I don't appreciate your comment. Surely we can make our points without insults. But I'm sure SteveZ will be stepping in. He's made it so clear that people are entitled to state their views without being criticised. In any event, consider these facts:

It was not supposed to be this way. To prevent this very problem - and to protect the practice of retail politicking in the traditional early-voting states - Dean and other party leaders established a nationwide schedule for primaries and caucuses, starting in January 2008. They designated Iowa as the first caucus state, along with newcomer Nevada. New Hampshire and South Carolina were approved for primaries soon afterward.

The DNC, trying to keep the selection process from being too front-loaded and thus stacked against candidates with smaller war chests, also adopted a rule saying no other state could hold a primary before Feb. 5. Obviously, we all won't agree on that rule. I personally think its a good idea, because sometimes you have good candidates that don't have the money, and they just need some time to get some momentum going.

I think the DNC is entitled to create any rules they feel that will make the contest more fair for their candidates. And once the rules are created, and the states know what they are, they should respect the party and abide by them. But in the case of Florida, the legislature, who happens to be Republican, and a Republican Governor wanted Florida to have more of a say as well as political leverage on Florida issues, so they disregarded the DNC's rule and pushed the legislation through knowing what the consequences would be.

So then, the Democrats were faced with the problem of what to do. To hold the primaries/caucuses over again was cost prohibitive. And, they didn't want to disenfranchise the voters. So they came up with this compromise.

The net result puts the Democrats on par with the Republicans in Florida who also lost half their delegates for moving up the primary.