If obama wanted Florida and Michigan to count why did him and his campaign say do to a deal that was fair?

Obama followed the DNC rules regarding Michigan and Florida: he did not campaign there and wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary was on both ballots, and held fundraisers in Florida (not technically breaking the rules, but certainly violating the spirit). This lead (of course) to landslide wins for Hillary. So if Florida and Michigan are to be seated at the convention, there must be a compromise and not simply seat them as Hillary delegates.If obama wanted Florida and Michigan to count why did him and his campaign say do to a deal that was fair?
Sounds like you don't really understand what happened in FL %26amp; MI, or you want your candidate to have a unfair advantage. It would be like your team showing up for a hockey game an hour early and demanding that the goals you scored while practicing should be counted even though your opponent wasn't even in the building. Obama wasn't even on the MI ballot, because the dates were moved not by days or weeks, but months. MI and FL were warned before they held their elections that if they went through with it, their votes would not count -- and they held them anyway. If they want their votes counted, those states need to get approval from the DNC, and schedule a legitimate vote well in advance so BOTH candidates can make an appeal to the voters.If obama wanted Florida and Michigan to count why did him and his campaign say do to a deal that was fair?
I don't understand your question. Of course the Obama campaign want a fair outcome AND they want to see the delegates from FL and MICH seated. Why wouldn't they?
You may need to rephrase your question. Do you think they should make a deal that is unfair then?