There's a
lot of talk about the 2008 democratic primary calendar changes, and New Hampshire's elected officials pledging to move their primary up in accordance with the state law which requires they be seven days before any other vote (Iowa's caucuses aren't interpreted as votes and thus don't count).
It's very undemocratic and selfish of New Hampshire to always go first. That's why the DNC passed a measure to strip the won delegates from any candidate who campaigns in a state that jumps ahead in the calendar (read: New Hampshire). Seems like a reasonable response.
However, there's a rub.
As the Boston Globe
reports:
But Sullivan said that denying delegates to candidates is meaningless, because candidates in modern presidential elections are far more concerned with showing strength in caucuses and primaries than with gathering delegates to the Democratic National Convention. In 2004, New Hampshire sent fewer than 30 delegates to the convention out of more than 4,000 total voting delegates... Governor John Lynch, Democrat of New Hampshire, announced after the DNC's vote that 10 leading Democratic presidential contenders have assured him in writing that they will campaign in New Hampshire regardless of when the primaries are held.
We need to send a message to the candidates we support that we're not going to tolerate them coddling New Hampsire's delusions of primary preeminence. The candidates who honor the DNCs efforts to democratize the primary process are the ones who deserve our support, and we need to send a message to any candidate we like, as soon as the November elections are in the books, to stay out of spoiled New Hampshire if they move up.