Is Primary Front-loading Really Madness?

An editorial from the Washington Post today suggests that the front-loading of the primary calendar that is likely to occur in 2008 is "madness" which is bad for the "health . . . of the Democratic Process."

I'm not going to post any answers to that, but somehow I doubt it. Let me suggest one thing: in the era of the 24-hour news cycle, where people who want information on candidates can get it, and in an era when the Presidential campaign effectively starts almost immediately after the previous Presidential election, and for all intents and purposes officially kicks off following the midterms 2 years later, is front-loading, or even a "national primary," really a bad thing?

The underlying premise behind such lamentations is that a long, drawn-out primary calendar helps lesser-known candidates come up and sting the establishment folks, and sometimes steal the nomination away. But even if this was true 15 years ago when Bill Clinton emerged from a less-than-stellar field to win the Democratic nomination, I simply don't think it's true now.

I'll probably look into this in more detail later, but suffice it to say that I think the structural reasons that may have made a drawn-out primary calendar a positive thing in the past are now more likely to make a drawn-out calendar a liability.