She will always stand for people's votes--it doesn't matter WHO they vote for.

Then why hasn't she publicly disagreed with her surrogate, Lanny Davis, who suggested that Clinton get the lion's share of the delegates in MI that were selected by people explicitly not voting for Hillary Clinton?

Also, why hasn't she severed ties with Mark Penn, who called broad swaths of the country "insignificant"?  She made a show of firing him, but continues to pay him and listen to him.

I think this means that if she is the nominee or not, she, like many others, will work to reform the DNC rules (i.e., caucuses, primary schedule) to more truly reflect the will of the people.

Funny, because she had a lot of influence in the Party last year - after all, one of her top lieutenants, Harold Ickes, was part of the committee that originally stripped MI and FL of their delegates.  If she will, as you say, always stand for people's votes, why didn't she stand for them back then in pushing the reforms the DNC needed?

Further, how could she possibly make the case for reforms after arguing here that states should be able to ignore any and all DNC rules that inconvenience them and suffer no penalty for it?  How, if she were to reform the DNC rules, would she enforce these rule changes, after arguing for several months that states should be allowed to break the rules with no consequences?

know the obama excuses for not agreeing were something about who was going to pay for it (HRC affiliated), and "not wanting to break the rules"

You forgot the big one, which was that the Clinton revote wasn't going to be open to people who didn't participate in the Democratic primary the first time around.  She wanted to disenfranchise all the people who believed her, and Obama, and the party when they said the MI and FL elections wouldn't count.

Anyway, to reject a revote, in retrospect, now seems a clear strategy to deny HRC any chance at the nomination--cold, calculated politics.

So you've agreed not to call Obama naive anymore?  Excellent.