NH and the Clintons bucking the primary planning commission.

[madfloridian]

So it begins. The Price Herman commission to see about changing the primary system was appointed by Terry McAuliffe. They have been meeting, and have presented some of their recommendations. Howard Dean is said not to be involved the process so far, though he will have to sign off on it.

Now I can see a free for all coming, with all the presidential candidates standing with New Hampshire. I can understand that. Now Bill Clinton has come out criticizing the committee's work and standing with NH. The criticism of Howard Dean on this issue should not be happening, though it will. Disclaimer: I don't care who gets the first caucus and primary right now. I do think there should be more minority representation than we have now.

First read E. J. Dionne's take on this commission:

http://onthehustings.blogspot.com/2005/02/dionne-on-price-herman-commission.html

"There are a lot of problems with the current nomination process, including frontloading and the disproportionate influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. Choosing a nominee in what amounts to a snap judgment by voters in one or two small states isn't a very rational process. There are advantages and disadvantages to all the reform proposals currently under consideration, but virtually any of them would be an improvement over what we have now."

Then take a peek at The American Prospect's view on it:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10754

"What, in the end, will this all amount to? Perhaps not much. On questions of basic fairness, diluting the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire in the process is an all but unarguable goal. Granting a greater role to western states demonstrating strong Democratic growth potential in recent years also makes sense, even if claims about the potential party-building effects of such primary calendar reforms are overstated ."

Both are long articles.

Now the article about Bill Clinton in NH today, speaking out against the changes. This is an appointed commission doing its job, and I think criticism by a former president whose wife might be a candidate should be kept to a minimum.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Clinton+supports+NH's+first-in-the-nation+status&articleId=324aa0a2-102a-47c8-a206-1437dcdea874

"Manchester – Former President Bill Clinton said yesterday he and his wife believe the national Democratic Party should “leave Iowa and New Hampshire alone” and stop tinkering with the 2008 early caucus-primary calendar.

Clinton’s strong endorsement for the state’s first-in-the-nation primary came as the Democratic National Committee appears poised to change the early nominating calendar. The DNC rules committee last week voted to add a caucus between Iowa’s leadoff caucus and New Hampshire’s primary, and a primary immediately after New Hampshire — for a total of four events in 18 days in January 2008.

Clinton called the move a mistake.

“Almost no matter what you do, if you move something ahead of New Hampshire, you are, by definition, going to minimize the amount of time for retail, one-on-one, small group politicking, not only in New Hampshire but in Iowa,” Clinton said. “I think it’s something unique in preparing people to be not only better candidates, but to be better Presidents.”

I see one battle after another coming in the party. I hate to see it.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Big Dog wants the Big Female Dog to be President

so rather than acting as a statesman, as all former Presidents do, he is acting as an unpaid campaign hatched man for Hillary.

[Dr Fate]

5. More to it than that- he wants to be physically in the Whitehouse himself.

It's basically his own re-election- something I'm suprised more DUers dont bring up.

I dont support Hillary's more conservative positions- but the prospect of BILL CLINTON being physically in the WH once again will start to dawn on voters sooner or later.

This alone is what will make Hill viable, whether we like it or not.

[madfloridian]

6. More DUers don't bring it up because they get piled on.

Unfortunately.

Sometimes it is time for a party to change, and not to hang on to the past. I think we have reached that time.

[Dr Fate]

7. Sure- but I did not mean in a pro- or con context...

...I just meant bringing up the fact at all...

Me? I'm eyeing Kerry, Gore, Clark- the usuals for me.

Would handing Bill the keys be the worst thing ever- nah- But I agree with you- change would be good for these times...

[Donna Zen]

9. This game has been going on for a while now

If Hillary goes to NH or Iowa, it would mean that she would be "fair game" for the press. Also, all of this pretending would be over. Notice also, that she doesn't do one-on-one tv, but Bill is everywhere. He is also slated to bring out a new book just in time for the 08 bash. This is a well-crafted dance. I would imagine that we will soon be treated to either Carville or Begala posting at Kos. Oh...and the Blogosphere will swoon.

Now there have been several unforgivable moments in this major bit choreography by the Clintons. The one for me was when the weapons (or non-weapons) report came out. This was a moment that anti-war activists had worked and waited for: time for bush to eat crow. When lo and behold, the night that David Kaye appears on Larry King, who should call in but Bill Clinton to say that he thought there were WMD in Iraq too. GMAFB. I absolutely believe that the Dems lost votes that night. And for what? So Hillary's ass would be covered.

Anyway, the Clintons must feel very positive about their chances in NH or Bill wouldn't be up there carrying on.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Big Dog did not want John Kerry to win the election in 2004

because getting Hillary in the White House was more important than saving the country from another 4 years of Bush.

[Totally Committed]

23. Do you really believe this?

Just asking.

TC

[IndianaGreen]

24. Yes, I really believe this

just as I really believe that Big Dog defended Bush's claims of WMDs because of his strange relationship with the Bush clan.

[Totally Committed]

21. It is WRONG...

Former Presidents are not supposed to get mixed up in elections. Period. This is bad form on both their parts. I don't care HOW MUCH he wants back into the White House, it;s WRONG. And an unfair advantage for her to have.

TC

[Totally Committed]

22. Self -Deleted

Sorry -- Dupe.
TC

[Redneck Socialist]

2. I'm from NH (so feel free to ignore this post)

and while I personally like the fact that we go second, the bigger issue than who gets first dibs, is that an increasingly front loaded schedule is bad for all involved. The primaries need to be more spread out not less.

[madfloridian]

3. My vote in the primaries never counts anyway.

Our primary is so late, we just go along for the ride.

I can understand how hard it is to change things, but a commission was appointed by Terry McAuliffe whom I believe was Clinton's choice for chair. So it is only fair not to take sides like that.

I agree about the frontloading. Guess it is being done to keep Iowa and NH in the top 4.

[pinto]

4. I still cling to my pet primary plan:

Three tiered primary line up:

States with the smallest electoral representation first.

Mid level states next.

Big gun states last.

Convention.

[Redneck Socialist]

8. I've long thought of something similar

A six month primary season with a couple of primaries a week. States with the smallest population go first.

[Clarkie1]

10. Yesterday's gone, Hillary. nt

[madfloridian]

11. Here are the members of the commission.

Unfortunately pdf is the best I could do, though I have the html somewhere.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/commission/20050325_roster.pdf

And here is some stuff from the DNC page about it.

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/nominating

[Awsi Dooger]

12. I would leave New Hampshire alone

Stick with the same primary format. NH is a potentially pivotal state in the '08 election. Most of the scenarios to 270+ electoral votes require NH, which turned narrowly our way by 9300 votes in '04. I wouldn't do anything to tick off the voters there, or give our candidates less reason to campaign heavily in that state. If we blow NH that requires a more unlikely state to replace it, something like Colorado or Nevada. Rove has already stated he thinks NH is a red state with a blip blue in 2004. I would be shoring up that state, not lessening it. We still have a significant registration disadvantage there.

[AtomicKitten]

13. Or maybe Bill Clinton believes it just isn't a good idea.

I'm really astounded at the attribution of ulterior motives to everyone possibly standing in the way that progressives feel is THE path. Bill Clinton is an historian, a politician, and a statesman. I believe he wants the Democrats to be successful more than he wants Hillary to be president. If he can have both, it's gravy.

I just wanted to throw that out there.

I would love to see it changed because it is front-loaded and we on the West Coast don't get to participate. Whether or not that's good for the Democratic Party as a whole I am not qualified to say.

[madfloridian]

14. The committee was appointed to present their findings.

Why bother if they are not going to have attention paid to them. I posted the list of the members, and many of them are Clinton loyalists. So this is not some vendetta on my part against anyone or any state. I just don't care, except for once I would like my voice to count in the primaries.

I don't want the midwest getting as much power as IA and NH have now, nor do I want the South to have that much power.

I don't see that what I said was actually that critical of Clinton, though I am a little in my own mind for this. Here is what I said, and I think it is fair.

"Now the article about Bill Clinton in NH today, speaking out against the changes. This is an appointed commission doing its job, and I think criticism by a former president whose wife might be a candidate should be kept to a minimum."

And I do. He is involved the primaries through Hillary. I think his criticism should be limited in this case with a committee doing its job.

[AtomicKitten]

18. I don't see how offering an opinion should be extrapolated

into anything more than that. Bill Clinton is a smart, savvy politician. I think his input is valuable.

You frequently post things you find in your research of opposition to your point-of-view or even possible opposition in this case, almost always attracting as flamebait the usual suspects nodding their heads in agreement, and I find myself trying to interject a sense of fairness, not so much in what you actually say but what you incite.

In answer to your following post, interestingly you take umbrage at my use of the word "progressives," and here is where I separate myself from that moniker. The idea of it is fine, in fact, positive, but when I peruse DU I find an incessant drive to demonize those within the party reminiscent of the way Faux News demonize Democrats. Immediately the hair on the back of my neck stands up straight and that is a warning to me that I don't care for that kind of politics because it almost always degenerates into unfair and sometimes outrageous accusations and allegations, and those, again, against the party, the horse if you will, I'm putting my money on to win in November and again in 2008. Because for all their problems, the Democrats are infinitely better than the Republicans, and I don't see how the drive to demonize certain members and factions helps in any way whatsoever to that end. At any other time in the history of our country that kind of criticism would be healthy dissent, now it has become a drive to implode the party, the only salvation I can see, from within.

But that's me. Respectfully.

[madfloridian]

19. Clinton is "smart and savvy". ..you say I "incite". I "demonized" no one

I think that was all I needed to read. You think I am inciting, I call it questioning.

Bottom line. Questioning Clinton is not inciting.

For you to use the "demonize" is quite painful.

Clinton is after all just a man who was once president. This gives him no entitlement.

[madfloridian]

16. The way you refer to "progressives" is reminiscent of the way

our Florida state party feels about us. There is a tone in the way they speak to any of us who have not "rallied round" their every word.
It is very condescending overall.

Actually most of us who are in the sensible/moderate/progressive range, who think for ourselves without a think tank doing it for us.....most of us are pretty intelligent.

One of the state party leaders here referred to someone as "you must be one of those DFA people, always questioning."

I proudly question. The GOP is in a mess today because they all rallied without that questioning.

We are in Iraq today because our party leaders did not want us to question them.

[LincolnMcGrath]

15. As a Clinton-ian

and Iowan, I say leave it as it is.

The present system didn't hinder Bill Clinton in the least.

Y'all are just jealous. :hi:

[madfloridian]

17. Right, who wants a voice in primaries anyway....shrug.

I don't have one. Two elections now I have not had a primary choice. I live in one of the most populous states in the union, and I don't get a voice about our party's candidate.

Take this as sarcasm, or take it for real.

I don't have a solution to the primary problems, but I think a commission was appointed by Clinton-picked chairman McAuliffe. Maybe we could wait on the criticism.

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. Iowa's voice amounted to what in 92?

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/primaries.asp?cycle=2006 I think every primary is important in terms of GOTV.

[Awsi Dooger]

26. Iowa and New Hampshire are bellwether states

I don't see how we could do much better. If you add or substitute a state that leans dramatically one way or the other, the priorities and themes our candidates hear and face during the primary might not be indicative of what the national mood.

Just look at the partisan index. In the general election, neither state has voted more than 4% removed from the national popular vote since '88. Iowa virtually mirrors the national number every election and New Hampshire, while somewhat more volatile, is right there.

Maybe Iowa could be a regular primary and not a caucus to be more representative of the state mood, but that's tradition so leave it alone also.

Iowa:
'88: Dukakis (54.71 - 44.50) = + 17.93% Democratic
'92: Clinton (43.29 - 37.27) = + 0.46% Democratic
'96: Clinton (50.26 - 39.92) = + 1.81% Democratic
'00: Gore (48.54 - 48.22) = + 0.19% Republican
'04: Bush (49.90 - 49.23) = + 1.79% Democratic

New Hampshire:
'88: Bush (62.41 - 36.29) = + 18.40% Republican
'92: Clinton (38.86 - 37.64) = + 4.34% Republican
'96: Clinton (49.32 - 39.37) = + 1.42% Democratic
'00: Bush (48.07 - 46.80) = + 1.78% Republican
'04: Kerry (50.24 - 48.87) = + 3.83% Democratic