Like most election reform issues, the Democratic nominating process is the brainchild of progressives, movtivated by the desire to produce a candidate w/strong retail (ie grassroots) skills and a persuasive message/platform regardless of the treasury and institutional interests of their opponents. Yet some are now looking to turn those goals on their heads by putting Michigan and Florida in the mix.

The contemporary Democratic presidential nominating system dates back to the George McGovern Commission recommendations following the 1968 Democratic Convention debacle.  It was intended to not only take the nominating process out of the organized labor/big city mayor/governor dominated smoke filled convention, but was also intended to assist a lesser known/financed anti-Vietnam War candidate (George McGovern) in defeating one former VP, one former VP nominee and possibly Ted Kennedy (the rock star of his day). IA and NH were institutionalized in order to place a greater emphasis on issues and retail politics over money and name ID.  Sound familiar?  Only one election was conducted w/o primary public financing before 2004, and that was the first to follow the recommendations implementation in 1972, which nominated George McGovern.  

The process originally lasted six months, from Jan to June, w/July (for the out of power party) and August (for the incumbent party) conventions.
The process was fluid enough in 1976 that Jerry Brown and Sen Frank Church (D-ID!) mounted strong but unsuccessful attempts from the left to stop Jimmy Carter from being nominated and Ted Kennedy's late victories in big states in 1980 gave him the leverage to force a more liberal platform on President Carter.

1984 was supposed to be the year of the liberal, in a walk.  Labor, enviro and women organizations as well as (most) African American and Latino electeds all rallied around Fritz Mondale, after Ted Kennedy chose not to run, in order to present a strong and early united front against Ronald Reagan.  But Gary Hart, out of money but running on a slogan of "neo-liberal" New Ideas, turned a distant second place showing in IA into a NH victory w/the help of a previously oblivious national press corps that just as quickly turned on him.  Only two weeks later the press corps declared Mondale a winner on "Super Tuesday" (then a coast to coast amalgam of small to mid size states) based on his victories in the 2 southern states out of 11 contests. For the rest of the primary season, each candidate would ebb and flow until the June finale, w/Hart winning CA and Mondale winning NJ.  1984 was the last time the nomination came even close to being determined at the convention.

The pretzel we are presented w/today is the combination of two "reform" efforts.  The first "reform movement" began following the 1984 landslide Mondale defeat. Southerners and wealthy donors (the DLC faction) believing that labor, Mondale, Kennedy and liberal interest groups had too much influence in the calendar, made a concerted effort to create a Southern "Super Tuesday" that would produce a more moderate (ie electable) candidate.  That candidate, Al Gore in 1988, ended up having much of his thunder stolen when his victories were overshadowed by Jesse Jackson and Mike Dukakis (Dukakis winning only 2, but they were the biggest states, Texas & Florida).

When the resurgent moderates thought they'd get their way w/Tom Harkin rendering IA non-competitive and irrelevant, and the primary process getting off to a late start due to concerns about George Bush's post Gulf War popularity, 1992 became the low point for the process. Liberal and DLC leaders alike were agasp when the second place "comeback kid" of NH, Bill Clinton, marred by draft, drug and dallying controversies seemed headed for a historical third place showing. Instead, Ross Perot's initial withdrawal, on the last day of the Democratic convention, gave birth to the legend of today.

The second "reform movement", began following the 2000 election and was led by Sen Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell (unhappy campers today) under the rationale that a bigger and presumably more representative state would produce a more viable and representative nominee. This year their interests have dovetailed w/Hillary Clinton's desire to ameliorate any possible defeat in IA, where the Clinton's have never participated in the caucus process due to Tom Harkin's dominance in '92 and incumbency in '96.

The culmination of these efforts, frontloading and more representative states was the basis for the painstaking process undertaken by the DNC to begin chipping away at the influence of IA and NH while retaining the retail role they've played in previous elections. By inserting NV and SC as a means of providing more involvement from labor, Latinos and African-Americans and assuring each region an early role in the process, the DNC plan was endorsed by all the state parties, including MI and FL.

For those who want a national primary, fine.  But then let's not gripe about Hillary Clinton because she would clearly win, even Barack Obama couldn't raise enough money to overcome her national name ID, the most popular brand name in the party.  While I carry no water for IA or NH (let any combo of states w/8 or fewer Electoral votes go first) I think that creating a national, regional or "big states first" scenario only tamps down progressive voices and replaces it w/celebrity and money. Smaller states create an opportunity for greater scrutiny, by voters not just the media. And if you can't survive in that setting, you aren't ready for the national stage either

While smaller states go first, voters in larger and mid-size states still have the power to determine who will be the next nominee.  But the frontloading efforts are a tacit acknowledgement that the first states create a winnowing process that is fueled by the 24 hour news cycle, and now the internet.  But objecting to such quick decision making (eg, why do IA and NH get to decide for the rest of us?) is disingenuous because it would be equally true for whichever state went first and ignores the role both the news cylce and the internet have played on this and many other public policy matters, reaction that is swift and judgemental. The evolution has taken what had been a lengthy process and has transformed it into a frontloaded calendar in pursuit of  presumed financial or institutional advantage.  Why are we surprised then that the winners of the first two contests are likely to sweep the remainder? A "go w/the winner" herd mentality and desire to "face the real enemy" (Republicans, remember them?) become self fulfilling determinating factors in voters choices.

You cannot take the politics out of a political process, that is as true for the nominating process as it is for campaign finance.  All we can decide is what we value most.  Until there is public financing of elections, the wealthy and organized interests  w/money will have influence beyond the average voter, but greater disclosure can at least give them the means to cast judgement on the recipients of such largesse.  If we don't agree to a nominating process where smaller states go first, we are putting a premium on celebrity and money as the most important components of our next nominee.

I don't understand, how is it that the progressive online community can call for a boycott of the CBC Presidential debate on Fox News, in an effort to delegitimize it as a news source, while at the same time Matt Stoller gives them an interview at the Take Back America Conference discussing the influence the progressive online community will have on the Democratic Presidential race?  

How can we then condemn Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich for accepting the Fox debate invitation to participate, at the behest of a group of major elected representatives from the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and say that they are validating to Fox's ideological coverage?  But if Matt, Jerome or Markous decide to represent the community, that's okay?  What, do we think they're talking to a different universe of viewers?  

This is the inherent hypocrisy of the boycott, either we are saying that we should shun all coverage from Fox or we should accept that they are a conduit, albeit a hostile one, to not only cable viewers (who are the most Republican of voters) but also to more persuadable viewers of their local broadcast affiliates.