On Saturday, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet in our nation's capital to resolve the dispute over Florida and Michigan, the two states stripped of their delegates for defying the party and holding primaries before Feb. 5. To get you up to speed on the "Florigan" debacle, we've put together a two-part series of "Frequently Asked Questions." Part I recapped what's already happened; below, we explore what's next.

When will the Florigan flap finally end? 
Saturday in D.C. Or if not, at the Democratic Convention--in late August. 

Why the uncertainty? Well, the Rules and Bylaws Committee must weigh at least three competing agendas from three conflicting corners when it meets this weekend at Washington's Marriott Wardman Park Hotel. First up is Hillary Clinton, who, according to aides, wants two things: a) full delegations seated from each state and b) the delegates apportioned according to the precise popular vote--meaning that Clinton would get 73 delegates from Michigan and Obama, whose name wasn't on the ballot, would get (drumroll, please) zero. Outside, she'll have Reps. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Corrine Brown leading the protest to "count every vote"--except, of course, Obama's.

Understandably, the Obama camp isn't biting. Their stance? Let's meet halfway: punish these scofflaw states (somehow) for breaking the rules, give Clinton whatever she wants in Florida and split Michigan 50-50. "We don't think it's fair to seat them fully because we both lived by these rules and pledged to abide by them," campaign manager David Plouffe has said. "We're willing to give some delegates here, which I don't think should be sneezed at."

The final player: the Rules Committee itself--which, in the end, is the only player that matters. Charged with maintaining law and order, the RBC is unlikely to let Florida and Michigan off the hook--a decision that would set a bad precedent for other states hoping to leapfrog ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire on the primary calendar. Accordingly, RBC members "have expressed little interest in the option of seating all the delegates" and instead seem inclined to follow the recommendation of DNC lawyers who say that the appropriate legal resolution--"as far as it legally can go"--would be either a) to allow half the number of delegates from each state into the convention, or b) to let the full delegations attend with half a vote each. And they're definitely going to give Obama a few delegates from the Great Lakes State.

Which means that, when all is said and done, Clinton will likely emerge from Florida with a net gain of six delegates (option a) or 19 delegates (option b), and will either split Michigan's 128 delegates with Obama 64-64 (the Obama solution), 69-59 (a compromise proposed by the Michigan Democratic party) or 73-55 (which is what the candidates would've received if every "uncommitted" vote was awarded to Obama).

Confused yet? Don't worry--it gets worse. If Clinton isn't happy with these compromises--which Obama, the RBC, the DNC and both the Michigan and Florida state parties have already signaled that they will accept--her final option is griping to the DNC's Credentials Committee, which meets later this summer and is the only body with the power to seat full delegations from the two rogue states. But according to DNC lawyers, such an appeal "would mean [that] a final decision would not be made until the first day of the convention in Denver, since Credentials Committee decisions have to be approved by the full convention as it convenes - risking a floor fight."

In other words, are you ready to rumble? 

Hold on. Will the RBC's decision, whatever it is, even affect the outcome of the Democratic nominating contest?
Not a chance. Right now, Obama has 1982 total delegates; Clinton has 1783. Even if Clinton gets everything she wants--including a big, fat zero for Obama in Michigan, which won't happen--her largest potential net gain is 111 delegates, which still leaves her 88 delegates shy of her rival from Illinois and a whopping 249 short of a majority. Meanwhile, the likelier scenarios show the former First Lady closing the gap by a mere 19 to 37 delegates. After next Tuesday's final primaries in South Dakota and Montana, both Obama and Clinton will need some superdelegate support to put them over the top. (The old magic number--2,025--will probably break 2,100 once Florida and Michigan are factored in.) But while Obama will require between two and 30 superdels to clinch the nomination (assuming he loses Puerto Rico and wins South Dakota and Montana) Clinton will need more than 170--or roughly 90 percent of the remaining pool. That's a "snowball in Hell" situation.

So what's the point?
You tell me.

I mean, will Clinton actually continue until the convention?
Probably not--but it's possible. In the last 24 hours, Clinton has ratcheted up a pair of arguments that she's been making to the superdelegates for months--namely, that she leads in the "popular vote" and is more electable than Obama. Both claims are controversial: Clinton outperforms Obama in key swing states largely because sizable blocs of her supporters say they won't vote for her rival in the fall, and she only leads in the popular vote if you consider the Pyongyangian score of 330,000 to 0 a fair outcome in Michigan. That said, the Clinton camp sent superdels an 11-page "closing argument" memo Wednesday that repeated both claims along with a slew of new ones: that Clinton has won more delegates than Obama in primaries (as opposed to caucuses); that Clinton has won 16 of the 20 toughest districts for House Democrats; that Clinton has won 350 more counties than Obama; and that Clinton leads 62 percent to 36 percent among those who've voted since March 4. Fair enough. The problem? Primary delegates, tough districts, county tallies and post-March 4 voting patterns don't determine the Democratic nomination at this point. Superdelegates do--and she'll need nearly every undeclared one side with her. But if a mere handful of these party poobahs decide instead after South Dakota and Montana that Obama's 200-delegate lead is more compelling than Clinton's popular-vote and electability counterarguments--since May 6, they've broken for him something like 20-to-1--the Illinois senator will likely amass a delegate majority and lock up the nomination before breakfast on June 4. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been contacting "uncommitted superdelegates, encouraging them to prepare to go public and resolve any last question about the contest." "By this time next week, it will all be over, give or take a day," says Reid.

If for some reason it's not, expect Clinton to continue campaigning until it is. Today, the campaign asked reporters to sign up for travel through June 6; "there are a lot of places for us to go between June 4 and November," said spokesman Jay Carson. And there's a tiny chance Clinton could keep on keeping on even if Obama reaches the magic number. Describing the Florigan flap last week in the Sunshine State, the former first lady "invoked the Declaration of Independence, 'the consent of the governed,' the abolition of slavery, 'our most fundamental values,' the 1848 Seneca Falls women's-suffrage convention, the sacrifice of soldiers, the tear gas at Selma, 'equal justice under the law,' and the Voting Rights Act." In the short-term, her melodramatic language was meant to pressure the RBC to seat full delegations. But it also laid the groundwork for a "moral campaign" that extends past June 3--provided the RBC settles (which it will) on anything short of "counting every vote."(Nevermind that every vote was, in fact, counted--or that it's the process of translating those ballots into delegates that's causing our current nightmare.) This is about right and wrong, Clinton could say. And I won't stop until the DNC does the right thing. Or, you know, until lightning strikes Obama--and she steps in to save the day. At this point, Clinton, already the loser, would have to decide whether the damage she's doing the Democratic party (and, in some circles, her own reputation) is worth whatever she has to gain in her new role--desperate understudy masquerading as voting-rights activist, waiting for the star of the show to stumble. My hunch: she already realizes that it's far better for her career to bow out gracefully than embark on a hopeless, scorched-earth crusade, and will exit as soon as Obama gets the nod.

But you never know.