The DNC, with Hillary's input, made the rule.
The Florida legislature including the Democratic members, decided to ignore this rule.
The candidates both take a soft position on this when the Florida vote actually does jump the gun. The candidate with the better name recognition gets the majority of the vote.
One candidates campaign in due time is fairly incompetent, and as a result finds themselves over 100 delegates behind, despite their early name recognition advantage.
Now being so far behind as to be in a crippled situation, that candidate suddenly changes position to a hard-line "the votes must count" position
I don't blame candidates or their surrogates for being partisan. I don't blame Hillary for wanting the votes to count as-is-in-full, or for Barrack to either stone-wall or lessen their impact. Neither is the "right" position*. They are simply partisan positions.
*Of course Hillary's supporters might say "But!! If you don't count the vote as-is-in-full thats... voter disenfranchisement"
I'll go on the record and say that I'm all for Florida (and MI) voting in-full. States have to vote some time and we should all want the votes of the people to count. I just want them to vote when they should vote as-per the DNC rules.
This is important because the alternative is primary anarchy. We could quite easily have primaries in the autumn of the year preceding the election. If this already feels like a long process, imagine adding a few months onto the process. Thats precisely what validating Florida's invalid vote encourages.
Adding months onto the campaign is not only farce it wastes millions of dollars, as candidates, face the necessity of campaigning day-to-day for a dozen more weeks.
NYT back in September 23, 2007 wrote in the article "Florida Democrats Affirm an Early Primary" (emphasis supplied)
Whether to seat Florida’s delegates at the convention would ultimately be up to the presumptive nominee, said Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Broward County. Rather than risk the wrath of Florida voters, Ms. Wasserman Schultz said, the party nominee will undoubtedly seat the delegates.
I'll note that this is the same Debbie Wasserman Schultz that has refused to endorse her fellow Democratic challengers against their Republican incumbents, despite being on a committee "Red to Blue" specifically charged with replacing vulnerable Republican seats with Democratic members such as these.
I understand Hillary wanting to get the most benefit from the situation... all is fair in love, war and closely contested elections. I understand DWS' view now, from the standpoint of being a co-chair of her Florida campaign.
What I cannot understand or agree with is that the national party must seat their delegation despite their rule breaking. DWS is utterly arrogant here. Florida is not a special and unique snowflake. The Florida group should have made their case BEFORE the rules were laid down. If they could convince the national party of an appropriate reason for their voting earlier than they were allowed, then I would have supported their voting then. They did not.. but went ahead anyway.
This all comes down to blackmail.
The Florida party blackmails the national party: We're too important to vote when every other state does, and if you don't give us our way we'll not vote for you in the general.
Hillary reaffirms this blackmail when its clear she needs these votes: If you don't count these invalid votes in the way most beneficial to me, then I'll screw the party with a fight in the Democratic Convention
I get that this won't persuade Hillary supporters of the folly of their convictions or the Florida Democrats of their misplaced "right to be heard", but I wanted to say it anyway.
Stick with your principles Dean. Don't reward false starts and do not give in to blackmail.