So the 2012 primaries will start in, what?  2010?  2009?  Maybe New Hampshire should just schedule their primary on the same day as the 2008 General...

Florida Democrats pleaded with the committee for "mercy," saying they were steam-rolled by a Republican majority in the Legislature that was intent on moving the presidential primary to Jan. 29 -- even if it meant trampling both party's calendars.

"Florida Democrats did what they could, but in the end we failed," said Florida Democratic Party chairwoman Karen Thurman.

[snip]

Several members suggested state Democrats should have fought harder against the Republican-led charge to move up the primary date.

Florida Democrats argued that they were outnumbered 2 to 1 in the Legislature and that Republicans made it impossible for Democrats to vote against the measure by including language requiring paper voting machine trails in the bill.

Obama has failed to define exactly what something new would be other than Bipartisanship Forever. Now that may make great sound bites and even appeal to some, but Obama is running in a DEMOCRATIC primary. Democratic voters have seen exactly what attempts at bipartisanship has brought  in the real world.

Would you take a untested drug just because it is new? Same principle.

Abortion is still being fought and it is not a bipartisan issue. No matter why Obama voted "present", the "present" votes are not reassuring regarding abortion.

I prefer Clinton because I believe she has a better idea of how government works and will be able to immediately manage the federal beauracracy better.  As a federal employee, this is key for me, not only because it will make my life better (heh) but because I don't think we can afford the one-two years it usually takes for a new president to learn how the executive branch runs.  Too much damage has been done.  

I also prefer her because I prefer partisanship.  I think framing matters and I hate the way Obama tries to make it sound like the polarization is both parties' faults when it isn't.  I understand why he does that, but I believe we have a rare chance to put an end to the Republican domination of our media narrative and from what I've seen, he is the least interested in all of the candidates in doing it.  

Finally, I think his lack of national campaign experience makes him the riskier choice to beat Republicans in the general.  Which, in all honesty, is what I care most about.  He might be a fantastic candidate, but he also might be a disaster.  Certainly the last week with his inability to play defense on some pretty basic attacks from Clinton hasn't increased my confidence in his ability to withstad what's coming his way.

[snip]

"I am confident that all 114 delegates from Florida will be seated," said Jim Greer, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party.

[snip]

"If we don't do something, this is going to become a national primary and there will be federal legislation that takes it away from the parties," said a top national Republican Party official who spoke on condition of anonymity because negotiations on the matter were continuing.

[snip]

One possible situation could allow the states to seat a full delegation even after they are penalized. If there is a clear nominee by the time of the convention, as has been the case since 1976, the presumptive candidate could petition the national party to restore the delegates from the penalized states. Such a move, however, could anger the states that held back from bumping up their primaries, and they could challenge such a move.

If the nomination is not settled by the time of the conventions, the issue of delegates could become crucial. If delegates are not seated, they cannot cast votes. But even if the nomination is largely settled, the battles over seating delegates and accommodating main figures from these states at the convention could hamper the party's unity going into the general election -- something national and state officials said they were hoping to avoid.

"My expectation is that, in the end, all the delegates are going to be seated," Mr. Anuzis said, "because the party is going to want to be united going into the general election."

His best argument, IMO, is that the DNC has determined the rules and that those rules should continue to apply.  We shouldn't be changing rules in mid-stream.  

I'm somewhat sympathetic to this argument, especially about Michigan.  I have less sympathy about Florida because I'm not sure it was right to "punish" Florida to begin with.  If the McClatchy report is right, the Republican-dominated Florida legislature moved the Florida primaries.  By punishing Florida Democrats for this, which was out of their control, we've basically allowed the Florida Republican establishment to keep our candidates out of the state during primary season, which means they won't have had the same opportunity to build grassroots networks as the Republicans.

The other caveat on my sympathy for this argument is that, while I'm all for setting up a rational primary schedule, the DNC created the problem by failing to deal with the Iowa and NH monopolies.  States have been complaining about this and moving their primaries for several cycles now.  But the DNC has never been able to address the fundamental unfairness of two states always getting the largest say in the nominating process.  I don't think that means states should just jump willy-nilly into the schedule, but the problem is one for the entire party.