[Reposted to get this onto Election Central, not just Cafe. Sorry for the duplicate, changed the "controversial" original title.]

Too good to leave as just a reader comment. Two revelations for me today - one being that New Hampshire didn't just move its contest up, it leapfrogged from the 3rd to the 2nd contest (after Iowa, skipping ahead of Nevada) in violation of an earlier 2004 DNC agreement.

And as a bonus, proof that the problem with underrepresentation in caucuses was well understood last summer, not just a new thing post-Iowa.
Michigan
Primary Moves

Read on. [And by the way, click 'Recommend' if you like this, or it'll disappear into the blogosphere in about 17 minutes]

Michigan actually didn't move its contest until after Florida, then South Carolina, then New Hampshire had moved theirs.
Primary Hopscotch

As an op-ed piece by Sen. Levin states today, Michigan broke the rules after New Hampshire broke the agreement where it would be the 3rd contest. Instead, New Hampshire hopped to 2nd again and wasn't punished.

Levin Op-ed on Michigan

Here's some interesting background on the caucus vs. primary debate back in Michigan, for those who ask "why didn't Hillary complain about caucuses before?" She did. This is from August 2, 2007:

Michigan Primary Moves
===================================================
Before you zone out, consider this:

The state Senate estimates that a primary, for both parties, would draw more than 2 million voters to the polls.

It estimates that a caucus, on the other hand, might draw just 100,000 Democrats and, incredibly, just 4,000 to 6,000 Republicans.

That’s obviously just a fraction of the state’s eligible voters, of whom 4.8 million voted in the 2004 presidential race.

Now ask yourself, why on earth would a state consider doing something like holding a caucus, which would severely limit the number of people who might vote?

We’re shocked - shocked! - to discover politics at the heart of this debate.

Here’s how it breaks down:

On the Democratic side, those behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is running ahead in the polls in Michigan, want a primary. They think a wide-open process would encourage first-time voters, including the women and minorities who support Mrs. Clinton, to come out and vote for her. Plus, Mrs. Clinton will have plenty of money to run as many ads on television as she wants.

Those backing former Senator John Edwards prefer a caucus. Why? Mr. Edwards’s campaign manager is David Bonior, the former Michigan Congressmen, who has strong ties to organized labor. The unions can be highly influential in a caucus, which depends largely on ground organization. They would have much more control over a caucus, which is too complicated and time-consuming for the average person to attend.

As for the Republicans, they’re along for the ride. They say they’d prefer a primary, but they have a contingency plan: a presidential preference convention. This is a really arcane, multi-stage process that relies on delegates, essentially shutting out the average voter.

The whole dynamic has produced some hilarious moments. Look at this, from Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who supports Mr. Edwards. He’s written a letter to the governor opposing a primary. He says a primary would be “fiscally irresponsible” because it would cost the cash-strapped state $10 to $12 million. He then makes a modest proposal: He’ll support a primary only if the presidential candidates pay for it themselves. Either that or the state parties pay for it, but not the taxpayers.

The biggest force behind the Michigan move is Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who has been irritated for years that a big state like his has been taking a back seat to smaller states. Iowa and New Hampshire get all the attention, in addition to millions of dollars from the campaigns and the media, who keep their restaurants and hotels full, their rental cars on the road and their television stations flush with cash from ads.