By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor March 10, 2008 In the world of what ifs, here's one to consider. What if it were the other way around? What if Sen. Hillary Clinton were leading in the delegate count and had more state wins and a fundraising advantage and it was Sen. Barrack Obama who had dominated Florida and Michigan's outlawed primaries? If that were the case, Clinton wouldn't tolerate any discussion of seating Michigan and Florida at the convention because it would imperil her chances of winning the nomination. Her argument no doubt would be that national party rules -- rules written by her allies -- need to be respected, and that unpledged superdelegates should respect the will of the majority and put her over the top. Obama, in turn, would be unloading fire and brimstone, arguing the will of Florida and Michigan voters was being suppressed and that it was not their fault that state party officials violated the rules by jumping ahead and scheduling early primaries. But you can be sure he wouldn't get very far. Granted, it is easy in the world of political speculation to posit scenarios that will are mere fantasy, but sometimes pondering "what ifs" sheds light on the often expedient positionings of presidential candidates.