The Presidential Primary Process: Is It Fair?

I've heard the arguments in favor of the current presidential primary process.  Basically, folks say that Iowa and New Hampshire are both that rare kind of state in which a candidate with very little money can still compete statewide.  Cool.  I get that.  It lets everyone have a shot, get some name recognition, etc.  That's a good and democratic thing.

Still, as someone who has never lived in - and probably will never get to live in - either New Hampshire or Iowa, how much say do I really have in who the party picks as a nominee?  Folks who live in states with late primaries often have no impact on the nominee as a winning number of delegates have frequently already gone to a candidate before those voters get to cast their primary ballot.  That's a fairly old counterpoint, but I think it's a fairly strong one.

Plus, something I've been wondering about is how the current primary system may also be unfair on economic grounds.  Here's what I mean: if I live in a late primary state and I'm financially secure, while I don't get to vote for my candidate in Iowa or New Hampshire, at least I can make a financial contribution to her or his campaign and thereby influence the process.  If I have enough money, I can also spend some of my leisure time blogging about the merits of my candidate and influence the process that way.  If I have enough money, I may even be able to take some time off from work to go volunteer in Iowa or New Hampshire to help my candidate out.

Now let's suppose I'm poor and I live in a late primary state.  Dude - I'm so hosed.  Of course, I don't get to vote until, in all likelihood, the nominee is already a mathematical certainty.  What makes matters worse is that, while I'm working three jobs to pay the rent, my fellow-late-primary-state-resident Democrat with substantial cabbage is taking the time it takes me to do two of those jobs to support a candidate I loathe.  And, of course, that candidate wins in Iowa, and then New Hampshire, etc.  So, after having had no say in the process, come the general election, I get to vote for the person with a D beside her or his name, but as you can imagine, I'm less than thrilled, and I feel alienated - yet again.

It seems unfair.  I know several states are looking to move their primary dates up (South Dakota and California among them), but does that fix the problem or just make it different?  So, what's the solution?  Should we have rotating primaries?  Should we have a nationwide caucus?  Am I spending way too much time thinking about this?  Can any candidate who ever says that the primacy of New Hampshire's primary should not be sacrosanct ever become president?  What do y'all think?