So it’s tempting to greet the latest proposed overhaul of the Democratic primary calendar, this one authored by Florida Senator Bill Nelson, as just another in a long line of futile efforts. It’s also easy to dismiss Nelson’s maneuver as sour grapes, given his state’s black-sheep status in this year’s Democratic contest.

But what Nelson is calling for—a series of six interregional primaries between March and June, the order of which would be rotated from cycle to cycle—makes a good deal of sense. And if there was ever a time when a reform plan might actually stand a chance, this is it, with Democrats facing the very real prospect of shutting Michigan and Florida out of their convention after those states challenged the current nominating process.

The problems with the process that has prevailed for decades are easy to identify: Iowa and New Hampshire—two small, demographically homogenous states—hold disproportionate sway, essentially paring the field (and sometimes picking a nominee) before other states with more diverse populations have a chance to weigh in. Moreover, the front-loading that has resulted from dozens of states moving up their primaries for a piece of the early action places an unhealthy premium on money and the perception of momentum.

As flawed as the current system is, though, each remedy that has been proposed has issues of its own. A straight-up national primary would place an even heavier premium on money, name recognition and conventional wisdom, making it impossible for a dark-horse candidate to build credibility with a series of strong showings in manageably sized states, the way George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart once did. Even Barack Obama, who was the underdog but hardly a dark horse when he entered this year’s race, would have stood little chance with a national primary. Remember that in the days before the Iowa caucuses, where he claimed an important victory, Obama still trailed Hillary Clinton by about 15 points in most national polls. An early win was essential to leveling the national playing field.

There is also something to be said for the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire, their absence of diversity not withstanding. Among caucus states, Iowa’s turnout is astronomical. And New Hampshire typically attracts a turnout for its primary that exceeds the general-election turnout numbers for most other states. In both states, participation in the presidential nominating process is a serious and almost sacred trust, handed down from one generation to the next. Their electorates are informed, engaged and discerning, willing to give a fair hearing to candidates who are dismissed by the national media and not easily bowled over by television ads and conventional wisdom. The sophisticated New Hampshire voter is not some empty caricature pushed by greedy Granite Staters. There is something to it.

The question is whether the electorates in other states, given a chance to play the same role that Iowa and New Hampshire have long played, would develop those same traits. If you talk to a random voter in Manchester, N.H., the summer before the primary, you’re very likely to find someone who can identify the candidates and the major issues. If, say, Oregon were to go first, the same wouldn’t necessarily be true in Medford.

But the turnout trends from this year’s post-New Hampshire primaries are instructive: Record-high participation in state after state, with no decline in interest as the process has unfolded. They may not have cared about the Clinton-Obama race in Ohio as early as they did in New Hampshire, but when their time came, Ohioans answered the call.

This is what makes Nelson’s idea intriguing, and why it represents a potentially fair meeting point between the inequities of a national primary and those of the current system. He would designate six dates between March and June for a series of interregional primaries, each composed of big and small states, with enough time in between—presumably—for significant campaigning in the upcoming batch of states. Practically speaking, this would mean there’d be about eight primaries and caucuses on each of the dates.

The scale of each primary date might be small enough to allow for the Iowa/New Hampshire effect that has propelled past longshot candidates. Perhaps the first wave of states would include one major state—say, Ohio; several midsize ones like Maryland, Alabama, Washington and Arizona; and a handful of small ones like Maine, North Dakota and Hawaii.

Obviously, the media would inflate the importance of Ohio, which would probably favor the national front-runner. But there’d be ample opportunity in the small and midsize states for lesser-known contenders to make a stand and establish viability. And as we have seen this year, voters in all of these states, even though they are unaccustomed to dealing with presidential candidates more than a year before Election Day, would probably catch on quickly.

Nelson’s idea isn’t without problems. Perhaps more dates would be necessary so that a smaller number of states could be included at the front end of the process. And it would be essential to provide a healthy mix in terms of state size, geography and demographics on each date. If one of the early clusters was tilted heavily toward one region, it could give a massive advantage to some candidates over others, much the way the presence of so many Southern contests at the start of the 1992 process provided a massive leg up to Bill Clinton.

It seems unrealistic that Iowa and New Hampshire can cling to their status for much longer. Too many states have grown jealous.

It makes sense for the Democratic Party to consider some version of Nelson’s plan. The alternatives aren’t pretty.

So it’s tempting to greet the latest proposed overhaul of the Democratic primary calendar, this one authored by Florida Senator Bill Nelson, as just another in a long line of futile efforts. It’s also easy to dismiss Nelson’s maneuver as sour grapes, given his state’s black-sheep status in this year’s Democratic contest.

But what Nelson is calling for – a series of six interregional primaries between March and June, the order of which would be rotated from cycle to cycle – makes a good deal of sense. And if there was ever a time when a reform plan might actually stand a chance, this is it, with Democrats facing the very real prospect of shutting Michigan and Florida out of their convention after those states challenged the current nominating process.

The problems with the process that has prevailed for decades are easy to identify: Iowa and New Hampshire – two small, demographically homogenous states – hold disproportionate sway, essentially paring the field (and sometimes picking a nominee) before other states with more diverse populations have a chance to weigh in. Moreover, the front-loading that has resulted from dozens of states moving up their primaries for a piece of the early action places an unhealthy premium on money and the perception of momentum.

As flawed as the current system is, though, each remedy that has been proposed has issues of its own. A straight-up national primary would place an even heavier premium on money, name recognition and conventional wisdom, making it impossible for a dark-horse candidate to build credibility with a series of strong showings in manageably-sized states, the way George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart once did. Even Barack Obama, who was the underdog but hardly a dark horse when he entered this year’s race, would have stood little chance with a national primary. Remember that in the days before the Iowa caucuses, where he claimed an important victory, Obama still trailed Hillary Clinton by about 15 points in most national polls. An early win was essential to leveling the national playing field.

There is also something to be said for the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire, their absence of diversity not withstanding. Among caucus states, Iowa’s turnout is astronomical. And New Hampshire typically attracts a turnout for its primary that exceeds the general election turnout numbers for most other states. In both states, participation in the presidential nominating process is a serious and almost sacred trust, handed down from one generation to the next. Their electorates are informed, engaged and discerning, willing to give a fair hearing to candidates who are dismissed by the national media and not easily bowled over by television ads and conventional wisdom. The sophisticated New Hampshire voter is not some empty caricature pushed by greedy Granite Staters. There is something to it.

The question is whether the electorates in other states, given a chance to play the same role that Iowa and New Hampshire have long played, would develop those same traits. If you talk to a random voter in Manchester, N.H. the summer before the primary, you’re very likely to find someone who can identify the candidates and the major issues. If, say, Oregon were to go first, the same wouldn’t necessarily be true in Medford.

But the turnout trends from this year’s post-New Hampshire primaries are instructive: Record-high participation in state after state, with no decline in interest as the process has unfolded. They may not have cared about the Clinton-Obama race in Ohio as early as they did in New Hampshire, but when their time came, Ohioans answered the call.

This is what makes Nelson’s idea intriguing, and why it represents a potentially fair meeting point between the inequities of a national primary and those of the current system. He would designate six dates between March and June for a series of interregional primaries, each composed of big and small states, with enough time in between – presumably – for significant campaigning in the upcoming batch of states. Practically speaking, this would mean there’d be about eight primaries and caucuses on each of the dates.

The scale of each primary date might be small enough to allow for the Iowa/New Hampshire effect that has propelled past longshot candidates. Perhaps the first wave of states would include one major state – Ohio, say – several mid-size ones like Maryland, Alabama, Washington and Arizona, and a handful of small ones like Maine, North Dakota and Hawaii.

Obviously, the media would inflate the importance of Ohio, which would probably favor the national front-runner. But there’d be ample opportunity in the small and mid-size states for lesser-known contenders to make a stand and establish viability. And as we have seen this year, voters in all of these states, even though they are unaccustomed to dealing with presidential candidates more than a year before Election Day, would probably catch on quickly.

Nelson’s idea isn’t without problems. Perhaps more dates would be necessary, so that a smaller number of states could be included at the front-end of the process. And it would be essential to provide a healthy mix in terms of state size, geography and demographics on each date. If one of the early clusters were tilted heavily toward one region, it could give a massive advantage to some candidates over others, much the way the presence of so many southern contests at the start of the 1992 process provided a massive leg-up to Bill Clinton.

It seems unrealistic that Iowa and New Hampshire can cling to their status for much longer. Too many states have grown jealous.

It makes sense for the Democratic Party to consider some version of Nelson’s plan. The alternatives aren’t pretty.

That was the implication yesterday from the campaign manager of an African-American Assembly candidate, Kelvin Alexander, who lost the Democratic nomination and is now running against the party-backed candidate, Matthew Titone.

"I am one of those who firmly believes that when the time is at hand, a person of color be nominated and endorsed by the Democratic Party of Staten Island," McMahon said.

"The issue then becomes working with the community and finding elections that they can be successful in. Because whatever the election, whether it's the Assembly, state Senate or City Council a person of color has to be able to get votes from all the people in the district just like I, not being a person of color, have to get votes from people of color as well.

"My point is, the issue is not whether there should be a candidate of color but how best to accomplish that."

He went on to say, "They'll point to the fact that the Republicans Party has supported candidates of color, but it's in races when they have no chances of winning."

-- Azi Paybarah

-- Azi Paybarah

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey sees the non-binding House resolution opposing the Iraq troop increase as a defeat for the Democrats.

Discussing the 246 to 182 vote, which included 17 Republican defections, Armey said, "The White House is doing good then, if they held it to 17. I think they felt if they could keep it to 20 or below then they are in good shape. I think that settles the deal."

"They didn't get enough of a show of Republican votes, so that it will drift into the category of little-noted-no-longer-remembered," he said.

The Democrats have convened an unusual Saturday session of the Senate in an attempt to make sure that doesn't happen.

--Jason Horowitz

The idea would be not only to install a friendly majority in the Senate but to diminish the influence of Sheldon Silver, who has emerged as Spitzer's Moriarty-type nemesis in Albany.

According to a senior administration official, the contrast between the Senate Dems and the Assembly Dems would "make clear that there is a reform wing of the Democratic Party and a status quo wing of the party a reform wing of the Democratic Party and a status quo wing of the party."

Also in the paper, Felix Ortiz criticizes the establishment.

And Adolfo Carrion looks at the 2009 mayoral field and laughs.

-- Azi Paybarah

At first he was asked about the validity of his comments attacking the other candidates in the Democratic Party.

"I believe I was quoted accurately, but they weren't meant to take shots," he said. "I was responding to what I thought to be two important things. One -- how could you possibly defeat Hillary Clinton? She is so very popular. She has 40 percent of the vote or thereabouts. And my point was that she is known by 100 percent of the people and that she has had the legitimate, understandable, considerable support from her husband and there is 60 percent of the people are still up for grabs. And that's the only point I was making... And she is clearly qualified to be president. And if I left an impression, that is not an accurate reading of what I intended to say anyway.

"And with regard to the assertions I have just read as I walked over here... about Barack Obama. Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican Party has produced, at least since I have been around. And he is fresh, he is new, he is insightful, and I really regret that some have taken totally out of context my use of the word 'clean.'

"So I called Barack," he added, "and he said 'Joe you don't have to explain anything to me.'"

Biden also said, "He is probably, as I said the most exciting candidate this party has had in a long time, that was the only point I was trying to make."

About his use of the word "clean" to describe Obama, Biden explained by saying, "My mother has an expression: clean as a whistle, sharp as tack. That's the context."

Later, he added: "I have spoken to Senator Obama -- he knew what I meant by it ."

When pushed again if the quote was correct, he added, "It was exactly what I said."

Another reporter asked why Biden was running if he thought Obama was so well qualified.

"I think he's great I think they're all great I think I'm better," he said, adding. "Now it's about ideas, and I think her ideas are incorrect for how to proceed in Iraq."

--Jason Horowitz

"One of the open secrets in Washington is that senators of the same party and same state rarely get along. Hillary and I are both ambitious hard working politicians who occasionally step on each other's toes. We have had out high point and our low points. But we have the bonds of my campaign in 1998 and hers in 2000 that are unique to our relationship."

The book starts with some curious little tidbits. For example, Schumer, aka Mr. 1600,reveals that in 1964, as a 14-year-old, he worked the mimeograph machine for Stanley Kaplan of the eponymous SAT prep course and that he nervously munched on "Cold calamari and oversized cookies" in the Hyatt Regency Washington on midterm election night. At Harvard, he originally planned to be an organic chemist and, much less surprisingly, what he looks for in a restaurant is a place where the "food is good and not very expensive."

(Hillary Clinton will be throwing Chuck his book party in his favorite haunt, a cheap Chinese restaurant in D.C.)

As far as the future of the Party, Chuck was not satisfied with the Democratic takeover of the Senate.

"Our victory was well deserved, but the Democratic Party still needs a new paradigm," he writes. And Schumer thinks he is just the person to provide it. His key to perpetual victory is encapsulated in the title for Chapter 2: "It's the Middle Class Stupid."

Chuck talks at length about Joe and Eileen Bailey, the middle class family he has conceptualized and who he feels should be the Party's target voters.

They live in Massapequa and are both 45. He's an insurance agent and she works in a doctor's office. They have two cars in the garage, are worried about terrorists, heath care property taxes and college tuition. They are infrequent church goers and "politically, they are up for grabs."

One of the reasons he recruited Casey over significant opposition, he said, is that "Casey was the guy who best represented the Joe and Eileen Baileys of Pennsylvania."

Chuck says that he was at first reluctant about taking on the head job at the DSCC.

"The DSCC job is not necessarily a plum assignment. It's like being elected resident of your condo association - someone's got to do it. It requires a lot of travel and a lot of time dialing for dollars.

"The number-one reason that I decided to take the job was because I worried that if we had another bad election, if we lost another two or three seats, it would be over...The Supreme Court would take this nation backward 130 years."

The major cause for the 2004 electoral losses, Schumer says, was losing touch with middle class voters.

"We were competitive among the middle class - voters with household incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 - only because of near- unanimous support among middle-class African-American voters. Meanwhile, among white middle-class voters - a third of the electorate - Bush beat Kerry by twenty-two points. Twenty-two points!"

"We needed to do a better job of reaching the middle class, regardless of ethnicity, and, whatever we did, we could never ignore African-American voters."

Schumer attributes the decay of Hispanic support for the Democratic Party in 2004 to their increased incomes, which put them more in the middle class that he thinks the Democrats were ignoring.

The rest of the book targets the more wonkish reader, and consists of Chuck's "eureka moments" about how to "increase reading and math scores by 50 %," how to "reduce property taxes that fund education by 50%" how to "increase the number of college graduates by 50%," how to "reduce illegal immigration by at least 50% and increase legal immigration by up to 50%" "reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 50%" and how to reduce cancer mortality, abortions, tax evasion, child obesity and access to child pornography by 50 percent.

--Jason Horowitz

Take Chuck Schumer, who on February 22 will make an appearance at the New School to publicize his new offering, Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class Majority One Family at a Time.

The recently ordained political guru of the Democratic Party will talk about his prescription for luring average-income suburban types back into the fold, a subject the school's Milano School for Management and Urban Policy will be revisiting with a related conference in April about the urban middle class.

--Jason Horowitz

From "Positively American," the senator's 270-page offering which is scheduled to show up in stores later this month, we'll get his take on the Democratic Party's appeal and the Supreme Court, among other things.

Schumer has said that he is not satisfied with the Democratic takeover of the Senate that he helped engineer this year, and is offering a strategy in this book for attracting middle class families who are not committed to either major political party.

Schumer was at first reluctant about taking on the head job at the DSCC, but has said that he did so in part because of the lasting impact that a GOP-led Congress could have had by appointing more conservatives to the Supreme Court.

-- Jason Horowitz

UPDATE: After being made aware by the Schumer people of certain embargo details, we've re-posted this item without some quotes and details that were in the original. The official publication date is Jan. 23.