Hilary broke with the party and most of her colleagues in putting her name on the Michigan primary ballot, despite everyone being told before the fact that if Michican jumped the gun the delegates would not be seated. Now she's insisting that it would "disenfranchise the state of Michigan" if the results of that ridiculous "election" were not counted -- an election where Obama, Dodd, Biden, and Edwards were not on the ballot AND in which writing their names in would have gotten the whole ballot discarded! I admit it's a no-win situation, but how can she keep a straight face and claim that it would be fair to count that state as a "victory" over candidates who were not even OPTIONS on that ballot? It's disingenuous of her to pretend that she didn't get a humongous advantage just by her name being one of only two names on the ballot (the other being Kucinich).
Florida is a little less clear, as both her name and Barack's were on the ballot, even though he (and Edwards) didn't campaign there, and because it was the Republican-led state legislature that upped the date. But she focuses on how unfair it would be to (follow the stated rules) and NOT seat those delegates, but she dismisses the unfairness there would be to the voters who didn't vote because they'd been told it wouldn't count, if those delegates were now to be seated. Her sense of justice and fairness seems very selective. And, again, her stance is a thumb-the-nose at the Democratic Party.