Why should the primary voters of Florida and Michigan be disenfranchised for the failings of their state legislators? If the national party wants to punish those culpable for moving the primaries without national party approval, why should the voters in those states take the brunt of that punishment? I could see disenfranchising the superdelegates because it could at least be argued that they could have prevented those primaries from being moved up. However Florida had a Republican governor and the Democrats in the Florida state legislature were outnumbered 103 to 57.
My thinking is that Obama and Clinton unite in getting their big money backers to fund the revotes in Florida and Michigan. By holding those primaries, the Democratic party gets to look like it actually cares about voting rights. And that gives us the moral authority to raise voters' rights issues in the national election. Since Greg Palast and Mark Crispin Miller both think that a landslide is the only guarantee of Democratic victory there is a good chance that we will be demanding recounts in November. How can we expect to be taken seriously then if the Republicans can point to us disenfranchising our own voters now? Also at least as important is that holding revotes will help unite us by putting an end to the speculation of who really won the primaries.