According to a story today by Michael Scherer of Salon, an interesting campaign fact emerged from a recent poll in Iowa : Barack Obama. Yes that Obama, the Democratic presidential wannabe and first-term Senator from Illinois who’s advocating a “progressive agenda for change” (that’s what he said last Sunday in Portsmouth) who garnered seven percent of support in the poll (more than Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Sam Brownback combined).
Elephants for Obama?
This finding is odd to say the least (last I heard he’s not running as a Republican) but it sort of fits in with Obama’s general election campaign style of more often speaking more ill of the “system” in general than the GOP or George Bush in particular.
Now political criss-crossing is nothing new but so far this season I’ve heard people and tales of (1) one Democract going for Giuliani, (2) three Dems going for Ron Paul, (3) one Republican for Kucinich (now that’s odd), (4) and three Republicans for Obama (so far no cross overs I’ve heard of yet for Clinton and Edwards). And of course in New Hampshire, we saw in 2004, how Republicans turned en masse against then Gov. Craig Benson for Democratic consensus builder and businessman John Lynch.
Of course what this means for the primary is another matter altogether. Making relative nice with the Red state crowd may not be a top attribute in a heated Dem primary. In that category, there’s no doubt Hillary Clinton is leading the pack. Unlike Obama, Clinton has no problem occasionally speaking quite ill of Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang. I’ve yet to see a crowd in NH that doesn’t mind those servings.
For more on Obama and the evolution of his campaign, see my Sunday “Out on a Limb” column in Herald Sunday or on seacoastonline.com.
PRIMARY DATE MUSINGS
NH State Rep. Jim Spaline sent me his thoughts about the latest priamry scheduling traffic jam (origginally posted on nhinsider.com)
New Hampshire’s Primary: January 8th, 2008?
Well, I think we’re getting close to having the date of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary firmed up. Right now, I’m expecting it to be Tuesday, January 8th. At least I hope I’m in the correct year.
Throughout the years that I’ve worked on this cause -- dating back to even before the 1980 election cycle when Secretary of State Bill Gardner set his first primary date according to the state law -- I’ve learned that it’s an evolutionary process. Our “lead-off” position doesn’t happen automatically, and it needs a lot of maneuvering. We’ve given Bill Gardner the tools he has needed in the laws we have passed dating to 1975 and updated several times since -- but he’s the carpenter and he uses those tools very well.
The 2008 Presidential Election cycle has probably been his greatest challenge yet. During the past two years he and I have had the fun, if it can be said to be so, of meeting and talking dozens of times and many dozens of hours about the strategies to keep New Hampshire “...seven days or more...” ahead of any other primary. When the Democratic National Committee began its games a couple of years ago to set Nevada ahead of New Hampshire and in other ways dilute New Hampshire’s influence and relevance to the presidential selection process, both he and I said we’d be okay, that New Hampshire would indeed be first, and that the predictions of some pundits that we were about to lose our status were a lot off-base.
.
The past two weeks Bill has come under some criticism for a couple of his public positions on the actions of South Carolina and Michigan. I have too, since I’ve stood with him. He asked me to join him at a news conference when the South Carolina Republican Chair visited the State House to announce the date of January 19th for the Republican Party primary in his state. Bill thanked him for his visit here, and I said I was pleased South Carolina Republicans were at least setting their date, because it would encourage other states to firm up theirs - - especially Michigan, where Democrats in particular have threatened to withhold their date until New Hampshire sets ours, which would create quite a lot of confusion come November or December.
.
Our law does indeed guarantee New Hampshire’s lead-off position. Our position is not a gift from the political parties, and since 1975 never has been. However, some other states can play games with us. What needs to happen about this time in the cycle as we come close to the Fall months is knowing what the schedules of election events are in the other states. Then, and only then, can Bill Gardner set our date. That’s the way the process works.
.
Recently, Michigan Democrats and Republicans have been talking, with much disagreement, about a date of January 15th for their primaries or caucuses -- each party can decide whatever it wishes. Bill Gardner has cheered that discussion by saying that their selection of January 15th would be a last “piece of the puzzle.” I was quoted recently as saying that getting Michigan to firm up their date “sooner than later” would stop this game of checkers that some states have been playing, so that Michigan agreeing would be “a good thing for us.” I mean, at least we’d know when they’re doing it.
.
I’m not in favor of either South Carolina or Michigan moving earlier into January, whether the 19th or the 15th. But that’s not my decision. New Hampshire Democratic Chair Ray Buckley has rightly and powerfully used his voice in objecting to both, and he might be able to influence at least the Democrats in Michigan. But since the setting of our primary date is an evolutionary process, I know it’s important that we get our date set in September, or October if possible rather than wait until November or even December for our Secretary of State to do it. One year Bill Gardner had to wait until December 20th to set our date to offset other state events. He really needs to do it earlier than that this year.
.
So, my preference as a long-time defender of our first-in-the-nation status -- a “role” that many in our state have shared -- is that the pieces of the puzzle fit together, and that sooner than later all of the other states stop their checkers games. We’re going to win that game anyway, but it would be useful for all the candidates, their campaigns, the media, and certainly the voters to know when New Hampshire will hold our primary.
.
Right now, I would kind of like to see a schedule where Iowa holds the first caucuses on Saturday, January 5th, New Hampshire has the first “real” election with our primary on Tuesday, January 8th, followed by Michigan on Tuesday, January 15th, then Nevada and South Carolina on Saturday, January 19th, and lots of states holding their mega-primaries on Tuesday, January 29th and Tuesday, February 5th. That’s not the best of all worlds, but stretching out the primary and caucus season into earlier January does spread out the impact of the “front-loading” of January 29th and February 5th by giving some breathing room between major events for all the candidates, and it does what many of us here want to do: keeps New Hampshire first without having to go into December of 2007.
.
I would also like to see the voters of the District of Columbia given some equal rights in the American election process by having an early primary or caucus on our about the same date as our primary. It’s long overdue that they get an equal voice as their follow citizens.
.
My “bigger picture” concern is that we all then work toward making the 2012 presidential election cycle better, with Iowa having the first caucus, followed by New Hampshire with the first primary, then a series of rotating regional primaries beginning two weeks afterward stretching through April and May. If that sounds familiar, it’s a plan proposed a decade ago by the National Association of Secretaries of State and endorsed by the Jimmy Carter Election Commission two years ago.
ADVERTISEMENTS 
