SIDEBAR: People, especially net people, need to come to grips with the fact that television is still overwhelmingly the information source of choice for most americans. In fact, television will always be more persuasive than the net. Why, because television communicates in a language of images. And the net communicates predominantly in the written word. A picture, proverbially, is worth a thousand words. Er go...

However, the DNC commission on the nominating process apparently is looking very comprehensively at this issues, and is apparently inclined to change the calendar rules at least somewhat. My guess is that we will have Iowa, NH, and a third state to be named later all on the same date.

The less manipulation the better.

Are there laws or party rules that would restrict the states from doing that on their own?

I know if I were a state government I'd be thinking about moving as early as possible in order to have an impact.

--Jeff

You just pretty much described this season's "The West Wing" :D

Think about it, in 1984 Mondale didn't lock up the nomination until California in June, which was the story for decades. Starting in 1988, the Southern Super Tuesday strategy and the subsequent changes in '92, '96, '00 and '04 making IA/NH earlier and earlier (In '72 the NH primary was in March in '04 in was in January) with way too many states immediately following. Space them out! Give the candidates time to actually visit the states and create grassroots organizations instead of using the media to spin and spending millions on tv.

IA/NH only get a disproportionate amount of influence because there in not any time left to re-group and move on. Would the 1992 Clinton have been able to survive the current calendar? Or would Tsongas have had it all wrapped up?

Would Kerry have been the nominee or at least a stronger nominee with the 1984 calendar? Not sure, but spreading out the nominating calendar is the answer not even more front loading.

Even a perfect candidate can be dystroyed under those timeframes.

In the absence of a true calendar overhaul, this is the best thing, a perception campaign, and it's achievable.  

And this gives us more hope for Vilsack's candidacy to spoil this dynamic.  I suggest a strategic embrace of Tom.   I checked out his state of the state speech on the web and he has some talent.   He's a regular guy, maybe he'd be a decent candidate anyway.  

So,......"Vilsack! Vilsack! Vilsack!"

Why aren't, you know, swing states part of the primaries? Why is the west totally excluded in favor of losers like Iowa and little tiny states like New Hampshire/

Let's let a state like Florida have more say earlier in the process.

And, out of curiosity, anyone here remember 1988?  Only ten states went for Dukakis.  Arkansas was not among them.  If we had adhered to the mentality of denying governors a shot at the presidency simply because they could not "deliver" their states, we wouldn't have had Clinton in '92.

With that said, I personally don't think that Tom Vilsack would make a good candidate; from what I've seen, he's too wooden, not charismatic enough.  But that has nothing to do with the fact that he is the governor of Iowa.  

For both Kerry and Clinton, the goal in the early states will be to prevent someone like Feingold or Edwards from getting hot and attracting the "outsider"/ grassroots support. By laying off those early states, they can effectively lower the stakes in those early states and wait for the big Democratis states -- NY, CA, IL, PA -- where the money, name and org advantage will be to their advantage. In that scenario, its hard to see at this point how Kerry holds HRC off -- unless Gore gets in, too.

But its so very, very early.

NC moving to week 3 is irrelevant if Edwards runs. The Gooper pushing that bill is, I'm guessing, gunning for Frist.

Secondly, the Dean phenonomen is no bigger evidence of this. The established Clintoistas and DLC'ers were so happy to see Dean flame out like baked Alaska only to watch their "consensus candidate" get blown away by one of the weakest candidates in the history of the Republican Party. John Kerry, you just got oddjobbed by Rutherford B. Hayes.  

The convention isn't until the summer. Six months of primaries is just fine by me. Yes, I realize the big Dem corporations don't want to waste campaign dough on the winning horse...but why bother anyway? Why can't we impose spending limits on our candidates for each primary? Keep the playing field level, but keep it interesting.

Let the GOP have its coronation, we STILL CAN'T WIN as Bush Lite.