Michigan Re-vote dead: Opinions

Both Michigan and Florida revotes now seem to have passed beyond the realm of possibility.  From Politico:

The Senate Dems just had a long caucus meeting following their long phone call with the Gang of Four [as Carl Levin and others pushing a re-vote are called], and the result is that no one moved. Votes aren't there. Thus, it will not go to a vote in the Senate. And barring some other last minute miracle that doesn't involve those four, the Governor, and Hillary traveling to Michigan, it is dead as a doornail.

Obviously, Clinton loses an opportunity to catch some much-needed delegates in this.  However, my question to you all, Obama and Clinton supporters alike is:

Why do people blame Obama for this?

1. Hillary and Obama both signed a PLEDGE that Michigan would not count.

2. The senate democrats in Michigan overwhelmingly don't want a revote (I recall it was 17 to 2).  Looking at DCW's Superdelegate list, Clinton has 7 superdelegates in Michigan supporting her, including the Governor; Obama has 1.  Looking at Florida, Clinton has twice as many superdelegates as Obama (8 to 4), and numerous reports have indicated that Clinton's backers in the Florida senate don't see a plausible way of doing a re-vote.  This indicates to me, that all around, the pro-Clinton leadership does not want a re-vote for reasons other than strategically advantaging a candidate.

3. Some democrats voted for (or against) a Republican during "Round 1" to ensure that their vote counted for something, when they were told their Democratic vote would not count for anything.  Should they not be permitted to re-vote during "Round 2"?

4. Some independents or republicans who would have voted for either Clinton or Obama voted Republican, to have their vote count for something.

5. I believe that Clinton would have had to win PA, MI, and FL in the way that Barack won DC and Hawaii to catch up in delegates; there is no indication that this is even remotely possible -- looking at polls at New York, California, and Ohio.  As Clinton & Obama have recently polled in Michigan 50/50, why is it that folks rarely consider that Obama would have had decent chance of winning Michigan?

6. Just because something is possible doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.  Is it really truly hard to imagine that voters (and the leadership) may not want to spend $15-$25 million in a re-vote that will likely advantage one side or the other by single-digit delegates?

Comments and thoughts, please! :)