Don't be so quick to bash NH's status as the first primary state. While politicians you quoted have reason to want NH to be first, you need to better represent the definition of what it means to the voters in NH to "be serious" about this position. Yes we take it seriously-and that includes not only spending a lot of time understanding the positions each candidate takes on issues, but we also willingly participate in poll after poll, watching ad after ad, comparing meeting outcomes and communication strategies. We talk about candidates with each other and frankly put in a lot of effort and many, many hours to gain a sense of confidence in who we will vote for. I really wonder if others would truly take their role as seriously and put in the time it takes to do that. Here is an idea for a poll: Ask voters in other states how much time they would allocate to learning about all the candidates if they were awarded first in the nation primary status. Bet it wouldn't compare to what a typical NH voter does! By the way, put me down for about 80 hours so far...

Although its easier to just keep the status quo, it would benefit America's political process to make some changes - by limiting campaign season dramatically. Campaign Fatigue is a real problem for our political process. Many Americans simlply tune out after so many months of hearing the same crap over and over again in the media. Honestly, I don't really care what states go first - but I think there is some truth to the fact that NH and Iowa are not only manageable in size, but force candidates to speak with voters mono e mono. There are, however, other states that have a similar landscape that would probably work equally as well. Perhaps changes should be made in the process to accommodate this fact. I have no doubt the whoever the leading states are its citizens will be proud to partake in the political process - regardless of race, class, socioeconomic background, etc. More importantly, though, we need to limit the amount of time voters are forced to hear the same rhetoric over and over and over again. The media could play a huge role in limiting campaign season. Of course I would prefer to see this change occur without new laws or regulations but it's unlikely.

Recently, former Massachusetts Governor, and 1988 Democrat Presidential nominee, Michael Stanley Dukakis joined a gathering of students at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government in the first in a series of discussions on the 2008 New Hampshire primary. “The History and Magic of New Hampshire”, found citizen, now Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Northeastern University sometime, and sometime Visiting Professor of Public Policy at UCLA, Dukakis, across from Sue Casey, an advisor to four presidential candidates and author of “Hart and Soul: Gary Hart’s New Hampshire Odyssey and Beyond”. In their attempt to peel back the onion and provide an insiders look at the process, a sensitivity rarely captured in the current American political genre, emerged. For those of us who’ve rolled through the frozen front wars of New Hampshire, you can’t get past the memory of a Casey, taunt and raging, head in hand and quizzical as to just why you didn’t fill the phone bank or cover a precinct. At the same time, it’s such true believers who spring, out of pocket, for beer, for pizza, and for fries and shell out a couch or floor or phone to call home for a novice campaigner far, far from the hinterland and deep in “the cause”. Regardless as to where one comes down regarding Mr. Dukakis, there’s the ultimate conclusion that he’s a decent and honorable man. Yet that hardly reduces the cackling which arises around “the tank”, “Willie Horton”, and his hijacked message, twisted by a pastiche of accusations, boxed and bowed, and hurled at his efforts, ultimately jack-hammering his campaign into comic fodder for late night television ghouls. History will ultimately elevate, or chastise both for their engagements and entanglements. Gov. Dukakis testified that candidates, for the most part, are “too deeply involved in being good candidates to be deeply involved in all aspects”, of the day to day happenings of their campaigns. Yep, history does hold for such an accounting, and often those numbers just suck….even for the most promising of them. Prior to 1952, New Hampshire garnered little notice aside from baggy woolens and this or that ski slope or covered bridge. As Ms. Casey bled in her presentation, “Eisenhower was still in Europe”, above the political fray. At best, its primaries were “beauty contests”. As latter day candidates emerged, amongst them ‘Smilin Jack’ Kennedy (D-MA) from neighboring Massachusetts, in 1960, the ‘granite state’ gained more importance. By 1972, Ms. Casey pointed out, New Hampshire exploded, with the help of the media, as “magical”. It’s an “open primary”, and ergo party affiliation need not be declared. Although cloaked in a façade of opportunity for “Independents”, or un-enrolled voters, or just those who’ve runaway as far as they can from things they’ve grown to complain about, New Hampshire, in spite of it’s greasy dinners and it’s “Elks Lodge”, is hardly a demographic replicate of the nation as a whole. At the forum, Mr. Dukakis referred to his campaign experience in New Hampshire as being similar to those early on in Brookline, MA, the door to door, getting to know you style. Retail politics? Somewhat. In his presentation, the governor never drifted far from his core values of family, of stuff being local…all stuff. The parasites of his presidential campaign, and others for that matter, now live large on consultant fees, running other trains from their tracks. Yet what apparently set that crew on their heels, at that time, was not only an internal power struggle, but an altering of the game, a “Super-Tuesday” awaited them, changing the game, both scaring and denting the candidates plan over the long haul. Adrift and under siege, his initiative crashed like the ships of Ulysses and dragged on the breakers of “the business”. There’s an ugly edge to the rodeo there at politics time. With the invasion of all that youth in such times, with all the testosterone, no one falls in love in New Hampshire. In lust, maybe, but not love. There is shouting. There is misery. There is laughter and moments of self-indulgent exhilaration. There’s drama. Nothing is toned down and nothing “just happens”. There are players. There are intentions. There is disaster and cataclysmic consequences where there is neglect. And there other struggles await candidates should they emerge victorious and perhaps with a “bump” and increase in finances. ‘Potomac fever’ has long been a communicable disease among Massachusetts’ politicos, as unique as Seurat’s impressionism when compared to other states. The Duke did, however, concede that the importance of the New Hampshire primary needs a closer and more realistic review, and that the powers that be, those who carve out and regulate the matters, may better serve the republic with six regional primaries over a three month period. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) recently addressed the untidy situation which campaign fatigue and state leapfrogging have brought on. “There’s just no possible justification for one or two states that are not particularly representative to have a dominant role in this process. It’s not fair to other states.” Republicans continue to campaign in Michigan, for example, while Democrat candidates Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn from the January 15 presidential primary. Oddly enough, Michigan holds far more of a demographic resemblance to the broader nation than the other two jump start states. “It’s yet another reason”, Mr. Levin was quoted, “why we need to get rid of Iowa and New Hampshire going first.” Campaigns and candidates adjust and target their visits, staff placements and media buys to front loaded states. “It’s too bad,” Michigan Democrat Party Chair Mark Brewer said , “that Democrats think this election is going to be run in Iowa and New Hampshire and are ignoring the rest of the country.” Perhaps now we should begin to view the New Hampshire primary for what it is, an overweight dowager in fishnets and a mini-skirt, wallowing in unmerited revelry. It is a place far from being demographically representative of the rest of the nation, with its media set-ups of brightly colored vans and satellite discs, its brisk hotel and bar business, but only in that “first in the nation” season. Whether the Duke is a technocrat or a visionary, he may very well be on the money regarding that regional thing.

First in the nation doesn't need to be confined to just one state. Yes, the candidates need some focus, but running for Pres. of the US is obviously bigger than just one state. While I think NH should be a first in the nation primary, why not invite other states to participate? Like Super Tuesday, have 3-4 states become the bellweathers and use the same primary date. Choose a few that have demonstrated a serious committment to voting and use demographic data to support a more balanced representation of the US population. NH takes their role to heart and if others would too-and not just for the sake of it like Florida- but to support the greater good of the nation, then have at it!