The Clinton campaign is accusing the Obama campaign of attempting to game the system. The charge is that Obama chose to pull out of Michigan's vote as a campaign strategy to curry votes in Iowa. The funny thing here is that it was Clinton supporters in Michigan who gamed the system by pushing Michigan to move up it's primary in the first place in order to make Michigan more relevant and to provide a big win for the Clinton surge for the nomination (perhaps the Michigan delegates saw what was happening in Iowa and decided that they were reading the political tea leaves better than her campaign advisors?). The irony is that by boosting Michigan forward, the state's politicians made Michigan less relevant to the Democratic primary/caucus season even though they voted for Clinton. Had they remained where they were and provided Clinton with the 10 to 15 point lead she was likely to get, they could have aided her argument of winning in blue collar states with lots of delegates better than they are today. Instead, they are supporting a candidate who has brought much to the debate and the campaign, but who is going to lose the race.
It's galling to hear the Clinton campaign suggest that the Obama campaign is gaming the system when that's exactly what Clinton's supporters did in the first place. Oh, and Jim Blanchard? You were a good governor, a decent ambassador, but truly, your arguments are somewhat ridiculous - just like your last run for office.