lol, I have no idea what you're talking about.  What is a "yard arm"?

that is never done.  no one ever actually offers anyone the VP slot in public.  it is always done more privately than that.

but there is no other way to interpret this:

On The Early Show, co-anchor Harry Smith said to Clinton, "We talked to a lot of people in Ohio who said there really isn't that significant a difference between you two, and they'd like to see you both on the ticket."

"Well, that may, you know, be where this is headed," Clinton said. "But of course, we have to decide who's on the top of the ticket, and I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

That doesn't sound like she's talking about an Obama/Clinton ticket, does it?

and WJC was a lot more explicit:

President Clinton Saturday suggested a Clinton-Obama ticket would be "unstoppable."

"He would win the urban areas and the upscale voters. She would win the rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president," he said while campaigning in Pass Christian, Mississippi. "If you put those two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force."

so let's all stop pretending the Clinton campaign was not trying to float the joint ticket as a way of siphoning votes away from Obama by making people think they could vote for her and get both.  It wasn't Obama campaign spin, it was every political commentator in the country who jumped on it.  it was that transparent.  i don't know how long you have been following politics, but only the extremely naive failed to see that was exactly what was going on.

The latest estimate is that Clinton picked up just 12 additional delegates from her victories Tuesday night, but the lift from her victories in Ohio and Texas was huge. And Wednesday on CBS' "The Early Show" she all but offered Obama the vice presidential spot on her ticket.

"That may be where this headed, but of course we have to decide who's on top of the ticket," Clinton said. "I think people of Ohio very clearly said it should be me."

here's the link:

(I paraphrase), "But it's just a question of who should be on the top of the ticket and obviously my supporters and I think it should be me," or words to that effect.

More careful readers? You should try LISTENING to the obvious. The statements of Hillary/Bill and the whole campaign were quite obvious.
If you don't think they were pushing the idea of her at top of ticket, you are just plain in denial.

she graciously hinted at the vp slot..

  ?  Puhleeze.

dishonest.

She followed that "some of my supporters wish both of us could be on the ticket" up with "that may be possible some day" or "that may very well happen" repeatedly.  Obama called her on her crap - she was trying to hoodwink people into thinking they could get two for one if they just voted for Clinton in the primary.  The point is that she, in second place, is in no position to talk about the VP slot at all, since the person who finishes second doesn't get to choose the VP.

There are rules.  The rules were clear.  MI and FL broke the rules.  Hence...MI and FL get penalized, as it says in the rules.  

Should MI and FL come up with a plan to re-do their contests that can pass their own legislatures, I think everyone (including the candidates) would be happy to put it into action.  If not, then the candidates will have to work out some agreement for seating those delegates, probably by awarding half to each candidate.

have to be seated in some way.

at the national party or any candidate.  I am ticked off at some people in my state, but we'll work that out.  sheesh

is ALL Obama's fault, according to Clinton.  At least this is their spin.  Blame it on Obama.  HE has disenfranchised the voters.  HE is afraid of a revote.

this topic and I'm an Obama supporter.

The fact is, the Florida-Michigan has not been resolved. How do their delegates get seated?

Dean says that the issue will get worked out before the convention, will get worked out, he says, because the candidates will agree on a resolution, which strikes me as wishful thinking.

Fact is, most people in this thread are describing things as they want them to be, I'm doing my best to describe things as they are.

As long as the Michigan-Florida issue remain unresolved, Clinton has an opening to prolong the primary, which is only one reason that Obama should've helped to make revotes happen. The other reasons are that revotes would be good for Dems in the general election and that millions of voters have been effectively disenfranchised by the stupidity of their reps.

Surely Kos and most people the blogosphere would be strongly supportive of revotes if revotes didn't seem to work against the interests of the candidate they support.

It's a short-sighted position because revotes would be good for the party and therefore good for Obama, who will almost definitely be our nominee.