Jon Corzine, my governor who doesn’t believe in seat belts, wants everyone to buckle up for this little caper of giving Florida and Michigan a second vote. Break the rules, no problem, we’ll let you vote again. No one gets punished. Fat cats to the rescue.

As Groom reminds us from time to time: follow the money. Now Corzine, who is backing Clinton, is teaming up with another Clinton supporter, Ed Rendell, governor of the Pennsylvania where the next big primary is, to raise $30 million for a re-vote. Corzine is likely to put some of his own money into the pot, afterall, he spent $100 million of his own money to get elected in New Jersey and he is the godfather of a lot of local State Democratic Party activities. What does he get in return? What will Clinton offer him if she wins? Now couldn’t a better case be made that this extra $30 million go for homes in New Orleans, or food stamps, or Iraq invasion vets, or any other more democratic concern?

Now I admit that the Florida/Michigan primary problem is knotty, but I think a re-vote sends the wrong signal and sets a dangerous precedent. I think the Solomon solution is the best: give half the delegates to each candidate and thereby agree to seat both delegations. While this may “disenfranchise” some voters in Florida, they, afterall were part of the process, and unwilling part, but a part nevertheless. However, this solution would create a win-win for everyone.

But the Clinton-backed mischief is there. If she wins each state, but by less than 57 percent, she and Obama would essentially split the delegates anyway. What she is after is the argument that she won the big states and Obama won the little states. (They love to belittle him). That is the only argument she will have to make to the superior delegates that they should support her candidacy.

She has a point, but Obama has three points to make: he will make the case that he won 1) the popular vote; 2) the most states; and 3) the most delegates. But we know what happens to Democrats who win the popular vote but lose on technicalities. While we don’t know the outcome yet, the irony of Obama losing under these circumstances would not escape me.