Looks like the Miami Herald jumped the gun. This is from the New York Times:

The Florida Democratic Party announced Sunday that it would move ahead with its plan to hold its presidential primary on Jan. 29 despite the national party's decision to block the state delegation from the 2008 Democratic convention.

State party leaders said that even if none of the state's delegates were seated at next summer's Democratic presidential convention, the earlier primary would still help determine the nominee.

The Democratic National Committee voted last month to strip Florida of its delegates unless it decided by Sept. 29 to obey party rules and delay its primary until Feb. 5 or later. Then, under pressure from the four states permitted to hold contests in January, the major Democratic candidates pledged not to campaign in Florida if the primary was moved ahead.

Ever since, state party leaders have agonized over whether to accept the sanctions and stand firm on Jan. 29 or to yield and hold a smaller contest, like a caucus or vote-by-mail primary, later in the year. They decided to stick to January, said Karen Thurman, the party chairwoman, to ensure the largest possible turnout and to avoid accusations of disenfranchisement from Democrats still bitter about the 2000 recount.

"We came down on the side of having a fair and open election," Ms. Thurman said at a news conference.

Florida Democratic leaders also noted that many municipal races would be on the ballot on Jan. 29, as will a state referendum that could significantly reduce property taxes.

The property tax ballot measure is indeed quite significant - and my intuition is that this is what largely swayed Florida Democratic leaders to retain the primary. They do not want their voters staying home while Republican voters come out to pick a presidential nominee (while also cutting property taxes!). That would be a huge political defeat. Of course, Florida Democrats might have this problem, anyway. Without the presidential candidates campaigning in Florida, Democratic voters might be less stimulated and therefore might come out to the polls in fewer numbers - which would give the GOP a turnout boost.

At any rate, will Florida Democrats still be influential in the presidential nominating contest? Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz seems to think so:

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.

"We're going to make sure our voices are heard loud and clear on that convention floor," she said, adding that the state's entire Democratic Congressional delegation supported the decision to stick with Jan. 29.

The way the Times presents her response to the question is intriguing. Her answer presumes that the nominee has already been selected and determined - which in turn means that it is quite irrelevant whether Florida's delegates have actually been seated! So long as the nomination is still contested, Florida's delegates will have a hard time being seated. After all, one candidate will have won fewer Florida delegates than another - and the candidate with fewer will naturally oppose the move to seat them. So, Florida's delegates might only be counted when the final count is known.

Florida Democrats, of course, expected this when they chose to defy the DNC. Their thinking was that the publicity from a win in Florida would influence other states. What they apparently did not factor at the time of their defiance was that the early (legal) states might be able to influence Democratic candidates to avoid Florida. They did exactly that.

This could significantly reduce the kind of influence Florida Democrats hoped to acquire. How much stock will opinion makers put in the beauty contest now that none of the candidates are actively competing in it? Will they not all ask themselves who would have really won if the candidates had really engaged Florida voters? The extent to which opinion makers discount the contest because of the non-competition is the extent to which Florida Democrats fail to do what they hoped to do, influence other states.

As I wrote last week, this new situation hinges entirely upon the fact that the early states have leaned upon Democratic candidates. This has not gone unnoticed with Florida Democrats.

State Senator Steven A. Geller, the minority leader, used the news conference to rail against Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which he called "rogue states" for putting pressure on the presidential candidates to skip campaigning here for a January primary.

"If they choose not to campaign here and they lose? Not our problem," Mr. Geller said.

Ahhh..irony. A Florida Democratic leader calls the early states "rogue." My dictionary defines rogue as "a dishonest, unprincipled person; a rascal." Mr. Geller, of course, has chosen a word that has no applicability to any state. That's ok. He's a legislator, not a wordsmith. Nevertheless, if we had to apply this word in this situation, to which state would we apply it: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida?