...or why Obama is going to get what he needs tomorrow.

If you knew nothing about the style of the two remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination, you could learn everything about that just by watching how they handle the rules committee meeting.  

Clinton is a fighter.  She concedes nothing as she strives for the best possible outcome.  It can be ugly to watch sometimes as arguments are abandoned and others that contradict the previous ones are suddenly promoted, but if you're not paying the kind of close attention that we political junkies do, it's not that big of a deal.  By attacking and attacking, she is an exciting person to support.  There's always a new line of attack and coming up with arguments to support the position keeps supporters energized.

Obama, on the other hand, talks about unity and compromise.  There's always lip service given towards trying to see the other party's position and view, even when you're rejecting it.  It can sometimes come across as fake, and it makes it difficult for him to be a hardliner when he needs to be.

While neither approach is superior all the time, the Florida situation shows why I prefer the compromise model as a way of winning.  Clinton has been all about the press release and the conference call, the statement of moral purity and the over the top analogy.  "Count the votes!"  "The election should count!"  

Obama's stance has been more nuanced.  Yes, these elections were obviously flawed by the way they happened, but let's see if we can find some way of getting the delegates seated in some fashion.  Here's what I'd prefer but maybe we can find another approach.

It's the nuance that's the reason that Obama is going to be happier tomorrow than Clinton is.  While Clinton's arguments have a clarity, ultimately they're severely flawed by an elephant in the room - the elections in Florida and Michigan were obviously flawed in many ways - no campaigning, voters told ahead of time that they wouldn't count, etc.  

The fight approach means that you have to ignore all evidence against your position.  You can't say that the elections were suboptimal because it undermines your case that this is disenfranchising.  However, that only works if you're arguing with people who already agree with you.  It doesn't move others to your point of view.  Ask someone in the Clinton camp about the irregularities of the primaries and they change the subject or question the premise that there was anything odd with them.  That can work with people who are vaguely following the news, but there's no way that that can convince a member of the rules committee who has been studying this situation for months, trying to find a way of resolving this.

That's the paradox.  By being willing to concede points, Obama actually makes his case stronger.  Showing an ability to understand your opponents point of view is the only way that you can ever find a way of coming up with an argument that will convince them.  Compromise looks weaker than fighting, but if you do it right - and Obama is an expert at just that - it'll produce the desired result far more often than not.  If you want to know why people think Obama will be a great President, watch his team tomorrow.  He'll give ground, make it so Florida and Michigan can walk away feeling like they've accomplished something, and yet still will get what he needs.  I look forward to seeing him try those methods on Congress.

Note: Mistersite made a good point in the comments that Obama is bargaining out of strength here. That's true now, but back in February it was far less so. Clinton could have scored delegate gains from the elections or managed a revote in Florida, but again her unwillingness to compromise led her to constantly suggest the solution that the voters had spoken and the votes should be counted exactly as is. Not only did that not get her a single delegate but it was the reason a lot of people moved from, "I'll take either candidate," to being in Obama's camp.