On August 28th, I wrote, "The primary schedule appears to favor him [Edwards] over her [Hillary]. Did the Dems reshuffle the order on purpose to screw her and stack the deck in Edwards' favor? And I wonder how this new schedule would favor Gore....?"

In the September 11th/18th issue of The New Republic, Peter Beinart wrote:

A week ago, the DNC approved what the Los Angeles Times called "the most significant change in the presidential nominating process in years."
<..>
Under the new system, the Iowa caucuses still go first. But, rather than keeping New Hampshire second, the party has squeezed Nevada in between -- which actually enhances Iowa's power. In 2004, John Kerry came out of Iowa with so much momentum that he sewed up the nomination before voters in subsequent states had time to catch their breath. But Kerry's rivals at least had the eight days between Iowa and New Hampshire to slow him down. In 2008, by contrast, Nevada will vote a mere five days after the Hawkeye State -- which makes it even more likely to prove rubber stamp.

Yes, I reiterate that it appears as if the DNC has rigged the primary schedule in favor of Edwards -- or a candidate very much like Edwards -- over Hillary. I imagine Ms. Clinton cannot publicly cry foul over this fairly overt modification because she doesn't want to come off as weak and she doesn't want to bite the party that feeds her. But that still doesn't make it right or fair with regards to historical consistency.

Hillary will have many obstacles to overcome in her race to the White House -- perhaps the biggest being Howard Dean.