Earlier this week, Chris detailed the battle between the Democratic National Committee and the state of New Hampshire over the process of selecting the Democrats' 2008 presidential nominee. In short, while the DNC would like to place two caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire to bring more diversity into the nomination process, the Granite State is loath to give up its first-in-the-nation status. And as Chris writes, "It is hard to imagine that the DNC has enough support behind their reform plan that would allow them to actually stand up to New Hampshire and refuse to seat their delegates."

With the DNC plan on the ropes, a group called Democrats for the West has begun circulating a petition calling on the DNC to endorse a plan for a February 5, 2008 regional primary/caucus that would feature eight Western states: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and Nevada. The reasoning for this shift is as follows:

Michael Stratton, a 30-year veteran of Democratic politics and campaigns, including Colorado Senator Ken Salazar's successful campaign, serves on the DNC Commission. Stratton has been lobbying fellow commission members to support an early January or February same day, multi-state western presidential primary or caucus.

"The future of the Democratic Party lies out west, because it's home to some of the fastest growing areas in the country," Stratton said. "The Democratic Party needs to put western issues and western values out-front. That means talking about the things that are important to communities in the Rocky Mountain region--energy, water rights, natural resources... "

"As the system works now, presidential candidates can easily ignore western issues. They simply fly-over the Rocky Mountains to get to the major media markets on the coasts, or visit the early primary states," Stratton continued. "We generally don't get to hear their ideas on clean energy technologies, on water management strategy for the federal government, or on protection of natural resources and land conservation."

Undoubtedly, there is a need for the West to play a larger role in the Democratic Party's presidential nomination process. Many of America's fastest growing localities are located in the West, and Western states are projected to increase their Congressional representation, and thus electoral votes, during the reapportionment following the 2010 census. (Most of these seats would come from states that voted for Kerry.) What's more, further integrating Western states into the fold would bring Hispanics, who are key to the success of Democratic Party, into the process.

But the trend towards front-loading the Democratic primaries and caucuses is simply not necessary in 2008. With the prospect of entirely open primaries among both parties, there is no need for the Democratic nominee to emerge quickly in order to raise more funds, as was necessary (or perceived as necessary) last year, when George W. Bush had already amassed an enormous campaign chest before Iowa and New Hampshire.

The Democrats should not shy away from engaging in a real debate over the future of the party by hastily selecting a nominee. While it would most likely be counterproductive for the process to drag on through the Convention, leading to bitter intra-party battles, there is no reason to dispense with the debate over the nominee in the middle of January after the Iowa caucuses. The Democrats should spread out the calendar and include an early primary or two in the West and in the South, as the DNC has in some ways suggested. But speeding up the process by holding eight nomination contests on a single day -- right after Iowa and New Hampshire -- might prove in hindsight to be extremely unwise.