As Sacramento debates a winter season for California’s 2008 presidential primaries, one important consideration is that this race will be wide-open to a historical level.

When one party has an assumed nominee, it tends to influence the selection process of the other party. But this year neither party will have an incumbent president or vice president as nominee, freeing both parties to look focus on a vision for the future instead of worrying what the other side has coming.

The last time this happened was in 1952, but even then Harry Truman was a candidate until after he lost New Hampshire. In 1924, both nominations were wide open, but with Democrats not bothering to contest the race it didn’t really matter. You really need to go back to 1920 to find a presidential race that was as wide-open at this point in the campaign.

To put that in perspective, while the internet will be the key medium in 2008, the last time we faced a campaign like this was during the first race with radio broadcasting results on election night.

Back then, both parties still had multiple candidates at the convention, but the historic nature of 2008 suggests California activists take measures now to ensure that the east-coast media hasn’t anointed a nominee before we get our say in the matter.

Unfortunately, the current debate over the calendar has been shackled with the completely separate issues of term limits and redistricting. Scheduling the primary shouldn’t be burdened with the taint of incumbent protection, especially with many people already suggesting that this is a scheme to front-load the primaries with an expensive state to protect the early fundraising leader.

The question should stand on it’s own:  should California schedule an early primary to leverage our power in deciding 2008 nominees?

I think the answer is yes. I know I want to have a say and I don’t think I’m alone.