To invoke an opebo-ism, here are the "correct" answers to all of the controversies in this thread:
1) The original DNC calendar allowed IA, NV, NH, and SC alone to vote before Feb. 5th, but there were specific dates on which those four states were allowed to vote. From Day 1, NH said they would not agree to the DNC calendar, as it allowed NV to go before them, and they wouldn't allow that. Both IA & NH ended up voting earlier than the rules allowed and, rather than punish them like they did with FL & MI, the DNC gave them a waiver from the rules. (NV on the other hand did *not* break the rules. They voted on the day that the DNC allowed them to.)
2) *However*, even though the DNC was completely unfair in rewriting the rules for IA & NH rather than punishing them, while they punished FL & MI, in determining whether an election was fair, doesn't one have to examine what the rules were at the time the election was held (no matter how unfair it was that those rules were imposed)? On the days that the FL & MI primaries were held, it was widely understood that they wouldn't count, which is why turnout was lower in the Dem. primary than in the GOP primary. So the entire result is tainted by the fact that people were told that it wouldn't count, and this influenced their voting behavior. So in what sense does it meet any reasonable standard of a free and fair election?
3) Bill's "she is winning the general election and he is not" doesn't make any sense. Yes, the regression lines from pollster.com's polling compilation have Clinton beating McCain nationally by 3%, while McCain/Obama is a tie. But RCP's average has Obama doing slightly better than Clinton. Either way, it's virtually a tie.
4) But any marginal advantage Clinton might have as a general election would be wiped out if the superdelegates were to actually hand her the nomination at this point. That's because Obama is seen to have "won" the primary contest, and any attempt to "overturn" that result would be seen as Clinton "stealing" the nomination, which would lead to enormous backlash. She can't win cleanly. She can only win in a way that destroys her electability.
There, I have solved all of the controversies here. No more need to continue debate in this thread.
