesman Phil Singer's indignant statement after Florida.

"We hope that all parties can agree on a fair seating of the Florida delegates so that Florida can participate in the Democratic Convention, and we look forward to working with the Florida Democratic Party and competing vigorously in the state so that Barack Obama can put Florida back into the Democratic column in November," the Obama campaign chimed in.

Clinton's camp seems to think the process is controlled by voters, and it's not. There is no provision in the Constitution for a primary, meaning, as the Supreme Court upholds, it's not up to the people to be able to vote, it's up to the parties to be allowed to choose a nominee. However they do that is up to, solely, the Democratic and Republican National Committees. Therefore, no one in Florida, or anywhere, has been disenfranchised this year: They can't be enfranchised to begin with.

In Obama's case, it makes no sense that delegates should be seated in any way other than allocated in the January 29 primary. In baseball, if a batter refuses to get into the batter's box, the umpire can let a pitcher hurl away at an empty plate, and the umpire can call anything a strike. Obama's argument that he didn't campaign in the state is akin to a petulant batter: Just because he didn't show up doesn't mean the contest isn't going to happen. (Bonus points, though, for using the word "Florida" four times in one sentence.

Obama's camp also released a longer statement on what they called a complex re-vote proposal in Michigan. "Considering the fact that Senator Clinton is currently trying to prevent and delay votes in Texas from being counted because she didn't like the outcome, it's pretty apparent that the Clinton campaign's views on voting are dependent on their own political interest. Hillary Clinton herself said in January that the Michigan primary 'didn't count for anything.' Now, she is cynically trying to change the rules at the eleventh hour for her own benefit. We received a very complex proposal for Michigan re-vote legislation today and are reviewing it to make sure that any solution for Michigan is fair and practical. We continue to believe a fair seating of the delegation deserves strong consideration," the statement said.

The statement is a less than subtle call for an even split of delegates, never mind that Clinton won 56% of the vote and "undecided" and "uncommitted," two place-holders for Obama, took 40%. So while Obama's campaign stalls for time, prodding the legislature's plan for holes that would unfairly benefit their rival, their definition of "fair" seems to be malleable. And

And if the Obama camp prefers the argument that they weren't even on the ballot in Michigan, they might be reminded that it was their decision to withdraw Obama's name from the ballot. No one -- not even the chairs of the four early states that forced candidates to sign a no-campaign pledge -- forced them to do so. In fact, other campaigns, lacking the financial resources to compete in Michigan, happily followed suit.

Whatever the outcome -- a re-vote in Michigan and a Florida split seems most likely at the moment -- both Democrats are understandably trying to spin the results in their favor. Both positions the candidates have staked out, though, just ring hollow.