According to CNN.com, the Democrats have a
new primary calendar. They have decided to include Nevada and S. Carolina into the mix to create a more representative feild.
The new calendar goes like this...
Iowa - January 14
Nevada - January 19
New Hampshire - January 22
South Carolina - January 29
The first two are caucuses and the second two are primaries. More below...
So, I'm all for the addition of more states to the primary schedule. I think that Iowa and New Hampshire, while good on emphasizing the "retail" politics where a candidate can meet people face to face, they do not represent the whole country demographically. I do not believe that the winner of Iowa or New Hampshire automatically gets the nod (see Clinton, Bill). However, it would be good to shake things up. This is especially true in that there is no real likely nominee (unlike if a VP or President was running).
That being said, I have a HUGE problem with this new calendar. Why in God's name do we have 4 primaries in January? That is absolutely ridiculous. I understand the need for a fast primary season when you are running against a sitting President who has nominal, if any, opposition (see 2004). But this year is different. This year, niether party has a likely nominee. This is perfect year to space things out a bit so we can really vet our nominee.
There is no point in rushing things. This only helps the establishment, those who already have the money to run four races at once. There is no way to run in Iowa and then in Nevada. It's both at once, or you'll surely lose the one you aren't in. While I'm one of the few who thinks Hillary Clinton may pass on the 08 race, this tpye of schedule would help her immensly. She's got the funds to set up opperations in 4 states simulatiously. Who else really does?
I wish the DNC had only one or at most two primaries set up for January. We need our candidates to really be able to focus on one or two races at a time, so that the voters get a good feel for them. If we want these outside shots (Feingold?) to have a chance, there needs to be more space. Otherwise, we are going to wind up with the monetarilly-blessed cadidate. And I doubt that candidate will be the one the progressive crowd would choose. It will be the one certain large donors pick.
But since this is what we've got, I guess we will just have to make it work. I, for one, am not pleased.