Well, they could, and do, which may be a surprise to readers who found no such point of view in Nevada news stories about the idea. News stories that give only one side of a story seem to be the coming thing, along with a heavy dose of community boosterism, so Nevadans got heavily slanted coverage of the idea.

 I called Ken Bode at DePauw University, one of the nation's leading authorities on the delegate selection process used by the Democratic Party in selecting its presidential nominees. He's also a former NBC and CNN political reporter and host of Washington Week in Review. I asked him about the proposal to move Nevada and South Carolina's dates back.

 "It's a terrible idea," he said.

Did you see that point of view in the news coverage?

The recommendation is to hold the first events this way: Iowa (January 14 caucuses) followed by Nevada (caucuses probably on January 19) followed by New Hampshire (January 22 primary) followed by South Carolina (January 29 primary). The problem with this schedule is that the party is providing a solution that has no problem. What needs reforming is less the order of these events than the start of them. Primaries and caucuses both start too early. As the Baltimore Sun put it, "Assuming the Republicans adopt a similar schedule, a full-scale presidential campaign could be under way by March -  and dragging tediously along for another eight months."

 Bode said tinkering with the dates is no reform, it's a way of avoiding reform - and avoiding the real problem, which is that ALL the primaries and caucuses happen too early.

 "Look, we at the present time have got a system where the last time around, it was over after Iowa," he said. "Dean was beaten in Iowa, Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire. There was no contest after that."

 When the process starts so early, the candidates can be selected without the issue having emerged. In 1992 the Reagan deficit became a major campaign issue, but only well after Ross Perot got into the race and started raising it. During the early primaries and caucuses it was scarcely mentioned. If 2006 had been a presidential year, the early campaign events would have been held without immigration being discussed. The proposed Nevada caucuses would be nine and a half months before the general election.

 "The important thing about the nominating contest is that 99 percent of Americans are paying no attention at the time the Iowa caucuses happen..." Bode said. "It used to be that we had California and Ohio and New Jersey in June, so you really had an opportunity for the voters to look these candidates over, find out who's got the staying power, who's got the issues. It gives journalists time to pay more and more attention to the candidates who are emerging as the leaders of the pack as you go forward. And therefore, you have a more intelligent, a more thoughtful outcome to your nominating process."

Since 1920 New Hampshire law has required that it be the first primary in the nation, and its secretary of state is empowered to move the primary date without legislative action to guarantee continued primacy for the state. New Hampshire has tolerated the Iowa caucuses preceding it, but with more caucuses being added in front of it, the nomination could easily be settled before the race reaches new Hampshire, so Secretary of State William Gardner has made clear his willingness to start pushing the date back, even into 2007. That will just make the problem worse, and the idea of moving the Nevada and South Carolina dates back will hardly be seen as a reform.