My interest in this has induced me to think about why this has developed. And, as a "rat choice" kind of guy, my intuition is that the early start date is in somebody's interests. But whose?

The weekend's spate of news articles on presidential wives was, I thought, a fairly good answer to the question. There were two in particular that I thought made the point - first was the Washington Post article on Jeri Thompson, second was the New York Times article on Judith Giuliani.

These articles indicate very clearly that the press has an interest in this extended political campaign. August is a slow month for political journalists and pundits. Congress - the center of American political life - is on vacation, after all. So, there is not much to cover. In times like these, a moderately scintillating article about a candidate's attractive wife alienating his closest advisors fits the bill just perfectly. This kind of campaign "news," in other words, is almost entirely manufactured. But what else are press outlets to do? There is little-to-no news going on right now, but the space and time must be filled.

So, the press has an interest in creating a story where there is none - a story like an intense political campaign six months before the first primary. Most of the campaign news we read about is thus manufactured to fill all of the space and time - although it often seems like it is real news. Between the press and the blogosphere that comments upon what the press does, an echo chamber effect is created. When thousands of people are reading and writing about political "events," it is hard to remember that the events are just "events." When people are doing polling in August 2007, and everybody is parsing and analyzing them, it is hard to remember that voters are not paying much attention; and therefore that saying, "the polls can change" is not simply a platitude you say when your guy is losing, but a necessary epistemological orientation.

Of course, the candidates have a say in the timing of the campaign - so it must be in their interests to have such a long campaign, right? I think the answer is yes - though I am sure many candidates felt pressured to start earlier than they had wanted to. Fred Thompson might prove that being the last one to the dance is the best way to arrive - but I think most would agreed that being the penultimate arrival is a lousy way.

However, there is a lot of value that candidates can derive from starting so early. I look at this campaign season as football preseason. Preseason has absolutely no bearing upon the regular season, let alone the playoffs; nevertheless, it is an excellent opportunity for coaches to try out schemes and players to find formulae that work well. It's an opportunity to work the kinks out without any consequences. Anybody who watched the Steelers / Saints game Sunday night would be foolish to think that the latter's tepid performance means anything for the regular season. The Saints are going to get their act together - and that is what the preseason is all about. It gives them an opportunity to discover what they need to tweak without damaging their playoff prospects.

I think this metaphor translates to presidential campaigns quite well. Candidates have an opportunity to refine their messages and organize their staffs. They can work the kinks out. If their operations are not working well, this "precampaign" will expose the flaws - without the negative consequences that would come had the problems been exposed closer to Election Day.

A case in point is the Judith Giuliani story from the Times. A prospective first lady has to play the "proper" role in a presidential campaign - and there is additional pressure upon Judith Giuliani because of her husband's marital history. The Giuliani campaign's first role for her was not very good - and back in the spring she received more than a little bit of bad press. But this was actually great for the Giuliani campaign. It gave them an early indication of what was not working - so, they could adjust in advance of the real campaign. What's more, the adjustment was penalty free; they got some flack in the press at the time, of course - but voters are not paying attention, so they could learn that the old way wasn't working without paying for it with votes. The adjustment seems to be working. While the recent Vanity Fair article was very harsh - the Times piece was much more charitable to her. It sounded a generally positive note on how her role has changed. This is a sign that the Giuliani campaign has adjusted to the earlier criticisms so as to blunt later ones.

The Vanity Fair article, while it is negative and recent, actually reveals another advantage to starting early. As long as she does not make any further missteps, stories about Judith Giuliani that follow the Vanity Fair hit piece might very well become "old news" - five months before the first votes are cast. If you start early, you can "bait" the press - which is desperate for stories now - into publishing all of the unflattering stuff it can find out about you months before the campaign really starts.

The biggest potential beneficiary from this early start could be - as I have said before - Barack Obama. However, his campaign does not seem to me to be learning much from the precampaign. I - like most of us - have noticed flap after flap after flap. From an electoral perspective, I think Obama can still recover from these mistakes. Voters still are not paying all that much attention - and while Clinton's lead in the national polls has increased, it remains to be seen whether she can sustain it in the face of his $50 million primary campaign onslaught. But Obama's campaign seems not to be learning from its mistakes because it keeps making them. I have long thought Obama could really sell in 2008 - but that has always been predicated upon the campaign becoming efficient and...well...mature. I just don't see that yet. If I were an Obama supporter - I'd be very nervous that, after six months on the campaign trail, my candidate still feels that he can go on the record and say, "Scratch that." As if the journalists who are recording his words won't be all the more likely to publish them!