Clinton won Nevada, you dolt.
Clinton was quite happy with the restrictions on Michigan and Florida when they didn't affect her nomination. And of course the Michigan primary was illegitimate - Obama wasn't even on the ballot!
Perhaps you didn't understand the question, so I'll break it down for you into three questions:
First, did Nevada hold its selection process earlier than provided for by the rules?
Second, are Nevada's delegates allowed to count whereas those of Florida and Michigan are not?
Third, why is it that Nevada (to cite just one example) is allowed to have its delegates count, but not Florida or Michigan?
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Nevada didn't violate the rules. New Hampshire on the other hand DID violate the rules. They voted for Clinton as well, however.
While I understand the frustration of Mich and Fla and disagreed with the penalty imposed, I think claiming that Obama's only counting states favorable to him is plainly inaccurate and even intentionally misleading. You can complain that the DNC did a poor job of choosing how to enforce their rules and who to enforce them against (and I can even agree with you), but to somehow now claim that as a result, we should ignore the rules and the rulings is tantamount to me claiming the the Supreme Court's erroneous ruling in 2000 ought to be ignored and that Al Gore is actually president.
