November 30, 2005

Two Calendar Thoughts...

... that I have to get off my chest.

1) What are the NH Dems thinking? Just when it seemed they were going to get 75% of what they wanted out of the DNC primary calendar commission, they pressed the panic button. What was the 75%? NH was still going to be the DNC's first-in-the-nation primary; the state was STILL going to have its own day to itself, without having to share its primary date with any other state's caucus OR primary; and most importantly, they were going to get the IA/NH jealousy argument set aside for the first time in years. If you ask me, IA and NH were on the verge of remarkable survival. [CHUCK TODD]

To think that the commission is/was on the verge of upholding the spirit of New Hampshire's history. If NH's status wasn't in jeopardy before, it is now. DNCers are ticked, big time; mostly over the arrogance issue. And Sec/State Bill Gardner has made it worse by reminding us of the state's "nuclear option" before a plan was even announced.

Gardner should not have even said a thing until AFTER their was a plan, or more importantly until AFTER the 2008 cycle if it was deemed NH status had been jeopardized.

2) As for Iowa, things had been looking up for them as the state's status seemed safe, that is until ex-Rep. Dave Nagle decided to chime in. Before today, IA Dems had smartly kept quiet, watching NH shoot itself in their foot. But Nagle's comments complicate things for IA as well. The DNC might decide that it will tell both IA and NH where to stick it. All calendar revamp proponents have been fighting for is for a share of the early limelight. No one wants to kill IA and NH, political hacks are, if nothing else, respectful of history. But the more IA and NH verbally fight any change and act stubborn, the more likely the great majority of the DNC primary calendar commission will think twice about respecting history.

The danger for IA Dems in '08 is relevancy, thanks to the possibility that Tom Vilsack will run for president. Then again, Vilsack could provide IA Dems a shot in the arm by pledging NOT to participate or contest in the IA caucuses so that the state doesn't lose its prestige. Imagine how much more Vilsack would endear himself to IA Dem activists if he made this pledge? Plus, Vilsack can never surpass the absurd expectations he's going to face if he does participate in the Caucuses, so it's truly a win-win for him. [CHUCK TODD]

Posted at 04:55 PM

Comments

Iowa and NH are irrelevant in 21st century politics. Their pompousity of position is laughable.

gopmemekiller | 11.30.05 06:05 PM

I can only pray that Vilsack will forego Iowa in the 2008 cycle. It would certainly be in his best interest; he wouldn't win the state in a caucus of Democrats. Harkin won us over so overwhelmingly that no other candidate chose to campaign here in '92. Not only would Vilsack not make expectations, but he wouldn't win.

Steve Kranz | 12.01.05 04:13 AM

Post a comment