Update on Primary changes....NH going to the mat. Good article.

[madfloridian]

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=63121

NEW HAMPSHIRE Democrats are sending their national party a direct message: Don’t mess with the first-in-the-nation primary.

State party Chair Kathy Sullivan and other top Dems have endorsed former state chair Joe Keefe‘s new letter telling the Democratic National Committee’s calendar commission that any proposal to place more caucuses — even one — between the leadoff Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary won’t cut it.

The commission is scheduled to meet on Dec. 10 to recommend a 2008 nominating schedule to DNC Chair Howard Dean, who is expected to then send it to the DNC rules committee. The full DNC is the final decision-maker, but New Hampshire’s position is set out in a state law mandating that we remain “seven days or more” ahead of any “similar event.”

Carl Levin of Michigan is the one who is pushing the hardest to get away from the Iowa and NH primaries.

The commission’s stated purpose is to address caucus/primary calendar front-loading and bring more racial diversity up front.

Michigan’s delegation, led by commission member Sen. Carl Levin, strongly opposes the “privileged” positions of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Levin recently told The Associated Press it is essential to have additional contests before New Hampshire. Presumably, these would be in small states from different regions with large black or Hispanic populations in the South and the West.

“What I’m looking for is a change in the system that gives two states such a huge impact on who is nominated,” he said. Adding early events “actually would open things up. More candidates would have an opportunity to win at least one caucus.”

Web and news reports surfaced last month alleging a growing commission consensus on a plan to place two to four caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire. Since then, local Democrats have had increasing “great concern that there is momentum behind the recommendation,” said Judy Reardon, who co-chairs a state party primary task force with Keefe.

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. ummm...from someone in the middle of the primaries

I don't mind that NH is first. What I have a problem with is all of the news media staking the claim that it's all over by the time it gets to Illinois and my vote doesn't mean Jackshit!

Go for it, NH!!! Hooray for you! And SCREW the media!

[FreedomAngel82]

2. I think what they're saying

is they don't want just two states to choose who the nominee is but all democrats should. I think New Hampshire and Iowa do play important roles in the nominating but everyone should be heard I think. This reminds me of in the "West Wing" last season when Jimmy Smitts character said what Levin is.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. I agree! More power to New Hampshire and others!

IIRC, but could very well be mistaken, Michigan is after even Illinois primaries. By the time we voted here in Illinois, it was more or less a lost cause. We might have well saved the money on primary elections.

I'm only saying that I don't care which state is first for 49th; we should all be heard in our choice.

Same thing. :)

[mike_c]

3. I'm pretty disgusted with the dem primaries....

After Iowa, every other state's primary is a useless exercise-- that really screwed up the 2004 election, IMO. I support the idea of a simultaneous primary in all 50 states, and do it later, just before the convention, to allow candidates sufficient time to get their message out.

on edit: or DURING the convention-- that would really be interesting! All the candidates would go to the convention, which would not be negotiated and scripted beforehand.

[countmyvote4real]

4. Agree. That makes sense and it's a fair playing field.

Unfortunately, that's exactly why it will never happen. But there is hope that NH will secede.

[LittleClarkie]

6. They should all be conducted at one, or else who ever is first

will be lauded by the pundits anyway.

It doesn't matter who the first is, if they are still done one at a time.