I have requested legislation to be prepared that will allow 17 year olds to vote in future New Hampshire Presidential Primaries if they will be 18 years of age as of the General Election of that year, and if each political party agrees to the change. It makes a lot of sense to me that if they will be 18 and old enough to vote in the November Presidential Election -- and that at age 17 they already are allowed to serve in the military --they should be able to take part in the presidential nominating process by voting in our Primary.

Using our most recent Presidential Primary as an example, I believe it is very important for young people to be involved in the political process. I was especially delighted to see the awesome participation of young people in Iowa and New Hampshire. I'm sure a lot of those visiting voters door-to-door on behalf of candidates and attending rallies and other events during this year's New Hampshire Primary were under 18, and they probably got to know the issues and the candidates as well or better than a lot of us over 50.

I got involved in politics at a young age. In 1960 as a young pup I distributed flyers for John F. Kennedy. One of my very favorite memories was meeting Bobby Kennedy in Portsmouth as he was campaigning for his brother. Being involved so young was an invaluable experience, and I think it is so important that young people feel they do count, because they do. To allow them to vote in the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary if they will be 18 by the time of the November General Election -- and have their votes counted -- would be a good thing for our future.

I plan to present this legislation during the current Legislative Session, and the change allowing 17 year olds to vote would be in effect for the 2012 New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 07:14 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

There was a vast involvement of young people in the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary this year. With that in mind, I think that we should allow 17 year olds to vote in future New Hampshire Presidential Primaries if they will be 18 years of age as of the General Election of that year. It makes a lot of sense to me that if they will be 18 and old enough to vote for in the November Presidential Election, they should be able to formally take part in the process of nominating the President.

I have requested legislation to be prepared on this concept, and would welcome hearing readers' thoughts about the pros and cons of passing it. I do know that it is very important for young people to be involved in the political process, and I was especially delighted to see the awesome participation of young people in Iowa and New Hampshire, particularly on the Democratic side. I'm sure a lot of those out canvassing for candidates and attending rallies and other events during this year's New Hampshire Primary are under 18 as of now, and they probably got to know the issues and the candidates as well or better than a lot of us over 50.

I got involved in politics at a young age. In 1960 I distributed flyers for John F. Kennedy -- I was a young pup then. One of my favorite memories was meeting Bobby Kennedy in Portsmouth as he was campaigning for his brother. In the mid-1960s while still in high school I was selected Portsmouth Young Democrats President and as such met someone who would be a lifelong friend who is now my seat mate in the New Hampshire House -- Paul McEachern. In 1969 I was elected President of the NH Young Democrats, and we became the first "arm" of the Democratic Party nationwide to formally oppose the Vietnam War, much to the chagrin of some of the powers-who-be in the New Hampshire Democratic Party. See, I've been challenging conventional thinking and been an irritating guy for a long time.

I mention all that because I think it is so important that young people feel they do count, because they do. And to allow them to vote in the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary if they will be 18 by the time of the November General Election -- and have their votes counted -- would be a good thing to do.

Thoughts?

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:09 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, the polls have just closed and it's kind of close, with results jumping around. But I think a few observations can be made about what this election means for Democrats. By the way, I ended up being in my house most of the day, except for voting, because my cold got worse so I missed this beautiful weather.

I caught a cold after being outside for an hour and a half at Midnight on New Year's Eve, when I attended and spoke at the Civil Unions ceremonies at the State House Plaza. It was a freezing chill that night, although a wonderful event with 37 wonderful couples having Civil Unions. So I stayed home and made telephone calls and sent E-Mails for my chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton. We'll see how she does.

Back to this New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, it was just amazing. The turnout was probably the highest ever, and that's incredible because we always have a high turnout.

There are four special reasons, in my judgement, about why this is good for New Hampshire Democrats:

1. Great Turnout: Reword that to "Fantastic Turnout." That indicates a lot of coming successes for Democrats in New Hampshire and nationally in November. Like in November of 2006, the national situation will again turn out the voters in November, and they will likely vote Democrat. There's no guarantee in that, but whomever our Presidential nominee is, if we get behind him or her, we win in November. Big.

2. Independents Voted Democrat: That's going to be very helpful to Democrats in November. We now have the database of voter lists that won't cost much to update and which gives us most of what we need to know for November. We know who voted on Tuesday, January 8th -- and our job in November will be to get them to vote again then.

3. Democrats Have Positive Messages: Right across the board, the Democratic Presidential candidates led the debates and discussion on issues of corporation donations, Iraq, health care, economics, and foreign policy. Our lineup of candidates looked diverse and talented; the Republican lineup looked exclusively white-male, middle-aged, corporate-minded, and self-centered.

4. The New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary is alive and well, and more relevant than ever. Sure, it would have been sweet to have more than just five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, but everyone had to campaign with that schedule in mind, Iowa didn't unduly influence New Hampshire voters -- we're smart too -- and the impact of our Primary will be felt for a while because the next event for Republicans isn't until Michigan in a week, and the Democrats in Nevada in eleven days. New Hampshire counts.

No matter who wins the New Hampshire Presidential race here in New Hampshire, we know three more things:

1. Barack Obama Is A Great Candidate. An intelligent candidate. He has personality and the power of a message. No tricks. Not a lot of big endorsements. Just an ability to get people to like him. And people who liked him worked hard.

2. Hillary Clinton Is A Great Candidate. While from my view she's been overly-managed and her advertising wasn't inspirational, there is plenty of time and much room for Hillary To Be Hillary. I support her because I think she would make a wonderful President. In recent days we saw her be more "real," more "authentic." When people get to know her, people get to like her.

3. The Republicans are having an interesting race, as are the Democrats. John McCain is incredible, but Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee aren't finished. And Rudy Giuliani is waiting in other states for them all. Should be fun!

We also know that no one should withdraw from the race after the NH Primary. That's not what the New Hampshire Primary about. We shouldn't be an elimination round. I wish Chris Dodd and Joe Biden had not withdrawn after just one caucus. At this point, fewer than half a million Democrats have voted. About the same percentages are true about the Republicans. The Democrats and Republicans in the rest of the nation deserve to have their opportunity to view the candidates, ask their questions, and make their choices.

Looking at this as a lifelong Democrat, I think this race and the quality of all the Democratic candidates including John Edwards and Bill Richardson shows New Hampshire Democrats that we have to make sure that as part of our political dialogue we make it clear that it's not "us" against "them" -- meaning not about Democrats vs. Republicans. Nor is it all about raising as much money as possible. We need to win in November by showing that we are willing to take meaningful and idealistic positions on campaign finance disclosure and refusing corporate political donations, and in favor of economic reform that includes taking on the corporations and the way they abuse working men and women.

Once again, the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary has shown it has tremendous value for American democracy.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 08:44 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Just to add a little more to the "color" of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, I thought it would be good to mention a couple of my experiences today.

I visited Manchester around Noon, to fulfill some obligations I had previously committed to for interviews about our "lead--off" status. I've developed quite a bad cold since last Monday night when I spent an hour and a half on New Year's Eve in Concord when 37 couples joined in Civil Union. As I was speaking that night, or the next morning at 12:01 AM in a freezing chill, I felt something coming on. Well, it took hold.

So I would well have passed up talking much today, but i'm glad I kept my promises. In one case, talking with a BBC reporter for a live interview was most interesting, because I had a chance to ask some questions about how they view our process. It's really like night and day, and they were as fascinated about what we do as I was about the way they described what they do "on the other side of the pond."

Anyway, the area in Downtown Manchester between Bridge Street to Valley Street -- that's, I don't know, perhaps a mile or so -- was filled with sign-holders on intersections, camera people walking all around doing person-on-the-street interviews, and satellite trucks galore. Hundreds. Thousands. Amazing stuff.

Then I went to Concord. Wow. There was a John McCain rally about to start on the State House Plaza, but on two front corners of the State House there were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supporters, side-by-side, very friendly toward one another, having a great time. Passers-by in cars were honking as they passed their favorite candidates' signs. I saw a clump of John Edwards supporters, and a group that was more than enthusiastic for Dennis Kucinich.

I dropped into the State House to briefly visit Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who has a lot of ballots to count tomorrow night. He's anticipating a turnout of about 500,000 -- that's as in "half a million" -- and that will be a record for any primary or caucus anywhere, anytime. Since he and I had talked about the strategy on date-setting for well over a hundred hours during the past year, I thought a final hello would be appropriate.

As I was leaving, I quietly reminded him that he and he alone has the authority right now to cancel the Primary and set another date. He smiled. He shook his head. I left.

Monday was a quite wonderful day for New Hampshire, with Presidential candidates around our state talking about our future, America's future. The weather was nice too. And as a partisan, what impressed me most was that I saw the most activity by supporters of Democratic candidates. The enthusiasm seems to be with Democrats this year, and that bodes very well for November.

I've been involved at one level or another in every NH Presidential Primary since 1960, when as a young pup I passed out campaign flyers for John F. Kennedy. And that includes the very intense 1968 and 1972 Primaries which were held during years of returning body bags from Vietnam, including those of some of my friends.

But as I visited Manchester and Concord today and saw the past several weeks and especially past several days, I've never seen our Primary be this intense. Perhaps that's because of just the span of four full days between Iowa and New Hampshire, but it's probably more because a great deal is at stake, and this is the first time in over 50 years that both parties have very open races.

As I was walking back to my car to leave Concord, one thing symbolized to me the entire day, that among Democrats at least there is certainly a lot of division about who should be nominated, who's "on-first," so to speak, but that we'll quickly be able to unify afterward. It wasn't a big thing, perhaps, but it just seemed so nice:

One group of about six or seven Barack Obama sign wavers were on one side of Main Street in front of the State House. Just across the street were half a dozen Hillary Clinton sign wavers. All were rather excited, One of the Obama signs snapped and flew about 20 feet right into the middle of the street. A couple of cars ran over it.

From the other side of the street, one of the Clinton sign wavers ran over, picked up the sign and brought it to the Obama supporter as they together reassembled it. Lots of smiles, and a little applause from both groups after it was fixed.

Decent. Not Earth-shattering, but decent. It won't bring peace to the world, but it was nice. Actually, that kind of thing could bring peace to New Hampshire starting Wednesday morning.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:54 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm voting for Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. I made that decision long ago, although I appreciate the vision presented by Barack Obama, the courage of John Edwards, the diverse experience of Bill Richardson, and the inventiveness of Dennis Kucinich. How's that for covering all the bases?

Actually, I believe it -- and I think those of us who are Democrats should be mighty happy with this year's crop of candidates. We all have to keep in mind that whichever of "our" candidates wins the New Hampshire Primary, there may well be more than half of us who voted for someone else so we should be humble in our victory, and find ways to unify behind our eventual nominee.

If I was a Republican, I'd have a tough choice. I like John McCain, but despise his endorsement of the Iraq War. It's scary. Ron Paul makes some sense, but the guy is off-base in so many important ways. The rest of them, well -- I'm glad I'm a Democrat

But with John McCain's recent surge (not as in Iraq), I thought it might be worth repeating parts of my Blog post of this past April, with my observations of his announcement speech. I've expressed my concerns about Hillary Clinton's campaign these past couple of months, and taken a few hits for that although it bears out that something was wrong, but I'm hoping she has recovered enough to win.

But at least it seems clear John McCain did "reinvent" his campaign as he campaigned here, and may well be on track for a victory. On the campaign trail he has re-established his "straight-talk," and really hung in there and had REAL interactive "town hall" meetings. There's something to be said for that. It shows intelligence, character, and guts.

By the way -- those of us who are Democrats should look carefully at this guy. He may well be the candidate we'll be running against in November.

Blog Post From Wednesday, April 25, 2007:

"There are many types of heroes, and Senator John McCain is one. He was a prisoner during the Vietnam War, and has done some great things in the United States Senate. On the campaign trail when he ran for President in 2000, he offered the Republican Party a leader who I my judgment obviously would have been far more intelligent and visionary than the one eventually nominated."

"Come to think of it, I've got to write a 'What If...' commentary sometime about what if Al Gore had won in 2000."

"Anyway, John McCain 2008 seems off-message and off-key, and seems to be an inferior clone to his 2000 self. His campaign seems badly-exhausted rather than well-tested. He sounds like he's reaching for a message rather than on message."

"I watched his announcement speech in Portsmouth on Wednesday, April 25th. I was expecting the straight talk and clear idealism of McCain 2000 which motivated thousands and thousands in New Hampshire and elsewhere to get excited about this man."

"Instead, I saw someone stumbling over his words. Worse, he couldn't seem to go through a sentence without reading it almost word by word. One would expect if you're giving about the most important speech of your campaign -- an announcement speech -- you'd know it fairly well before walking up to the podium. But he didn't."

"Whether he was prepared by his campaign consultants or not isn't the point, although it tells us something about the state of his campaign if he wasn't."

"His apparent thematic approach, if he had one, was something like "...that's not good enough for America and when I'm President it won't be good enough for me." Those words followed a few statements of things that aren't going well."

"I also found that he raced through much of his speech, not waiting for expected applause at appropriate places. Yes, it was overcast but rain was a long time off, so I don't know why he suddenly became the Hurried-Up Express."

"And I didn't hear 'the vision thing.' Maybe he's been talking too much with his friend George W. Bush?"

"But, this man is an American hero. A genuine one. He fought for us. He defended us. I wasn't a fan of the Vietnam War no more than I am of the Iraq War, but when a man or woman goes to war in answer to a decision of our government -- right or wrong -- he or she deserves respect and appreciation. He went. He fought. He suffered. Many other heroes went, and didn't come back. Fortunately, John McCain did."

"One speech does not make a candidate or a campaign -- although one given by Barack Obama in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention certainly got some attention. So, here's hoping we'll see John McCain catch his breath and become a star again in the Republican Party."

"Let's hope his campaign reinvigorates and reinvents itself. His party needs him in the debate. And the Democratic candidates need to be challenged by quality opposition as well. The election season of 2007-2008 will be all the better with John McCain as an important player, whether or not he goes all the way."

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:09 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

This Blog post is written on Friday evening to sum up my reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton. I just finished watching the New Hampshire Democratic Party 100 Club on C-Span, where she and several of the other candidates spoke. I saw for the first time in a bit too long the Hillary Clinton we saw before the past three or four months. Maybe she's back. Maybe "Hillary Will Be Hillary" now, after Iowa. Let's hope.

Hillary Clinton is not perfect, but she will make a great President. Before I go on I should mention that I think the rest of the Democratic field would do just as well -- not better than Clinton, but no worse. We're going to win this one in November. Barack Obama is incredible, and his win in the Iowa Caucus was impressive. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have done so much for the nation as great servants in the Senate, and it's sad they have withdrawn their candidacies after just one caucus. John Edwards has taken on Corporate America and he is right-on as he speaks about their emphasis on "corporate prosperity" instead of "corporate responsibility." Dennis Kucinich speaks to my heart in many ways on many issues. Bill Richardson has tremendous experience and can contribute much to our future as well.

I was a very early supporter of Hillary Clinton -- on December 6th, 2006, I wrote my first Blog post backing her, and that was six weeks before she even announced. By then I had known enough about her to be convinced that whomever else announced, I could support her.

I first met Hillary Clinton in 1991 at a small Portsmouth meeting as she was campaigning for her husband. She was fantastic, and I'm not easily impressed by political-types since I've seen a lot of them going back a long time. So many seem a bit phony. So much of what you see is image. Yes, after all this time I'm still cynical about a lot of politics.

What has always impressed me most about Hillary Clinton from the beginning was her naturalness. It's her "I-am-who-I-am" attitude and "what-you-see-is-what-you-get." In fact, my only real criticism of her in recent months -- other than on a few issues -- has been about her campaign and the way she has allowed herself to be overly-managed It happens. All the candidates have their "handlers," and some are over-zealous. Focus groups, polls, and the political consultants who base campaigns on those results are the bane of politics. So often they make good candidates less than they are. Candidates have to stand above it all, and I think Hillary Clinton eventually will. Perhaps she already is. Perhaps we're beginning now to see Hillary as Hillary.

There are lots of reasons any of us choose for whom we will vote. In addition to others, here are my three special reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton:

REASON #1. KNOWLEDGE OF THE WAY THINGS WORK. Knowing the behind-the-scenes process of decision-making is a skill that can't be learned by reading a book, and she has learned that very personally and first-hand for the past two decades.. She knows how to advance meaningful health care because she tried, but failed. One often learns even more from their failures than their successes. She was in the center of great successes during an eight-year administration. She wants to get out of Iraq. She has done much for kids. She is committed to health care for all. She wants real education reform. She can do the job. She IS ready.

REASON #2. BILL CLINTON. Yes, him. I really believed in 1992 that "two for the price of one" was true. I still do. Bill Clinton can do much as the President's husband, and his future potential role as world ambassador cannot be underrated. His international respect is well-known. The election of Hillary Clinton as President will greatly enhance America's standing in the world, and will save lives here and abroad. I believe that. And it is so vitally needed. Our future security depends on it.

REASON #3. SUPPORT OF EQUALITY. I met Hillary Clinton for the very first time at a small meeting in Portsmouth in 1991. As I had with various Presidential candidates or their surrogates through the years, as she was leaving the meeting I asked what her views were on gay rights. For the first time ever with a candidate or a surrogate, I found I didn't have to further explain what I meant, and she didn't "whisper" her answer to me -- which other candidates or surrogates would invariably do.

She loudly, and clearly, without hesitation, said that gays and lesbians should be equal, because we are Americans like everyone else. Bill Clinton during that campaign took on the message that "each of us counts." When he became President he lived up to that, and many times he, and Hillary, spoke out for gay and lesbian equality, and fought discrimination for all in many other ways. I believe Hillary Clinton means it when she talks about equality, and she was there for all of us years before many others were, and long before it became somewhat easier to be an open supporter of gay and lesbian equality. That's important to me. She'll be with us even more in the future.

Hillary Clinton will make a great President. I believe in her ability. I admire her courage. I understand some of her limitations. I like her vision for America. I'm not a jumping-up-and-down cheerleader for her believing that she can do no wrong, because she is human. But in large part because of my past words of concern about the campaign she has run up to this point, I am even more sincere in saying she should be President.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:07 PM| Permalink | Comments (1)

I would like to hear from anyone with their own "lessons from Iowa." Here are mine, based on lots of watching the candidates as they campaigned Iowa -- the cable networks in general, and C-Span in particular, gave great up-close-and-personal views of the candidates. My observations might seem a little harsh toward a couple of candidates, but what the heck -- I'm not out to make friends with some of their consultants. By way of full Blogging disclosure, I'm voting for Hillary Clinton on Tuesday.

1. Don't Washington-Speak. Long-time United States Senators or people who hang around government for too long seem to forget that message. Most of us don't live there. Talk our language. But don't dummy-down to us. We can tell when you do that. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd didn't do well in Iowa for that reason. Hillary Clinton often sounded like she had been hanging around people in power for two decades. I wondered where the "conversation" that she started her campaign went. Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee sounded "fresh." Even "refreshing."

2. Don't Be Marshmallow Fluff. Have some courage to be yourself. Let yourself be you. Put your bell-curve focus group-driven, poll-tested politically-correct answers and cute sayings aside. It's obvious who did that well. And who didn't.

3. Be Bold And Challenge Us With A Vision. We don't want to vote for you just because you're wonderful or you have a fantastic resume. We want to know what you'll do in the future and what you want us to do for our future. In Iowa, those who talked more about "us" than themselves did quite well. Those who talked more about "me" than "you" didn't. And show some passion. Maybe even some anger -- there is reason to be angry about what has been happening in this world. John Edwards did that well in Iowa.

4. If You're A Democrat -- Be Strong Against Iraq. Don't play games with us. Are you for getting out? When? How? Be clear. We have to know.

5. Use The Internet As An Interactive Resource. Stop asking for contributions in every E-Mail message. We just turn that out. Use the Internet to involve us, learn from us, solicit opinions. When people write in, write back. And be informative -- not just the flash and puff. We can see through that. Best WEBSITE: Barack Obama. Tells us something.

6. Involve The Young. After all, they're the ones who are going to outlive us all. And they DO vote. Barack Obama is more than a "fad" for some reason. He connects. Young people in Iowa supported him in droves.

7. Welcome The Independents. In Iowa, the Democrats won over the Independents. That's great for Democrats in November. We need them here in New Hampshire. Barack Obama gets lots of them, as does John McCain. To win, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have to discover them.

8. Be For REAL Change, And Mean It. But if you're going to do things differently with out-of-the-box thinking, explain what you mean. Barack Obama did that well in Iowa. Hillary Clinton just seemed to be copying his messages about change. If she's going to turn this around, she has to explain her own brand of "change." .

9. Be Non-Establishment. People have seen a lot of establishment-types in recent years and they've skid us into a war. We're looking for non-establishment types. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama were considered non-establishment in Iowa. How Mitt Romney, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton deal with that in New Hampshire might dictate how they do.

10. Seek To Become A Voice. Most of us as citizens feel we have little or no voice in Washington, or in government in general, especially if we have little money and don't contribute to candidates. We're looking for "one of us." In Iowa, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama seemed more like us than Hillary Clinton (White House "experience") or Mitt Romney (so rich he could buy all the McDonald's restaurants in Iowa). If you're not like one of us, at least try to relate to us more. Tell us how you're going to empower us and respect us.

11. Focus On People And Ideas, Not Endorsements. Endorsements help, but the emphasis should be on "regular-folk." Too many of these candidates have their political endorsers at every rally, up front and center behind them on-stage. In most cases, it seemed like the backdrops in Iowa at events where Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama were speaking were just regular folk. Well, with the exception of Chuck Norris standing with Mike Huckabee like a lifeguard. But that's a bit different.

12. Have A Message, And Stick To It. It's not just about money and running millions of dollars of ads full of clutter and fluff. In Iowa, the candidates who had regular repetitive messages and somewhat of a theme, and stuck to them for more than just a couple of weeks, did well. The ones who were all over the place with their messages and had advertisements full of quick bites of messages didn't do well. They need to learn from that. The "corporate greed" vs. "corporate responsibility" messages of Barack Obama and John Edwards paid off in Iowa. Many of us understand that kind of message. But what does "Ready To Lead" mean? Ready to lead what? And where? And where to? The difference is rather specific vs. very generic. The difference is what relates to us vs. what is meaningless.

13. Be Straight-Talking. Barack Obama usually answered questions in a sentence or two. Hillary Clinton went on for a minute or two. Bill Clinton when he'd speak for Hillary would answer questions in five minutes or so. Mike Huckabee seemed to have clear answers. Mitt Romney had to explain himself at length. Joe Biden couldn't answer questions without Washington-speak. Iowa people were listening carefully, and made their choices based on what they heard. We will here too.

14. Be Authentic And Look Us In The Eye. Voters can see through phoniness. When a candidate is calculating or cautious in answering questions, we can tell. There's something genuine about Mike Huckabee -- what you see is what you get. Same with Barack Obama. I think there's a lot of WYSIWYG with Hillary Clinton too, but her managers and handlers haven't let us see that yet. And eye-to-eye contact on the campaign trail is vital. C-Span is great for noticing that in the candidates as they walk around before and after speeches and greet voters.. Mike Huckabee was great at that in Iowa. Mitt Romney didn't seem to do it well. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each have good people skills, but there's just a special warmth about Obama that Clinton needs to develop. One of the more amazing things about Bill Clinton is that if you have just ten seconds with him, for those ten seconds you feel as if you're the most important person in the world to him for that time. Hillary Clinton needs a lesson -- she always seems to want to go onto the next handshake.

15. Be Consistent. "Flip-flopping" isn't the problem that most candidates have. It's not being able to answer a question the same way with some consistency, or being clear about a position without trying to cover all the bases and make everyone happy. Mitt Romney seemed to take several positions on some issues -- it's not that he's changed his positions, it's that you just don't know where he stands now. Barack Obama gives a lot of rhetoric, but has consistent messages. Hillary Clinton's messages in speeches and television advertisements changed a lot in Iowa. That can't happen these next few days in New Hampshire.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 07:55 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I have written about it in more detail before, but I'll say it again in this shorter but begging message to her campaign management: Let Hillary Be Hillary. Please. She will not win this one by being overly-managed, by giving focus-group designed, poll-driven, politically-correct answers, or by talking about 1990s "experience."

What we have seen lately is not the Hillary Clinton many of us think we know and have been before. And the Hillary Clinton we have watched on the campaign trail these past few months is not what we have seen these past few years in the United States Senate. Something happened when she hired all these Washington-based consultants.

To Hillary Clinton, if I may be so bold: Starting Friday at 12:01 AM until the polling begins in the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, you have just exactly 96 hours. That's 5,760 minutes. Don't waste any of those minutes with your slogans or the meaningless ads your managers have put on television. Spend time talking "with" us, not "to" us. Talk with us about your vision in these next few hours.

Give us your hopes and dreams. Display your courage. Please don't pass up this opportunity to be the Hillary Clinton that can be a great President.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:52 PM| Permalink | Comments (5)

I am quite a fan of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. I think it is democracy at its best in that our process allows candidates to spend time talking "with" us instead of "to" or "at" us, which they often end up doing by standing behind cameras in television studios in the larger states.

Here they have to meet regular folk face-to-face, talking with us one-to-one and eye-to-eye on our streets and sidewalks, in our living rooms and small meeting halls. We get to ask them tough questions AND we usually have the chance for follow-up if they have just given us their own consultant-written, focus-group tested politically-correct answer. Then we go into the privacy of a voting booth and make our choice.

Our Presidential Primary is a real election.

The Iowa Caucus is not.

Whatever happens in the Iowa Caucus, New Hampshire voters should keep it in perspective by reminding ourselves that whatever it is and whatever they call it, the event in Iowa is not an election. While I respect and appreciate the Iowa Caucus, we should keep in mind that for all that it is, it is not an election in any sense. That doesn't make it any less meaningful. I just means the rest of the country should keep that in mind.

A "Caucus" as in the case of Iowa is a statewide series of meetings. Members of the Democratic and Republican Parties meet in meeting halls and living rooms throughout the state and discuss the candidates. It is purely a party event. The political parties create the rules. The political parties pay for most of the arrangements.

The rules for the caucuses are confusing at best, and often favor candidates who have lots of staff on the ground able to facilitate the logistics of the caucus-goers. Political parties and candidates' campaigns often arrange for dinners for their supporters to gather before, or after, the caucus. Sort of a reward, I guess.

The caucus meetings themselves are often several hours long, making it difficult for many working men and women who have other obligations to attend. Supporters of the candidates "vote" by voicing their opinions and standing up, or sitting down, in corners of the room with other supporters of that candidate. Oh, and campaign staff and organizers can watch to see exactly what you're doing, and who you're supporting.

The Iowa Caucus is a good event in that it is an exercise in democracy, but it is not an "election" of the kind Americans will participate in New Hampshire and most other states. New Hampshire's First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary is a real election, paid for by the state, held under the strictest of regulations protecting the integrity of the ballot.

In New Hampshire, voters go into the privacy of the voting booth to exercise their right to vote for the candidate of their choice. Unlike Iowa, "observers" are not looking on to intimidate the voter. The New Hampshire Primary is administered in exactly the same way that the November General Election will be. Indeed, it is a real election and a much more accurate indicator of voters' support for candidates.

What New Hampshire Democrats and Republicans should do in making their final judgement about whom they will vote next Tuesday is to put aside the results in Iowa after taking a good look at them. If a candidate comes in "first" in Iowa, does that tell us anything other than that candidate's staff and the special interest groups supporting that candidate were effective at getting their supporters at party meetings? And if a candidate runs fourth or fifth in the Iowa Caucus, that should not discount him, or her, for staying in the race. They're on our ballot next Tuesday and we should have them still in the contest by then.

So, from my point of view whatever happens in Iowa should stay in Iowa. We should look at the results, maybe chuckle a bit if one of the candidates screams on caucus night, perhaps even thank the people of Iowa for fulfilling their democratic role of voicing and standing up for their opinions. Then we should make up our own minds. We still have a few days to do that.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:14 AM| Permalink | Comments (1)

It's New Year's Eve. There are just a few hours to go before Midnight, and guess what happens right after then?

Okay, lots of things. But one thing that is happening that affects some people very much is the New Hampshire Civil Unions law becomes effective. And in some ways, it affects all of us.

It was a tough, long battle to get to this point. Still, a lot needs to be done for full equality. We need full marriage equality with the word, and Civil Unions don't allow for the many federal benefits otherwise given to differently-gendered couples.

BUT, the New Hampshire Civil Unions law will provide for equality under the state laws for both gay and straight couples. That's a lot of progress. That's more equality for gays and lesbians here than in 45 other states.

There are those who are still attacking the thought of Civil Unions and equality. During the past several days I've heard and read a number of those attacks, and a few have been mentioned to me face-to-face. Hey, it happens.

But as I drive to the State House in Concord tonight to watch some of the very first Civil Unions, I'll be reminded that nothing on this planet is more important than the way we treat one another. So many of our problems would disappear if we treated one another fairly and equally. I can't quite figure out what motivates anyone to do otherwise.

Why are Civil Unions important? -- even for those who won't engage in one? I think it's because of the message it sends.

Right now there are some young people in this state -- more than just a few perhaps -- who are dreading going back to school next week where they will continue to be harassed and mocked because of being gay, or perceived to be. Questions about one's sexual identity is one of the leading causes of suicide among young people.

But in tomorrow's newspapers and on television, they will see couples who happen to be of the same gender committing to one another to share their lives and love together. And they will be hearing that our state government has said that is okay. It's okay to be gay. That's a powerful message to everyone.

Sometimes when I think politics is rough and tough and tumble, I think of how some people have treated me, and others, who are gay -- before we "came out," and even now. Each and every day, gay and lesbian young people, and the older among us, have some of the cruelest things said to us and about us. Most of us who are gay have either been beaten up or had hostile things said to us. I've had both, even recently. It does get personal. And it does hurt.

But, with Civil Unions we have made some progress. We're not there yet. Civil Unions open one more door for equality and acceptance for gays and lesbians. There are other doors to open. There are more miles to walk. But we will get there.
.
Here in New Hampshire, as of 01.01.08 -12:01 AM, the law will say that same-gendered couples who have a Civil Union will have all of the same "rights, responsibilities, and obligations" which are currently given under our marriage statutes to differently-gendered couples. That's more than we've ever had here.
.
And that's a good thing. It's a good thing for gays and lesbians. It's a good thing for New Hampshire. And it's a good thing because nothing is more important than the way we treat one another -- fairly, and equally.

A great way to start the New Year! And I wonder what all the Presidential candidates visiting New Hampshire will say about it during the next several days.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:28 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I find the decision of the organizers of this Saturday's debate at St. Anselm College to be disgusting. My goodness. In a democracy? In the First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary? What is politics coming to?

The news media already "create" candidates and their "who's-on-first" standing by running their own polls, managing minutes of coverage for each, selecting the questions they'll throw at them on the campaign trail, doing long stories about how much money candidates have received (while ignoring where they got all that money), and even setting up focus groups with hand-held dials to have a second-by-second, word-by-word bell-curve on-screen display of instant reaction to answers in debates.

NOW the media wants to limit the candidates who have been invited to virtually all the Democratic and Republican debates in the past many months based on the results of some party meetings in Iowa this coming Thursday?!

The news media should play no role in limiting official candidates who have already participated in previous debates. Nor should an educational organization. That's not what the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary is about.

Further, I could strongly suggest that the Iowa Caucus is NOT a real election -- it is a statewide collection of political party meetings where members publicly support their candidates of choice. That's not what we do in November, when Americans go into the privacy of their voting booths to exercise their right to vote in our democracy. New Hampshire's Primary is a real election. Party members in Iowa should not be determining who may or may not debate the issues in New Hampshire.

I would give any of the candidates who are "chosen" to participate in Saturday's upcoming St. Anselm College debate a bow of respect if they stand up, as Ronald Reagan did, and insist that the others join them on the stage. That would be leadership of the first order. In fact, they should be challenged to do that: to stand up and fight for the right of legitimate candidates to speak and be heard.

In the interest of full Blogging disclosure, I've often mentioned in my posts that I'm supporting Hillary Clinton. She'll make a great President. And I fully expect she will be among those insisting that all the nationally-recognized candidates participate in the Democratic debate. I'd be disappointed if she doesn't.

This election isn't a TV show. It's about democracy. It's about our future. It's an important reality show for all of us, and the news media shouldn't be selecting the cast of stars in it.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 08:07 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

It's late Christmas Eve. I'm alone, watching some of my Season Two DVD of Showtime's Queer As Folk a friend gave me. I just went outside and looked to the sky on this perfect evening, with a full Moon and bright stars everywhere. It's not as nice as Christmas Eve's of the past with family of long ago or friends of more recent times, but it's okay and relaxing.

So I decided to give some "gifts" for Christmas and a few New Year's wishes to some people. Here goes:

To George W. Bush -- Some chat time with his Dad and Mom. Obviously he didn't listen to them when he was a little guy when they, like all parents, hoped their son would grow up to be good.

To Carol-Shea Porter -- The continued courage and independence to be a great Congressperson.

To Paul Hodes -- A conservative Republican to run against in 2008, so he can have more fun and win even bigger than last time.

To Jeanne Shaheen -- A united New Hampshire Democratic Party behind her after next September's primary.

To Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani -- Copies of the book "How To Get Along With People Who Are As Messed Up As Me."

To Mike Huckabee -- A copy of "First Grade Reader," so in the future he can read the simple facts about AIDS and other issues.

To all New Hampshire gays and lesbians -- The full right to marry. Soon. Not just a Civil Union. "Marriage," with the word. In the meantime, Civil Unions are "official" as of 12.01 AM 01.01.08. Fantastic. We're getting there.

To the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary -- The absolutely bestest-ever turnout of voters across all age groups on Tuesday, January 8th. It's our chance to show the nation we go to the polls in droves, and that's why New Hampshire is important now and in the future.

To John Lynch -- A new office camera. Twice now when I arranged for pictures in the Governor's Office their camera didn't work, most recently with some Russian journalist visitors. Fortunately we brought cameras of our own. But what gives? I'm not THAT ugly.

To Secretary of State Bill Gardner -- Another chance to set the date of yet another Presidential Primary, in 2012.

To The Union Leader -- A giant bag of coffee so the reporters will be alert enough to keep a sharp eye on all those wayward national and statewide Republican candidates who are switching all around and attacking one another about things they never said. My are they confused.

To Democrats everywhere and anywhere -- A fantastic year in 2008 on the national and state levels. The only way we can lose this one is if we don't let Democrats be Democrats.

To our troops in Iraq -- Withdrawal from that ill-planned, unnecessary war, and a commitment never to again put them in harms-way unless necessary.

To "Granny D" -- Success on her effort to have New Hampshire join the dozen other states with public financing of campaigns and real campaign reform.

To Hillary Clinton -- A new campaign manager. I don't even know who the current one is, but I do know she could use a new one. This woman rocks and will make a great President, but her campaign continues to be off-based from what I can see. She still has time, but those who are on the top of her national campaign could serve her better.

To my wonderful kitty cat "RayToo" -- Pleasant dreams of chasing mice, and another year of good health. I need your "greetings" every day I return home.

And to my very special friend D.P. -- Successful surgery in three weeks, because I don't want to lose another good friend, and the world needs all the wonderful people it has. You can make it!

Well, that's it for this year. I can't afford to be any more generous. How about other gifts from readers?

Posted by Jim Splaine at 11:02 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Polls. It seems like some politicians and their consultants can't live with them, and most can't live without them.

Polls are mostly irrelevant, and in some ways are quite destructive of the political process. Polls are the ultimate Catch 22, where instead of leaders offering their courageous real opinions, the polls often lead the candidates who want to get elected as they "tailor-make" their messages and positions to reflect the polls.

There have been polls for decades -- though they only began getting some degree of recognition since the late 1940s. They're not going away, no matter what I or anyone else might write. And in some ways, put into proper perspective, and used carefully and interpreted with both skill and objectivity, polls can serve a positive purpose.

I've done a lot of polling -- writing them, administering them, and coordinating polling efforts. And although I don't claim to be an expert I have studied the process and interpreted a lot of polls. To be anywhere near accurate, a poll has to ask the right questions the right way, they have to be administered uniformly allowing for variants and statistical balance, and just as importantly -- they have to be interpreted correctly.

But do they tell us anything useful? So what if Hillary Clinton is ahead of Barack Obama at a particular time, if 50% of voters say they haven't made up their minds or another 20% who have answered the questions say they're not firm in their answers? What's THAT tell us? The "who's on first" really doesn't tell us anything. It gives bragging rights to someone, and that's about it.

Of late, I think the worst of polls has the on-air real-time bell-curve focus-group instant-polling we've seen during recent debates of both the Republican and Democratic candidates. FOX News and WMUR TV had focus-groups using their hand-held dials to instantly register their "favorable" and "unfavorable" opinions to candidates answers. The bell-curves ran on the television screen right along with the candidates' responses to questions, telling the viewer immediately what listeners thought of the comments, virtually word-by-word.

What's THAT do to "leadership?" I can just imagine a candidate DARING to answer a question about Civil Unions a few years ago. Do you believe gays and lesbians should be able to have a Civil Union giving them all the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of marriage?" My goodness! I bet no candidate would have answered favorable to that, and if they did the bell-curve would be hovering around 30 percent. So, other candidates for other offices would have got the message -- stay away from Civil Unions.

We need leadership on issues like real health care reform, tax reform, corporate responsibility and workers' rights, education, global warming, Iraq and other foreign policy matters -- not just an assemblage of buzz words written by consultants who are interested in just getting their candidates to say what the public wants to hear, word-by-word.

Instant polling gives us only an instant snapshot, a gut reaction of the voter. And polls themselves only give us a snapshot of the voters' judgement at the moment, and gives us little indication of whom really is "on first" for longer than that moment.

Unfortunately, I think, the overemphasis on polls affects the electoral process in ways that harms it. Donations are based on polls. Campaign strategies, and whether or not a candidate sticks to a position on an issue is affected by polls. Even whether a candidate decides to withdraw from a race before votes are cast is based on polls. About the only thing they really do is provide chatter for the pollsters and for the news media and talking heads on TV shows.

I'd like to see an election without polls. An entire election with polls. Wow. Could we at least try it? Well, I can also dream of becoming an astronaut before I die and flying to Mars.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 12:15 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I wonder where the Presidential candidates stand on the death penalty. After all, it is a life or death issue, and there is a certain hypocrisy on the issue across the board.

A long time ago -- oh, it seems long anyway although it was just 2000 at the turn of the century, New Hampshire was close to being the very first state to abolish the death penalty since the United States Supreme Court allowed executions again in the mid-1970s.

In 2000, the New Hampshire House and Senate surprised the state and excited many people throughout the country and the world by becoming the first legislative bodies to vote for legislation to abolish the death penalty in over 20 years. We had the public and personal support of Coretta Scott King, Bishop Desmond Tutu, former President Jimmy Carter, even the Vatican. Imagine -- it passed!

With just a signature waiting for the bill to become law, we heard that the Rome Coliseum would turn on its lights, but...

...the bill then ran into a wall. Governor Jeanne Shaheen vetoed it, and we failed to overcome her veto. I was in the thick of that debate, as primary sponsor of the bill. To this day I'm sad about Governor Shaheen's decision. I understand. But I disagree. We lost.

Just this week, New Jersey abolished the death penalty. The Rome Coliseum will turn on lights this week in recognition of the courage shown by New Jersey lawmakers, and Governor Jon S. Corzine. Some 36 states, including ours, still allow executions.

In signing the legislation, Governor Corzine, who is a Democrat, said “Today New Jersey is truly evolving. I believe society first must determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence, and if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of life. To these questions, I answer yes.”

There is a "cycle of violence" that former NH State Representative Renny Cushing, who is now Executive Director of Murder Victims Families For Reconciliation, refers to often in his speeches. The "cycle" is that when a horrible murder occurs, that victim's family grieves for their loss. And then when an execution occurs, yet another family is affected. The brothers and sisters, parents, and children of TWO families suffer. And Renny Cushing should know of what he speaks -- his father was killed in 1988 at his home by a man showing up at the front door.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent. It just cheapens our society, and that's not a good message for our young people. That's why most religions on this planet oppose the death penalty, as do most nations of the world. Right now, New Hampshire is in league with China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Texas.

I believe all the Presidential candidates should take clear positions on the death penalty. For. Against. And why.

The new law in New Jersey, like the one I sponsored again this past Spring, replaces the death penalty by execution for capital murder with a death penalty of life-in-prison without any chance of parole. In a very real way, that is worse than the death penalty -- each and every day, the person who committed those horrible crimes will wake up behind the bars of a small cell, will smell the odors and hear the noises of the cell block all day, and will go to sleep in that cell. No more rides in a car, walks on a beach, or seeing the stars. That's their existence, until God decides their death penalty.

This year's death penalty abolition bill lost by only 12 votes in the New Hampshire House, by a vote of 185 to 173. It was defeated in large part because Governor John Lynch said he would use his veto stamp if it passed. I understand. But I disagree.

New Hampshire should abolish the death penalty. We need the courage to do so. And all the Presidential candidates -- Republican and Democrat -- should have the courage to say what they believe regarding the death penalty, and the message it gives to our kids about the way we treat everyone in our society.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:19 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Three weeks ago I wrote a Blog post expressing my concern about the way Hillary Clinton was campaigning. That's when she was still "ahead," if we are to believe the polls. I still don't put much stock in the polls at this point, since in the NH First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary we've often seen much shift during those final few days before people go to vote. However, I am concerned that her campaign still has continued to emphasize "experience" rather than "ideas," and the "past" rather than the "future." And her advertising in my judgment is crammed full of rhetoric, with no clear message other than this stuff about a President needing to be ready to "lead from day one." What's that mean? She can do better.

I got some criticism about my observations a few weeks ago. I received a few calls and E-Mails from my fellow Clinton supporters, even some suggesting I was being disloyal by offering even a bit of public criticism. We have to all be "cheerleaders," I was told. But I'm never going to ask Hillary for a job if she wins. In fact, it's me who's trying to get HER a job, with my vote. I don't need to please the campaign bosses. And Hillary Clinton doesn't either.

Of course, perhaps my observations about her campaign aren't accurate. I can accept that. Maybe I'm wrong and it's perfect. But I just think something's wrong with her campaign right now. I've been involved at one level or another in every NH Primary since 1960, when I distributed flyers as a little pup for John F. Kennedy, and I've seen and participated in lots of good, and poor, campaigns -- as well as good campaigns that just fell apart because of some poor tactical choices during the closing weeks. It happens.

Either way, in a hope that my chosen candidate will run up to a smashing successful finish during the next and final 26 days to January 8th, I again encourage Hillary Clinton to reinvent her campaign and show us who she really is and not just what her consultants and handlers from Washington media firms want us to think she is. I urge her to listen to more of her experienced New Hampshire campaign advisors. And I ask her to present her ideas in her own words, without the buzz phrases that might rate "80%" on the electronically-generated curve in some focus group session.

As I said last Spring shortly after she formally announced, Hillary Clinton could lose this one. Put another way, it's her's to lose, or win. As a very early endorser, dating back to a Blog post I wrote on December 5, 2006, even before her announcement of January 20th six weeks later, I began to get concerned about the direction of her campaign after she made her first few visits here.

What I've seen these past few months isn't the Hillary Clinton I remember from her campaign visits here in 1991, when I first met her, or her several visits since and prior to this year. Where has the "conversation" gone that she said she wanted to start with her announcement last January? It seems as if she is talking "to" or "at" us, even "down" to us. She needs to talk "with" us -- in fact, one of the strengths of the NH Primary is that candidates indeed have that chance, to get away from the podiums and look us in the eye, face-to-face, not talking over our heads.

Where are her courageous stands? It seems like so many of her "positions" are indeed that -- positions that are the result of focus groups and consultant message massaging that simply makes it difficult to figure out exactly what she will do about Iraq, corporate corruption, campaign finance reform, and even health care. I just can't figure it out.

"Let Hillary Be Hillary" should be her personal motto during the next three-plus weeks in Iowa and New Hampshire. THAT WAY, she'll win this thing Otherwise, I'm worried that we will lose the opportunity to have a great President elected in 2008. .

To Hillary, I'll repeat my advice from a few weeks ago for what it's worth: 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.

Challenge us. Talk with us about America's possibilities and our opportunities. Give us your vision. I think we'll like you even more for that. And you'll become President.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:39 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I am amazed that any of the media, or for that matter any good thinking Republicans, would allow Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to get away with an easy dismissal of his horribly inflammatory comments about AIDS back in 1992.

He did "admit," at least -- he really couldn't run from it -- that as a United States Senate candidate in 1992 he suggested locking up people living with AIDS because, he observed then, it wasn't known for sure that the disease couldn't be contracted through casual contact. He also noted that homosexuality is "...an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

The fact is, only the most paranoid among us in 1992 thought that AIDS would be spread by breathing the same air or swimming in the same pool with someone living with HIV. Unfortunately, there were many paranoid among us in those days -- and still are. And unfortunately, I'm sure some people will actually vote FOR Mike Huckabee upon learning his views.

Mike Huckabee, as a United States Senate candidate some 15 years ago, was playing politics with AIDS much the same as some religious zealots did in those days -- and still do by attacking gays and lesbians. After all, fear of the unknown and hate of the disliked is always a great fundraiser, or a great way to attract votes.

One would think that someone running for major office would have been well-informed, but I guess he didn't know or didn't want to believe that the Centers for Disease Control had in 1985 said that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. So, why lock people up?

Huckabee now says he wasn't really in favor of locking people up, but he was just talking about quarantining. My goodness, isn't that the first step before people who are feared to have some disease ARE locked up?

In 1992 I had just become President of AIDS Response Seacoast, and we were trying to find ways to encourage more acceptance of those who were living with AIDS. People living with AIDS were still finding significant discrimination in housing, employment, and services. People like Mike Huckabee were making our job all that more difficult. Shame on him. People died because of thoughts vocalized then by people like Mike Huckabee. Shameful.

What we needed in 1992, and even before then and certainly now, were leaders who would go out of their way to demonstrate that AIDS was like any other disease, and that people living with the disease didn't have to be treated like they were lepers. We had many. Princess Diana. Ryan White. Nelson Mandela, Elizabeth Taylor. Mother Teresa. On the other side we had Jerry Falwell. Ronald Reagan. Ted Haggard. Mike Huckabee. The fear has largely subsided, but not fully.

A President has to lead. He or she has to set examples. A President has to unify. A President has to have vision. A President has to be informed. We've found out these past seven years what happens to our nation and the world when we have a President who isn't all those things.

Mike Huckabee seems well-liked by a lot of people because of his nice-guy demeanor and cute way of massaging a message. That kind of appeal can sometimes get us into lots of trouble. This guy is a wiz-ball who doesn't deserve to be President.

Come to think of it and his view about AIDS today, what is his opinion about "casual contact" now? I wonder if he'd want to shake my hand.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 07:14 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

World AIDS Day. It's a sad day, because people keep dying.

When I was selected President of AIDS Response Seacoast back in 1991, I started out the next Board of Directors meeting by stating the obvious: that our goal should be to be out of business by the end of the decade. Unfortunately, the "open" signs are still up at ARS and other AIDS service organizations that are working to help those living with HIV and on prevention programs. They are needed now as much as ever.

I remember hearing for the first time in the very early 1980s about a strange virus affecting mostly gay men. Our government was slow to act, and President Ronald Reagan didn't want to talk about it, even when his friend Rock Hudson announced he had HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Since then, fortunately, we have seen good people come to the forefront in fighting AIDS here in the United States, and worldwide. Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela, Barney Frank, Elizabeth Taylor, and "Magic" Johnson are just a few who have worked to make the fight against AIDS a mainstream cause. There were heroes along the way, including Ryan White and Princess Diana.
The real heroes, of course, are all those millions who have died of AIDS. Some 40 million people throughout the world have AIDS, and in the past twenty years about 25 million people have died of the disease. In the United States, over one million people currently have AIDS, and about a quarter of those with HIV don't know it.

In the gay community today, there is an upsurge of HIV infections among young men. They are taking fewer precautions during sex in part because there is a belief among too many that AIDS is a controllable disease now. Many young people just don't know someone who has died of AIDS.

I lost many dozens of friends to AIDS, and I can only imagine how richer my life these past couple of decades would have been if AIDS had not existed. It is a universal disease that knows no borders, and it doesn't matter if one is gay or straight, male or female. Safer sex and using condoms, or total abstinence, are the only ways to reduce the chances of being infected with HIV. Education in the schools starting at an early age is a must to reduce future infections.

There are three excellent movies I'd recommend: "Longtime Companion," "A Silverlake Life," and >"The Party." "A Silverlake Life" is a particularly serious movie. Tom Joslin, a friend of mine who lived on the same floor as I did at UNH in East-West Hall filmed much of that movie. He and his lover lived with HIV, and he filmed their final few months of life. I think of Tom often. And so many others.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:54 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)

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)

One man right now has the final "piece of the puzzle" that needs to be put into place for our Secretary of State to be able to announce a date for the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. With putting forward the reality of "The December Option" for New Hampshire, other pieces have already fallen into place: Nevada has agreed not to move up but to stay on Saturday, January 19th; Iowa Republicans have agreed to hold their caucuses on Thursday, January 3rd; and Iowa Democrats are close to confirming that they will hold their caucus on that same day. All that opens the second week of January for New Hampshire, and takes discussion of "The December Option" off the table for sure.

For sure, except for one more puzzle piece...

United States Senator Carl Levin of Michigan does good work. As a fellow Democrat, I find him to be courageous, visionary, and certainly experienced. Quite seriously, he is a good man. If he was running for President I'd be giving him a serious look.

Senator Levin has been a national leader on health care accessibility, the minimum wage, senior citizens, and he's gone after corporations through his investigations on Enron and other company abuses. He's worked on campaign finance reform and government openness, things close to my heart, and he's been against the War in Iraq and joined with Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed in offering an amendment this year to reduce troop levels and get us out of what has become a civil war. As a sponsor of the NH House Resolution on Iraq earlier this year, I commend him for that effort.

Right now, Senator Carl Levin is up for my choice of Person Of The Month, and he will win it if he puts the final puzzle piece into the place it belongs. It is he who has been threatening to move Michigan from a likely Tuesday, January 15th date to the same day as New Hampshire's Primary, thus making it impossible for our Secretary of State to set our date, yet.

However, Senator Levin just these past couple of days has been indicating he might -- might -- be willing to firm up the Tuesday, January 15th timeslot for Michigan. That would then allow us to know our own primary date rather soon.

If Carl Levin affirms January 15th, he will win my heart, and a lot of thank you's from Presidential candidates of both parties, their staff, and voters here and elsewhere.

We know that Senator Levin doesn't like New Hampshire a whole lot. At least not our First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. I'm sure he'd like our foliage, our maple syrup, and maybe even our lobsters. But he thinks our clout in the presidential selection process is way too much.

He makes his views powerfully known. And his power in his own state is obvious since he's almost single-handedly held up the process of our Secretary of State being able to announce a date for our primary, and because of that has made "The December Option" for New Hampshire a real possibility.
...more...

Continue reading "Is The Last NH Presidential Primary Puzzle Piece In The Hand Of Michigan US Senator Carl Levin?" »

Posted by Jim Splaine at 08:44 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

As way of introduction to this idea, if you've been hearing my commentary in Blogs and speeches about the New Hampshire Presidential Primary for a while, you'll note that I've been rather close in some of my predictions. Since I've been working on the cause of keeping New Hampshire "first" and "relevant" longer than most, dating back to the early 1970s, I have seen a lot of strategies employed -- both by our state, and others, and participated in some of those strategies.

When the Democratic National Committee began playing games with the schedule some two years ago and a lot of people said New Hampshire wouldn't survive their sanctions, I said we would, we'd remain "first," and we'd be ahead of Nevada. At this point, Nevada is quite irrelevant to the discussion, and they certainly won't come before us. And about a year ago I suggested we might even see the NH Primary scheduled in the first two weeks of January, while most others then thought it would be January 22nd. Now, January 8th is about the latest most people are anticipating that it will be.

Well, now I'd like to introduce another thought-- for others' comments and talk --and that's of a December date.

Just during the past couple of days, there have been strong indications that both Democrats and Republicans in Iowa have determined that they are going to have their Caucuses on Thursday, January 3rd. There is also a possibility the Republicans will hold their Caucus on that date, with the Democrats going Saturday, January 5th.

In light of that, let's do some serious thinking about the options for the date of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Primary, and also take a look at our opportunities.

If Iowa does go January 3rd or 5th, the problem with setting our date for Tuesday, January 8th would be that for the entire Holiday Season, the Presidential candidates of both parties may well camp out in Iowa. It's not that we should be jealous about that. That's not the point. But the Iowa Caucus is not a real election -- it is an organizational event where it takes intense staff and special interest groups to get their most dedicated supporters to the meeting rooms throughout Iowa on a cold Winter night to stand up, publicly, and "be counted" for their choice. In other words, it's not much of a secret vote, like a "real" election is. The New Hampshire Primary IS a real election, where people go to the polls and vote in privacy to choose their nominee. A Caucus isn't much more than a straw poll, which Iowa's Republicans already had -- a straw poll without the right to vote in secret.

I have no problem with the Iowa Caucus going first before New Hampshire, as has been traditional back to 1972, but I've been concerned that the Iowa Caucus this election cycle is potentially having way too much influence on whether candidates of either party will even remain as candidates after that event is held. It is very likely we'll see some candidates drop out after Iowa, even though a real election won't even have occurred yet.

So, with the very serious possibility that the Iowa Caucuses will be on January 3rd, New Hampshire now has to make a choice. Should we have ours right after Iowa, with a reduced "window" between it and us, or use this opportunity to have our Presidential Primary during the first two weeks of December? The second Tuesday in December is the 11th, and that date would do some interesting things for us:

1. A NH Primary on or around December 11th would give the Presidential candidates of both parties an opportunity to focus on real voters for the next two months. Our Secretary of State has already announced the Presidential Primary filing period for October 15th to November 2nd. By filing their candidacies, that's the best "pledge" to run here that we can get from the candidates themselves. So by November 2nd, we'll know for sure who is on the ballot, and those ballots can go to the printers. If about the time the filing period ends he sets our official date for sometime during the first two weeks of December, that prevents any other state from jumping ahead of us -- thus guaranteeing our state law requirement of >"...7 days or more..." before a similar election. Plus, it pre-dates Iowa by a good three weeks.

2. A NH Primary on or around December 11th would encourage the Presidential candidates and their campaigns to spend intensive, quality time here for all of November into the first week or two of December. We could ask for nothing better for democracy than having some concentrated time with the candidates -- face to face, eye to eye, one-on-one, New Hampshire-style; before the campaigning in the bigger states which vote on January 29th and February 5th really gets underway.

3. A NH Primary on or around December 11th would mean that after our event, the "winners" and those "exceeding expectations" would be exposed to a great deal of nationwide analysis during the Holiday Season as to just why they did so well, or not, and how their showing in New Hampshire will affect the next race in Iowa and other states beginning the first week of January. That contributes to the respected "impact" of the NH lead-off primary, and sets us in good position to remain first and relevant for 2012 and beyond.

4. A NH Primary on or around December 11th would considerably "backload" the "frontloading" of the current schedule, where so many states are going to be holding their election events on January 29th and February 5th. Face it, if the contests begin on January 3rd in Iowa, then New Hampshire (8th?), then maybe Nevada (12th?), then Michigan (15th), then South Carolina (19th), with lots of states scheduled for January 29th and February 5th (Florida, New Jersey, New York, California, Connecticut, Tennessee, Georgia, Alaska, Minnesota, Missouri, and several others), it will all be over in a month. If the NH Primary is moved up a full three weeks or so into December, that can fulfill the role of spreading out the process very, very well, and reduce the impact of the current frontloading.

5. A NH Primary on or around December 11th would greatly enhance the importance of doing well in New Hampshire, yet allow candidates who don't finish so well some time to recover their campaigns. No state, whether Iowa or New Hampshire or any other, should be able to by itself render the knock-out punch to a candidate. We're not about that, nor should we let Iowa be.

...more...

Continue reading "How About A December New Hampshire Presidential Primary?" »

Posted by Jim Splaine at 11:10 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

A few days ago I mentioned the important role that the Democratic and Republican National Committees have in maintaining the importance and relevance of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. We will be first by "...7 days or more..." according to our state law, but it is in large part up to the national parties to discourage other states from coming too close to the our lead-off event. With Wyoming, Florida, Michigan, South Carolina. and others making moves, the "penalties" threatened by the DNC and the RNC toward other states moving up their primaries and caucuses have been hard-nosed and hard-ball.

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley has taken a new leading role, joined by an impressive list of leaders from other states, to stop the crawl of some states coming earlier and earlier. We've seen states already go from February to January, and there is indeed a possibility that they'll take their time machine politics back to the Holidays of his year, if something isn't done by party leaders.

I like most of those efforts, but I can't say I support the "pledge" approach of getting presidential candidates so sign a loyalty agreement not to campaign in any other state -- other than New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada -- outside the previously agreed-to Democratic Party schedule.

However, the pledge idea is worthy of the discussion because it hits home the important point that the front-loading we're seeing doesn't help anyone. And it also makes clear that the other states have to decide -- sooner than later -- when their primaries or caucuses will be, so that our Secretary of State can fulfill his lawful obligation to set our primary date "...7 days or more..." ahead of any similar event.

1. The loyalty pledge idea bothers me, and always has, especially because the way we go about successfully remaining first and relevant for the 2008 election cycle will have great impact on the way we go about successfully remaining first and relevant for the 2012 election cycle. A pledge then, if successful now, can be used against us.

2. I have long studied the NH Presidential Primary process ever since I got involved in this cause in the early 1970s, and I'm convinced there are only three ways we can lose our "first" status: 1, by Congressional action, though very doubtful; 2, by an effective bi-partisan boycott of New Hampshire, which might well be mounted against us in 2012; and 3, by the candidates just stopping coming here.

3. This "pledge" is all about precedent -- if a pledge works FOR us now, it can well be used AGAINST us later. Numbers "2" and "3" above can be successfully turned against us later if loyalty pledges work now.

Continue reading "We Can Keep The New Hampshire Presidential Primary Without Resorting To "Loyalty Pledges"" »

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:31 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

About two years ago, there was a panic that we were about to lose our New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary status. Those of us who knew the history of our primary, and how we have retained our position all these years, said our status was very secure, and that New Hampshire would be at least as important and relevant in 2008 as it has been for decades.

Our state law since the 1970s has guaranteed that our primary would be at least seven days prior to another election, and it will be. It might even be ahead of any other caucus. Since we pay for our election, and we have a state law allowing our Secretary of State to adjust our date with very short notice, we're all set. For now.

But there's no guarantee about what will happen in the future. My biggest concern isn't about 2008. It's what will shape up for 2012.

There are three ways that New Hampshire could lose our lead-off status: 1, Congress could create a national primary system, although I think that is quite unlikely because of states rights issues. 2, Both the major national parties could effectively boycott New Hampshire if there is bipartisan agreement to do so and create a binding two-party primary/caucus calendar. 3, The leading candidates could just stop coming here, making the New Hampshire Primary essentially irrelevant. There is no requirement that they must file their candidacies here.

I have seen us successfully turning away challenges to our lead-off primary since 1970. Our biggest challenges, in 1975-1976, the mid-1980s, and the turn of the century, were won by our determination to maintain our tradition of fairness and inclusion of everyone who wants to be president. We respect the candidates, and they respect us.

I'm concerned, however, that "respect" has a fine line. When the NH Republican Party this year decided to put what amounts to a cover charge on candidates who would speak at a major dinner -- pricing "prime time" speaking slots at $10,000 and lesser slots at $5,000 -- that was a bit much.

Both parties have stepped over the line at times, of course -- charging presidential candidates big dollars for access to party voter lists, and "encouraging" candidates to contribute to State Representative and State Senate campaigns. A more recent ploy has been to get the presidential candidates in both parties to "sponsor" or "lend" campaign staff for various state campaigns in the off-year elections.

But charging the men and women who would be president a fee to use a microphone at a party event is a bit too much. It shows a greedy arrogance that is below us, and which as New Hampshire Democrats and Republicans we should be united in rejecting. Let's stop it. We're better than that.

The New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary isn't about "us." It certainly should not be considered to be a fundraiser for New Hampshire political parties or candidates. It also should not be degraded into some sort of tourist attraction. It's always been much more than that.

The NH Presidential Primary is about democracy at its best. Ours is still a state where candidates can run on relatively small campaign budgets, so long that we don't try to be too inventive in ways to put on a cover charge at the border. Having the man or woman who is to be our next President visit us in our living rooms and walk our sidewalks to talk with us is an incredible privilege. While they're asking for our votes, let's not risk our privilege because of our greed for their dollars.

Their right to speak should have no pricetag. Our right to listen, and then to vote, should not be put at risk by political parties reaching for cash.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:22 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

John McCain is an American hero. He was a prisoner during the Vietnam War, and has done some great things in the United States Senate. On the campaign trail when he ran for President in 2000, he offered the Republican Party a leader who I my judgment obviously would have been far more intelligent and visionary than the one eventually nominated.

But John McCain 2008 is off-message and off-key, and seems to be an inferior clone to his 2000 self. His campaign seems badly-exhausted rather than well-tested. He sounds like he's reaching for a message rather than on message.

I watched his announcement speech in Portsmouth on Wednesday, April 25th, with the hope that I would be inspired by a Republican -- not that I expect to be very easily (in the interest of disclosure I'm supporting Hillary Clinton.) But I was expecting the straight talk and clear idealism of McCain 2000 which motivated thousands and thousands in New Hampshire and elsewhere to get excited about this man.

Instead, I saw someone stumbling over his words. Worse, he couldn't seem to go through a sentence without reading it almost word by word. One would expect if you're giving about the most important speech of your campaign -- an announcement speech -- you'd know it fairly well before walking up to the podium. But he didn't.

Whether he was prepared by his campaign consultants or not isn't the point, although it tells us something about the state of his campaign if he wasn't. Either way, he tumbled over some of his words, and his pacing was way off. The audience didn't seem particularly excited or motivated. It was more like they were just being courteous, which if so is the nice and polite thing to do.

His apparent thematic approach, if he had one, was something like "...that's not good enough for America and when I'm President it won't be good enough for me." Those words followed a few statements of things that aren't going well. But the gesturing he used seemed forced, as were his words. I also found that he raced through much of his speech, not waiting for expected applause at appropriate places. Yes, it was overcast but rain was a long time off, so I don't know why he suddenly became the Hurried-Up Express.

And I didn't hear "the vision thing." Maybe he's been talking too much with his friend George W. Bush?

But, this man is an American hero. A genuine one. He fought for us. He defended us. I wasn't a fan of the Vietnam War no more than I am of the Iraq War, but when a man or woman goes to war in answer to a decision of our government -- right or wrong -- he or she deserves respect and appreciation. He went. He fought. He suffered. Many other heroes went, and didn't come back. Fortunately, John McCain did.

One speech does not make a candidate or a campaign -- although one given by Barack Obama in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention certainly got some attention. So, here's hoping we'll see John McCain catch his breath and become a star again in the Republican Party.

Let's hope his campaign reinvigorates and reinvents itself. His party needs him in the debate. And the Democratic candidates need to be challenged by quality opposition as well. The election season of 2007-2008 will be all the better with John McCain as an important player, whether or not he goes all the way.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 12:46 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Another early Presidential Primary is coming, and it's a good one. It shows the power and value of the Internet -- you know, that computer network highway that Al Gore invented, or whatever. (Actually, he did have a lot with "pulling it all" together, having a vision some two decades ago of what it could become.)

The CEO of MySpace, Chris DeWolfe, and Tom Anderson, the MySpace President -- real names there, not screen names, so this is on the level -- announced that the 65 million monthly American MySpace visitors, most of whom are actually of voting age, will be able to vote their preference on January 1st and 2nd, 2008.

At the moment, that's three weeks before the tentative date of the New Hampshire Primary, although that date is likely to change. In the MySpace election, there will be some provisions to keep repeat visitors from voting twice, supposedly. But smart computer users, and it doesn't take long to get computer savvy these days, will probably figure out ways around the cookies and security systems software that MySpace will create.

Nevertheless, the MySpace Presidential Primary will get plenty of media, and thus attention. You can bet campaign bloggers -- the paid and the unpaid -- will work up their organizational skills by then to get their supporters to vote. That can have exciting possibilities at motivating those who usually spend way too many hours in front of their monitors to get out and vote when the real election day comes around. And that's a good thing.

The NH Presidential Primary, of course, will still be the first "real election," but the MySpace Presidential Primary will contribute to the buildup of ideas and information sharing, and will likely increase interest in all the candidates. It will also force the candidates and their supporters to get online and say things of substance, instead of just hide behind some Madison Avenue advertising gimmicks. And that's another good thing.

Yet another good result of all this is that since the Internet and Blogs and talk is actually "free," the MySpace Presidential Primary will empower those candidates and their supporters who haven't by then become the stars of the millionaires and special interest lobbyists giving their money away for promises yet kept. Someone other than the big cash hounds might win the MySpace Primary, and that will get more attention to alternatives to the cash rush. After all, ideas DO count on the Internet, because it's people talking with people, talking with more people and more people. Well, you know what I mean.

Who knows. Al Gore might win this one without even announcing as a candidate. Maybe he was even more of a visionary some 20 years ago than even he knew!

Posted by Jim Splaine at 07:16 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

New Hampshire will have the First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, but most of the action really does occur elsewhere. We're not selfish about that. We like to have the first real vote, but the candidates of both parties know they have to make inroads everywhere, because after all New Hampshire IS just a one-day event sometime next January.

The visit this past week in Selma, Alabama -- or should it be called the "dueling joint tour" -- by U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with former President Bill Clinton tagging along, was a classic I'm-a-bit-better-than-you exercise.

It was a serious moment, of course. It was the 42nd anniversary of that horrible "Bloody Sunday" civil rights march back in 1965 when African-Americans were fighting for their voting rights. Amazing that in this great nation there was a time people had to fight for equality, isn't it?

Obama, Clinton-Clinton joined one another crossing a bridge on the commemorative march, but the Presidential candidates also spoke separately to large audiences. Senator Obama drew a larger crowd than Senator Clinton, but each did respectable jobs saying what they needed to say to get enthusiastic response.

I did notice, while watching the C-Span and network news coverage and reading the newspaper articles and commentary, some real contrasting styles between these two candidates. It will be fascinating to see how each evolves his or her (isn't it great to say "her" when talking about Presidential candidates?) approaches, gestures, facial expressions, messages, themes, and emphasis during the next several months.

Barack Obama seems more free in his speaking style, although one notices frequent reference to his notes. That can be explained by his inexperience on the campaign trail, of course. Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to need to read so much of what she says, but she sure is hesitant in saying it, and says it with a certain stiffness. It's almost like she's memorized her lines, and she needs to remember which word goes first and what point comes last.

Maybe I'm being too hard on these two candidates -- after all, I like them both and as a Democrat I look forward to seeing each succeed. (For purpose of disclosure, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton.) However, I like my candidates to speak from the heart, with a mix of idealism and conviction. I'm waiting.

I'm not on the payroll of either candidate, so I'll give some free advice to them. I'd suggest they stop doing any more polls of voters, don't do the "focus groups," and forego asking their consultants and speech writers for cute one-liners or neato ways of avoiding core issues.

I'd suggest they stop trying to say things that their pollsters might be telling them people want to hear.

Instead, speak from your soul. Don't read or memorize your speeches. Tell us what YOU believe we should do to end poverty and hunger in America 2007, how YOU believe we can provide for health care for all, and what YOU will do to clean up the corruption mess of politics and Washington.

Tell us how YOU will get us out of Iraq and never get us into another mess like it. You don't have to apologize for past miss-votes and you don't have to brag that you were right way back when -- that's important and we'll make our judgment about your past mistakes or good deeds later. What we need to know is how you'll get us out of this tragedy and bring greater peace to the world.

And while I like Bill Clinton a whole lot, Hillary -- you're not going to win this on either image or nostalgia. You should use him on the campaign trail -- if former Vice President Al Gore had done more so in 2000 his second term would be about half over. But don't bring him everywhere. And while you've got some great on-the-stump speaking ability, Barack -- let's hear some real core conviction coming out from your easy flow of words. Substance is important too, and we know you've got a lot of it.

For both candidates: Challenge us. Confront the issues. Give us some solutions; don't just define the problems.

The real powerful ideas right now among the Democrats seem to be coming from former U.S. Senator John Edwards on poverty and social issues and Congressperson Dennis Kucinich on Iraq, war and peace. That might be because they don't have to play defense right now. Or it may be because the movers and shakers behind those closer to the top of the nomination mountain think they have to avoid making any mistakes, or getting anyone mad at them.

Bottom-line for me, not that I'm a bottom-line sort of guy on all of my politics: I don't think even the impressive assembly of Obama-Clinton-Clinton marching together over that Selma bridge in 2007 equaled the courage and idealism of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his small group of followers back in 1965.

I don't think he had too many consultants writing his speeches or pollsters guiding his every word and watching his every step.

Maybe I'm expecting too much for American politics and our candidates in this media-driven, make-one-mistake-and-it's-on-the-Internet world nowadays?

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:54 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

If the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary has shown anything through the years, it is unpredictable. "Contrarian" is a word I used to hear a lot in describing our primary. As I defend it in Concord and with media and political activists nationally, I often explain that is a good thing. Do we really want to return to the smoke-filled rooms of national conventions where last-minute deals are made with whomever will be the nominee?

In 1968, Minnesota U.S. Senator Gene McCarthy did so well in the New Hampshire Primary that President Lyndon Johnson decided retirement was preferable to a hard campaign. South Dakota U.S. Senator George McGovern showed better-than-expected strength in 1972 against our neighbor, Maine U. S. Senator Ed Muskie. In 1976 Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter beat the Washington-based politicians here.

In 1980 California Governor Ronald "I paid for this microphone..." Reagan beat the established Republican choice then-former CIA Director George Bush -- the first one. In 1984 Colorado U.S. Senator Gary Hart amazed the political world by winning over former Vice President Walter Mondale.

Then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton made his unexpected "comeback kid" move here in 1992. Then there's conservative commentator Pat Buchanan's 1996 win, and Arizona U.S. Senator John McCain's 2000 victory. He skipped the Iowa Caucuses entirely and focused on New Hampshire. Smart move. Surprises abound in New Hampshire.

The media and their polls have anointed three "top-tier" candidates on the Democratic side. Since baseball spring training is getting underway, let's talk baseball: New York U. S. Senator Hillary Clinton is on third base, according to the numbers that tally her "first." Illinois U. S. Senator Barack Obama is supposedly on second base, and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Edwards is on first, needing to move up to make it. Right now. According to polls.

Being on 3rd base isn't home, however. Errors are made. Some messages strike out. Fouls happen. Candidates trip up. Staffs mismanage. New players come to play. Things change. Lots of innings to go.

Who will be the Democrats' possible surprises in 2008? Among others, don't discount Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Dodd or New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Either could focus lots of time and effort here and make a breakthrough even if one just comes in second (doing "better than expected" is another media-driven goal for candidates). And they each have considerable political and governmental experience.

While Richardson has the problem of coming from New Mexico, which some Americans probably don't know is really one of our 50 states, he has a very solid background -- UN Ambassador, Member of Congress for 15 years in the 1980s and 90s, Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary, Governor.

Then there is former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, who will get attention coming into New Hampshire because of the Iowa Caucus. He speaks well, has a powerful message, and did some good things in his state.

Any of those three are well-positioned to jump out and get a boost from Launchpad New Hampshire. If they sputter and fizzle, expect Delaware U.S. Senator Joe Biden to talk long enough to remain standing at the podium. He's got perseverance, and in New Hampshire, that's important.

Okay, and to be fair (in the interest of disclosure, I'm supporting Clinton) -- there are other possibilities: former Alaska U.S. Senator Mike Gravel, Ohio U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich, and maybe former Vice President Al Gore and General Wesley Clark. And . . . ?

One perils his or her predictability percentage by firmly judging too early who will do well in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:50 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week in New Hampshire it was Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, and Hillary Clinton, this week it's Hillary, Kucinich, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Dodd.

I see a trend here. Between now and next January we can expect almost weekly visits from Presidential candidates of both political parties, and eventually daily ones. The masses of national and even international media traveling with them want to get special stories however they can, unique perspective whenever they can, and they'll be trying their best to catch an unguarded moment wherever they can.

I have been struck in both the cases of Barack and HIllary, so far, that we haven't really seen them without their professional controllers around them. Yet. I think we've seen more of the "natural" Barack than of Hillary, but both seem to be a bit surrounded by their consultants and quite holding to their script. New Hampshire has a way of changing that, though. We'll see them all in those unguarded moments mighty soon.

But for now, they're well-managed. You see it in their words, and in their venues. Nevertheless, we are seeing some different ways of doing things.

Hillary's visit (for disclosure purposes, I'm supporting her) was especially interesting last weekend. She did something most Presidential candidates don't do: she went to the North Country, really beginning her New Hampshire campaign there. She spent over an hour talking with almost 1,000 Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and just the curious, in Berlin in a sort-of "town-hall" meeting. Barack did sort-of the same at the University of New Hampshire, though his audience at the Field House was more like 2,500.

I say "sort-of" because their "town-hall" meetings weren't much more than quickie introductory speeches, then questions and answers. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not what real New Hampshire-style town-hall meetings are all about. I expect they will try new formats sometime soon, though. Both are developing intelligent campaigns.

I thought the Berlin even for Hillary and the Durham event for Barack were smart ideas. For Obama, he was motivating young people at a college who will serve as a core of his growing support. Clinton was reaching out for a segment of New Hampshire Democrats up north who often are viewed as living in Canada. Their votes count every bit as much as those in Durham and Portsmouth and Nashua and Manchester.

Hillary has a tough job to do this weekend as she visits Dover: while Democrats in Congress are speaking out against Iraq and the mistake that war is to many voters, how can she continue to say her vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the President's invasion of Iraq in 2002 was anything but a mistake?

An even tougher job for Hillary is explaining her seeming cheerleading of the President's action after Baghdad fell, and after Saddam was captured a few months later. Hard to explain, and she's got to do so -- we've seen her on video tape. She can't be a surrogate of George W. Bush of the Democratic Party in the NH First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary while Barack and others take on the war.

In politics, 24 hours is a long time -- close to the election. Right now, Hillary and Barack [and all the others] have time to adjust their messages. Each is exciting, and either can get traction. To do so, they're best advised to put the polls and consultant-written statements aside, and just be themselves: because eventually that's what we're going to see. That's campaigning New Hampshire style.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:12 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

The Portsmouth Herald has invited me to write a regular column and Blog about the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. It is one of my favorite topics.

During the next year or so, there will certainly be a lot to write about. For almost a century this little part of America has given the first thumbs up, or down, on potential Presidents. The candidates come here for their first job interview.

Some find it really tough going, and their campaigns sputter to a stop after they check out of their Hotel New Hampshire. Others surprise everyone, have great Wednesday morning headlines to hold up, become the talk around water coolers and coffee pots from New York City to California, and eventually move their luggage into the White House.

Continue reading "The NH Presidential Primary: When Will It Be?" »

Posted by Jim Splaine at 11:24 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)