Although we should be focusing on races for this year, 2008 is still coming closer (we're closer in length of time to the '08 Iowa caucus, than we are removed from the "Dean Scream." My concern about 2008 has nothing to do with whom is running (I'll wait until we get some candidates in the field other than two milquetoast Senators from Delaware and Connecticut, with a third, former Senator, from Alaska who is older than Reagan was in 1984) but it has to do with HOW things will be run.
My first concern is frontloading. I know that it can produce a nominee faster and help to avoid an extremely bloody primary (we can all agree that we don't want a bloody primary) but it also has the effect of creating virtually unstoppable momentum for the person who can snag Iowa and New Hampshire. No offense to those who supported Kerry. He was a decent candidate, but he got nominated because the primary schedule helped sustain his bounce from Iowa and New Hampshire, and prevented Edwards from making an impact in later primaries.
Several states are moving their primaries up from late, irrelevant dates, to February. For example, Arkansas and Alabama now have their primaries on the first Tuesday in February, while New Jersey has moved its primary up from June to the last Tuesday in February. Western states are also considering holding their primaries on February 5, 2008. Utah has already signed legislation moving its date to February 5, 2008.
While having earlier primaries may give state more attention than having them in May or June, by having a bunch of primaries at once, the candidate with the most money and clout could snag them all right after Iowa and New Hampshire, with no serious roadblock ahead to allow dialogue. For example, in 2000, McCain might have been the nominee had South Carolina had its primary right after New Hampshire, as Rove would not have had time to attack McCain (actually, this would have helped us, but the same results could hurt our party down the road.)
My second concern is in the opposite direction: a field with too many contenders. There were 10 people running in 2004, which was large. I don't see how having another jumbo field this time will help advance any issues that candidates may want to bring up, nor will it help emphasize the differences between candidates when so many of them are ideologically similar (how the hell are voters going to be able to choose between Biden, Vilsack, and Bayh?)I know that my position may not be popular among a few Kossacks, but this is how I feel about the number of candidates in the race. I also believe that Chairman Dean should consider announcing a limit on how many can run (6 or 7 we be good) before any announce.