EDITORIAL\What's the rush?\California doesn't have to feverishly compete for an early primary.

IN a game of political leapfrog, states have been scheduling earlier presidential primaries to increase their own influence over the candidates.

But as California has found out this year, the exercise is pointless when other states retaliate by moving up their primaries and caucuses, too.

California lawmakers moved the 1996 primary from June to March because, for years, political insiders - as well as a good number of voters - were irked that the state didn't have more clout in determining the field of presidential contenders.

Smaller states held their primaries earlier, and when the campaigns finally rolled into California, the winners had been pretty much determined. California voters could do little but ratify the choices already made by those in other states.

So, three years ago, the California Legislature moved the primary to March 26, which is nine weeks from today.

But in the meantime, other states also made similar moves:

Ohio, which also had a June primary, moved theirs up to March 19.

Oregon and Washington, which held their primaries during May, moved theirs to March.

Delaware, with no history of primaries, will hold one this year on Feb. 24.

Those changes, and others, are producing the most compressed primary calendar in history - with 28 primaries in the five weeks from Feb. 20 to March 26.

Yet, California is still nowhere near the front of the pack. Its primary, on the last Tuesday in March, will be preceded by big multi-state votes in the preceding weeks:

New England states (except New Hampshire) will have a Super Tuesday on March 5.

Five Southern states, including populous Florida and Texas, will hold their Super Tuesday on March 12.

Four upper Midwestern states will hold a Super Tuesday on March 19.

Although it often goes unmentioned, a certain number of political operatives support an earlier primary out of pure self-interest. After all, if the crucial early action shifts to California, it means more candidates will spend more money here for political workers, campaign managers and consultants. Of course, that isn't enough to warrant an early primary.

As for giving California greater weight in the national political debate, we should point out that the state already gets plenty of attention, and that will continue to be true, whether the primary is in June, March or January. The state's 54 electoral votes will see to that.

And let's face it, California's vastness requires campaigns based on wholesale-style politicking - lots of television and relatively little personal interaction with the voters. That's probably not the best way to judge candidates, especially in the early weeks of a campaign season.

With all those constraints, we see no reason for California to consider an even earlier primary. Instead of playing calendar games, attention should be squarely focused on providing a substantive exchange of views whenever the primary is scheduled. That in itself would constitute a major step forward.