Well, I was a bit depressed -- it happens -- on Wednesday evening after a couple of meetings in Concord earlier in the day, so I was looking for a bit of entertainment. It was cold so I decided to stay in after I put the lights on my Christmas tree that's out on my deck.

You can imagine my happiness when I turned on the Florida Republican Debate. I found amusement, humor, and ohhhh so much comedy. I'm not sure whether the candidates or the obviously mostly-Republican and quite temperamental and sometimes obnoxious audience had me chuckling the most.

From my viewpoint, none of these men should be President. It's kind of disgraceful that some of them got as far as Mayor, Governor, or to Congress. Ron Paul, and a couple of times John McCain, were the only ones with a degree of credibility and courage, although each was off-the-mark when describing their hopes for America's future. At least Ron Paul "gets it" when it comes to the Iraq War.

This debate reminded me again how lucky those of us who are Democrats are by having a set of Presidential candidates who stand the proverbial head-and-shoulders above their Republican counterparts. We who are Democrats might disagree on the edges about different positions, such as whether one candidate's health care plan has more or better components than another. But we're rich with the depth of our choices. About health care and those other ideas, remember that all such "plans" are only talking points right now, since once the plan is introduced into Congress all bets are off and the process of legislative law-making begins. So, a few "details" put aside, all the Democratic candidates look so good compared with any of the Republicans. Of course, I'm a little biased in saying that.

I especially liked to see how the Republicans can fight and argue over even the most subtle of differences they have, with one candidate or another pulling right out of thin air what another candidate might believe, only to have another candidate prove he was "massaging the truth" a bit. In politics, there are often shades of gray, but the Republicans seem to be playing with shades of truth.

If anyone won the Republican debate, I thought it was Ron Paul and John McCain -- in that they sounded somewhat better than the others, or perhaps I should say they sounded not as bad as the others. The rest sounded like a losing high school debate team. Actually, I'm not sure about that -- even a losing high school debate team has some class.

I can just visualize the debates next Fall before the November General Election with Hillary Clinton taking on one of these wiz-balls. She'll clean his clock. For that matter, any of the other potential Democratic Presidential nominees would do the same.

As a Democrat I like to say we can't lose this one. The future of our country depends on it.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:16 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, I was a bit depressed -- it happens -- on Wednesday evening after a couple of meetings in Concord earlier in the day, so I was looking for a bit of entertainment. It was cold so I decided to stay in after I put the lights on my Christmas tree that's out on my deck.

You can imagine my happiness when I turned on the Florida Republican Debate. I found amusement, humor, and ohhhh so much comedy. I'm not sure whether the candidates or the obviously mostly-Republican and quite temperamental and sometimes obnoxious audience had me chuckling the most.

From my viewpoint, none of these men should be President. It's kind of disgraceful that some of them got as far as Mayor, Governor, or to Congress. Ron Paul, and a couple of times John McCain, were the only ones with a degree of credibility and courage, although each was off-the-mark when describing their hopes for America's future. At least Ron Paul "gets it" when it comes to the Iraq War.

This debate reminded me again how lucky those of us who are Democrats are by having a set of Presidential candidates who stand the proverbial head-and-shoulders above their Republican counterparts. We who are Democrats might disagree on the edges about different positions, such as whether one candidate's health care plan has more or better components than another. But we're rich with the depth of our choices. About health care and those other ideas, remember that all such "plans" are only talking points right now, since once the plan is introduced into Congress all bets are off and the process of legislative law-making begins. So, a few "details" put aside, all the Democratic candidates look so good compared with any of the Republicans. Of course, I'm a little biased in saying that.

I especially liked to see how the Republicans can fight and argue over even the most subtle of differences they have, with one candidate or another pulling right out of thin air what another candidate might believe, only to have another candidate prove he was "massaging the truth" a bit. In politics, there are often shades of gray, but the Republicans seem to be playing with shades of truth.

If anyone won the Republican debate, I thought it was Ron Paul and John McCain -- in that they sounded somewhat better than the others, or perhaps I should say they sounded not as bad as the others. The rest sounded like a losing high school debate team. Actually, I'm not sure about that -- even a losing high school debate team has some class.

I can just visualize the debates next Fall before the November General Election with Hillary Clinton taking on one of these wiz-balls. She'll clean his clock. For that matter, any of the other potential Democratic Presidential nominees would do the same.

As a Democrat I like to say we can't lose this one. The future of our country depends on it.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:16 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, I was a bit depressed -- it happens -- on Wednesday evening after a couple of meetings in Concord earlier in the day, so I was looking for a bit of entertainment. It was cold so I decided to stay in after I put the lights on my Christmas tree that's out on my deck.

You can imagine my happiness when I turned on the Florida Republican Debate. I found amusement, humor, and ohhhh so much comedy. I'm not sure whether the candidates or the obviously mostly-Republican and quite temperamental and sometimes obnoxious audience had me chuckling the most.

From my viewpoint, none of these men should be President. It's kind of disgraceful that some of them got as far as Mayor, Governor, or to Congress. Ron Paul, and a couple of times John McCain, were the only ones with a degree of credibility and courage, although each was off-the-mark when describing their hopes for America's future. At least Ron Paul "gets it" when it comes to the Iraq War.

This debate reminded me again how lucky those of us who are Democrats are by having a set of Presidential candidates who stand the proverbial head-and-shoulders above their Republican counterparts. We who are Democrats might disagree on the edges about different positions, such as whether one candidate's health care plan has more or better components than another. But we're rich with the depth of our choices. About health care and those other ideas, remember that all such "plans" are only talking points right now, since once the plan is introduced into Congress all bets are off and the process of legislative law-making begins. So, a few "details" put aside, all the Democratic candidates look so good compared with any of the Republicans. Of course, I'm a little biased in saying that.

I especially liked to see how the Republicans can fight and argue over even the most subtle of differences they have, with one candidate or another pulling right out of thin air what another candidate might believe, only to have another candidate prove he was "massaging the truth" a bit. In politics, there are often shades of gray, but the Republicans seem to be playing with shades of truth.

If anyone won the Republican debate, I thought it was Ron Paul and John McCain -- in that they sounded somewhat better than the others, or perhaps I should say they sounded not as bad as the others. The rest sounded like a losing high school debate team. Actually, I'm not sure about that -- even a losing high school debate team has some class.

I can just visualize the debates next Fall before the November General Election with Hillary Clinton taking on one of these wiz-balls. She'll clean his clock. For that matter, any of the other potential Democratic Presidential nominees would do the same.

As a Democrat I like to say we can't lose this one. The future of our country depends on it.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:16 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

First, to be up front and in the interest of full disclosure, I'll mention that I'm supporting Hillary Clinton for President. I was one of her very early endorsers, dating back to a Blog post I wrote on December 5, 2006, even before her announcement of January 20th six weeks later.

In fact, I sort of endorsed her for President the very first time I met her in a small group meeting in Portsmouth in 1991, when she was campaigning for a little-known Governor. After her comments as she was leaving I said she should be the candidate for President. She laughed. Just a bit.

I like Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons, which I'll summarize in the next few weeks. I think she's done great things, and I believe that she can win next November. I do happen to also like all of the other Democratic Presidential candidates. Those of us who are Democrats are rich with good men and women who want to be our leaders.

However, as one New Hampshire voter, I'd like to offer some advice to Hillary Clinton. I'll say it this way: Hillary, your "EXPERIENCE" slogan won't work. It won't get you elected. In Iowa and New Hampshire, it won't put it away for you. We're looking for more than that in our next President. We look at the candidates eye-to-eye, face-to-face. We listen carefully to your answers to our questions. That's OUR experience.

Saying you're more "experienced" than Barack Obama or John Edwards or other candidates isn't going to get people to vote for you, because in Politics 21st Century, ideas count more than ever. Ideas will get us out of Iraq, sooner than later. Ideas will get us heath care, real not imagined. Ideas will create an educational system that will prepare our kids for the 22nd Century that many of them will touch, and in which their own children will compete.

Hillary, you've got some tough opponents in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, and they have lots of ideas. You COULD lose the nomination -- and it's probably yours to lose.

Some of your opponents present their ideas better than you present your "experience." You talk a lot about experience, but I'd like to hear more about your ideas, including the new ideas you have. And you do have some, but we have to look real hard because you spend most of your time talking about your experience.

As a sports enthusiast, I don't care so much about what an aging baseball player might have in the form of past records or years of experience; come the World Series what matters most is what he's going to do in the upcoming game. Sometimes his experience might help in deciding that next pitch, but usually it comes down to focusing on the task at hand -- the next hit, the next play, the next run. That's his real worth on the field.

From my viewpoint as a New Hampshire voter, I think that you've got to do the same thing. Stop telling us about YOUR experience. Talk with us about OUR future -- the next issue, the next solution, the next hope.

Put your pollsters aside. Forget the focus groups. Resist the "politically correct" answers where you sound like you're trying to satisfy everyone and every interest group. Tell your managers you don't want to be managed. Leave your speech writers' missives at their offices. Forget the cute one-liners that don't tell us much. Don't be overly cautious or calculating. Show your courage, we've seen that before. Be yourself. Just yourself. We'll like what we see.

This advice is coming from a supporter, so I hope Hillary Clinton and her campaign advisors think about it, before they get the message from the voters and it's too late for her to recover. Once Iowa's Caucus gets under way on Thursday, January 3rd, there are only 33 days, or 800 hours, give or take a couple, before Tuesday, February 5th when most of the country will have voted in primaries and caucuses. The race will have been decided by then, perhaps even sooner. So Hillary, now is the time -- before the first contests in Iowa and New Hampshire -- to get those ideas out. Please start right away.

So, I hope someone writes a memo to Hillary Clinton for placement on refrigerator: Challenge us. Talk with us about America's possibilities and our opportunities. Give us your vision. Respect us. Let us see you for whom you are. I think we'll like you even more for that.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:25 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Memo To Candidates: Three Good Reasons For Tuesday, January 8th For The NH Presidential Primary

Well, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner has completed his task of fulfilling our state law and setting our primary >"...7 days or more..." before a "similar election." He set our primary for Tuesday, January 8th. The "similar election" this cycle appears to be Michigan on Tuesday, January 15th, followed closely by South Carolina on Saturday, January 19th. The Iowa Caucuses for both Democrats and Republicans are set for Thursday, January 3rd. That gives us a 5 day "window" between Iowa and New Hampshire, which is the shortest in over three decades.

That scenario perhaps isn't the best we could have, but was the best we could get. With our New Hampshire Primary date-setting flexibility, we can choose a date that fulfills our law of having our event "...7 days or more..." before a similar election, but we can't tell other states what to do. That's where the national political parties and our friends in other states -- we do have some -- help by opening up a favorable slot for us.

That's also where our own strategies of patience in date-setting, and discussing possibilities like "The December Option" to alert other states to how determined we are to be first in the process, come into play. Once again, all that worked to our advantage. It's a well-tested success story for New Hampshire going back to the 1970s when other states really began challenging our lead-off status. By giving the authority to one person, our Secretary of State, to set our primary "...7 days or more..." ahead of other states, we can maneuver in ways others cannot.

And while Tuesday, January 8th isn't the best of all worlds for New Hampshire, that date does have its benefits:

#1. Our Primary is 5 days after Iowa. Why's that a benefit? Well, we could have been 3 days after Iowa, if the Iowa Democrats had gone to Saturday, January 5th, which was very possible, or even 1 day after Iowa, if they had chosen Monday, January 7th. We were being squeezed quite a lot two months ago, and I think that the discussion of the possibility that we might have to move into December, and the perseverance of our Democrat and Republican Party friends here and elsewhere, helped make sure we would have 5 days after Iowa.

While 5 days after Iowa isn't a whole lot, it does give New Hampshire voters enough time -- a full weekend plus -- to absorb the results of the Iowa Caucuses in each party so that we can make our own judgements. Remember, too, that the Democratic National Committee wanted TWO caucuses before New Hampshire -- Iowa, and the other was to be Nevada. Now Nevada is stuck on Saturday, January 19th. (So much for the dictators of the DNC.) But remember the Republican National Committee has played that game in years past too, so it's not just the national dems who have had their binoculars aimed our way.

#2. Our Primary is 7 days before any other event -- not just a "similar" event. The next event after New Hampshire's First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary is Michigan, a week later. Michigan itself will be important, and that's good because our job should not be to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan -- that was one reason why I wasn't a fan of "The Pledge" Candidates should be able to run anywhere, including Florida and Michigan -- we should just want to be sure they run here, too, and that we do have 7 days or more before they run anywhere else. Now we have those 7 days, so our relevance and impact in the presidential election process is preserved yet again.

#3. Our Primary will have more impact than in years. What? Why? Well, let's look at the schedule. Iowa is Thursday, January 3rd. Whatever the results -- whomever "wins" or does "better than expected" there has five days to use those results to pull off a victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, January 8th.

Then, as soon as the results are known here on or about 8:00 PM on our Primary Election Night, those Democratic and Republican candidates who do well here -- who either win or do better than expected -- have up to three weeks to benefit from New Hampshire's Primary. The next really big stop is Florida on Tuesday, January 29th, and then the country's "mega-primary" is on Tuesday, February 5th, when over a dozen major states vote, including New York, California, New Jersey, and Connecticut. During those 3 weeks after our primary, New Hampshire's impact from January 8th's results will be heard and felt.

From the time of the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday, January 8th, until Tuesday, January 29th, the only bumps in the road for any of the candidates of either party are Michigan (January 15th), South Carolina (January 19th and January 26th), and Nevada (January 19th). So, leading up to that very important set of primaries on February 5th, the candidates really, really, REALLY need to do well in New Hampshire -- and since they know that, we're seeing them campaign more heavily here than ever.

I think that the Iowa Caucus will be old news very quickly this election cycle. The results of the New Hampshire Primary -- which is a "real election" where voters actually go into the privacy of voting booths to cast their vote -- will offset any discussion about whatever happened in Iowa. The results of the New Hampshire Primary will be the center of political analysis for the most part of three weeks until the series of large primaries to be held on January 29th and February 5th. In other words, what happens here will have a lasting and lingering memory on the media and the voters. That's good for New Hampshire's importance in 2012 and beyond.

Oh, and I'll add a 4th reason why the January 8th date is good: it will allow us to have the Presidential candidates here as we celebrate the beginning of our Civil Unions. The effective date of the law passed by the New Hampshire Legislature is January 1st. Maybe some will be on the guest lists?

And by having the candidates moving on from New Hampshire by Wednesday morning, January 9th, we will all be able to enjoy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day commemorations in peace and quiet. What a state we live in!

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:45 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Will it be December? January? And why has Bill Gardner waited so darn long to set it?

It is coming to an end mighty soon, but it has turned into months. Months of waiting for New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to set a date for the NH First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary.
Those months have included lots of shuffling of primary and caucus dates by other states, especially by Iowa and Nevada until they settled into their slots. And, of course -- the Great Confused State Of Michigan, which got so desperate their legislature passed a primary law that a court there ruled was unconstitutional, leading to an even greater state of confusion.

Bill Gardner has faced some criticism this year, from inside and outside of New Hampshire. That criticism has been misplaced, and is undeserved.

Fact is, Bill Gardner has been doing his job. He hasn't been deceptive. He hasn't been negotiating with states or political parties. He's certainly not playing games, even though he does have a poker face as he considers his primary date-setting task.

But through it all, Bill Gardner has used his skills of patience, experience, and unpredictability in following the state law in setting our primary "...7 days or more..."strong> before a >"similar election," and by so doing he has faced down and forced out other states and political parties to make sure that New Hampshire remains first and relevant in the presidential election process for 2008.

Some criticism thrown at Bill Gardner has said he can't make up his mind, and he keeps on changing the New Hampshire primary date. Well, he has never set a primary date for 2008, and so he never "changed" one. The often-mentioned "January 22nd" date was one set by the Democratic National Committee a couple of years ago, and it never was our official date. They can't set our date -- New Hampshire taxpayers pay for our primary, so we can hold it whenever we want.

The uncertainty for 2008 has been caused by some other states, and by the Democratic National Committee especially -- not by New Hampshire and not by Bill Gardner. By the way, the Republican National Committee has caused similar uncertainty in past years, so there is equality among the national parties in that way. Neither have ever "given" our primary to us, and if it was up to either the Republican or Democratic national parties we would have lost our primary many years ago.

Bill Gardner has done exactly what he needs to -- waiting patiently for all the other states to set their dates. Then he sets ours. He hasn't made backroom or political deals in deciding when New Hampshire's primary will be -- that's not his job, and he's not authorized by our state law do negotiate with anyone. He doesn't need to. He's doing this year exactly what he has done so well in all the presidential election cycles for which he has been in the position to fulfill his task, dating back to 1980.

In our state law, we give our Secretary of State considerable flexibility in setting our primary. However, there is a limitation to that power. Here is our primary law:

"653:9 Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose."

That's it. A little wordy perhaps -- I've added a word now and then through the years -- and maybe somewhat confusing, but essentially it says we leave the NH primary date-setting decision in the hands of our Secretary of State, with a lot of latitude.

However, there are two requirements set forth in that law, one clear, the other implied. One is that the Secretary of State MUST set our primary >"...7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election..." Second, implied in those words is that the Secretary of State MUST wait until all the other states have set their elections, because then and only then can it be determined when our date is "...7 days or more..." before a "similar election."

Back in 1975, when I considered the mechanism for setting our primary date, I initially discussed with others that we should have a committee choose the date -- a group including the Governor, the House Speaker, the Senate President, the Secretary of State, and the chairs of the NH Republican and Democratic Parties. I'm glad I settled on a one-call approach of having the Secretary of State, and that person alone, do the job. It removes much politics from the process.

Can you imagine the negotiating and bargaining -- and politics -- that would have gone on this year, as well as in years past, if a committee of some sort had the power to decide the New Hampshire primary date? In some other states, large groups decide the date of their primary -- Michigan and Iowa are examples. Here, it is really quite simple.

Some people have already talked about changing our state primary law to create a committee approach, or allow negotiations with the national parties. I fully expect there will be some challenges to that law in the NH Legislature either next year or the following one. I'm ready for that fight. Bring it on.

I'm also looking forward to the discussion during the next four years to encourage reform of the presidential primary and caucus system. For about a decade, the National Association of Secretaries Of State has supported a plan that allows Iowa to have the first Caucus beginning in March of a presidential election year, followed by the first "real election," the New Hampshire Primary --then beginning two weeks later a series of four to eight rotating regional primaries spaced two weeks apart from late March to June. The Jimmy Carter Election Commission endorsed a similar plan two years ago. It makes sense to do that beginning in 2012.

But for this year as in years past New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner is doing his job. And he's doing it well. And he's following the law -- a law that has protected our lead-off status since the mid-1970s. No matter what other states and political parties try to do, they can't figure out a way to beat us.

Doing his job well. Following the law. And doing it with a smile. It's nice to have a public servant like Bill Gardner. His patience and personal skills have guaranteed that New Hampshire will be first for 2008 once again. It won't be our last. No way.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 11:27 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, well! A Michigan County Circuit Court Judge ruled that part of the recently-passed law in that state setting their primary on Tuesday, January 15th is unconstitutional. What luck.

Why luck? Well, Michigan Democrats are meeting tonight (Wednesday) to decide if they want to move their event -- perhaps a caucus -- to an earlier time, such as Tuesday, January 8th, or to keep on January 15th, or to move to a latter date. This ruling could encourage them to stick with January 15th at the earliest, and to not try to piggyback on New Hampshire at all.

But the real luck comes in having the Michigan Republicans re-think what they're going to do. They could try to get the Michigan Legislature and Governor to re-enact a bill creating a January 15th Primary, OR they could decide their own event is going to evolve into a caucus for that date, or later. Or, they could appeal the court ruling, but time is running out for them.

IF the Michigan Republicans do stick to January 15th or go even later, and the Democrats don't try to go any earlier themselves, it would give our Secretary of State a number of new options -- he could set our primary for Tuesday, January 8th, Wednesday, January 9th, Thursday, January 10th, or even Friday, January 11th. Our state law requiring him to hold our primary at least "...7 days or more..." before a "similar" election would give him that flexibility. Plus, he could announce a firm date very soon.

Every day later after January 8th that we hold our primary adds 24 hours for candidates to campaign here following the Thursday, January 5th Iowa Caucuses. That allows candidates who don't do well in Iowa to recover, and those who do well there to further make their case and get a second up-close-and-personal look-over by New Hampshire voters.

Previous recent decisions by the Nevada Democrats to stick to Saturday, January 19th instead of moving up, and by the Iowa Democrats and Republicans to hold their caucuses on Thursday, January 3rd instead of January 5th or 7th, were vital. That gives us these good options for the second week of January.

Perhaps all the discussion during the past month about the possibilities of "The December Option" did some good in getting those out-of-state powers-who-be to move some of their schedules around to give New Hampshire some room. Now a court judge from Michigan gives us a dose of luck as well.

If all this holds, United States Senator Carl Levin is out of the running as my selection of "Person Of The Month," and that county court judge is in the running. I'll have to find out his name.

None of their sports teams are among my favorites, but today I'm cheering "Go Michigan!"

Posted by Jim Splaine at 03:09 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I recently had an enjoyable and rather lengthy discussion about the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary with a French reporter visiting our state. She was here learning about our primary system and had a chance to catch up with some of the candidates, as well as those supporting them. Since I've been involved in protecting our lead-off status for quite a few years, our discussion lead to the history of the primary, some past races, and of course -- why New Hampshire?

Our talk gave me a chance to offer my own "apology," if it can be called that, as one American citizen to a citizen of France for our arrogance in ignoring the warnings of their government back some four and five years ago.

As we all remember, they admonished us that our so-called "intelligence" about Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq was faulty and phony. Many Americans expressed great anger at France for not joining us as allies in the attack on Iraq, with some even going to the point of renaming "French Fries" as "Freedom Fries." They were so renamed at the U. S. Capitol and even on Air Force One. After all, we knew best, right? And didn't France owe us their blind loyalty from our sacrifices in World War II? They were so letting us down.

Of course, they were indeed paying back that loyalty with a plea to America not to invade Iraq, warning us that Iraq posed no threat with WMDs, since they didn't exist. They were trying to save American lives, and the lives of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of others.

Our nation owes an apology to France, and hasn't given it yet. But our Presidential candidates -- at least the Democratic ones -- and at least those who were equally fooled by Bush, et. al. -- should stand up for right and honesty and publicly thank the people and the government of France for being correct on this one, and for having the courage to have stood up to the Bush-Cheney Administration.

Standing up to and speaking out against the Bush-Cheney Administration was something that obviously a lot of United States Senators and Congresspeople who should have known better and who should have been more cautious should have done then, but didn't.

France did. They were doing what a real friend always should do: tell us a truth we didn't want to hear.

We should not have attacked Iraq, even when some 70% of Americans who were blinded by Bush's non-intelligence thought we should. France had the courage and foresight to tell us not to. Now we should thank them for their vision, and apologize for "Freedom Fries."

Posted by Jim Splaine at 08:50 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)