In answer to that question, Roni, I want transparency, logic, democracy & fair play, with the voters of the public choosing the nominee as much and as directly as possible, and want to oppose vestiges of back-room deals, insider manipulation, the old boy network, and, if you want to call it that, cheating.
I think where David Brooks & I have it right over you & Mark Shields
is that there is no hypocrisy in the above view because these 2 cases are not equivalent "change the rules" sort of cases, as many people are thinking.
On the one hand, FL & MI were punished clearly and publicly for their own behavior for breaking the explicit and recognized rules of the party in the first place. What the Clinton camp wants is to have that punishment nullified and evidently no punishment at all applied (which makes one wonder why they didn't argue for that in the first place, before the residents of those states went to the polls and the results looked good for her), and their results, ones that she herself agreed would not count as official, to now be considered as official after the fact. This is something that would be lauged out in about any analogous context you can think of. Take contract law, just for example, if you find the sports world analogy too insignificant.
(And none of this addresses the question of why these states, if they're really so concerned about their residents' voices behind heard in the process, refused to return their primaries to their original dates, as the DNC said they should, and refuse now to hold some type of do-over attempt, as the DNC has said they can. They strangely want to avoid the latter option, though it's open to them, even though they're so insistent that these people be given a voice... 
)
On the other hand, by stark contrast, Obama has done nothing wrong and is in no way responsible for the existence and power of the
superdelegates in the Democratic system, but he is nevertheless being punished for it, as it favors his opponent. The close race having unveiled this surprising, and surprisingly undemocratic, aspect of the system, Obama's camp has understandably called it to light, which obviously Clinton wasn't going to do for the simple fact that it favors her.
So rather than asking for a reversal of a clearly understood and reasoned punishment and
post hoc officialization of something everyone already agreed would not count (and all despite the chance to replace it with something everyone agrees would count now and resolve the issue fairly), Obama's side asks if we want to retain in our system a fundamentally undemocratic aspect that favors one candidate over others and may well also overrule the choice of the people as determined by the whole massive primary campaign system.
Steve