In Defense of New Hampshire

To be perfectly honest, I really don't like southern New Hampshire much. If it's south of Manchester, I have minimal use. I really like the mountains and such, but the southern New Hampshire, frankly, stinks. I make no secret about it, obviously.

However, it has a special place in American politics as the first primary state in the country. As primary season comes steaming up, the usual bitching and moaning about New Hampshire's status is ramping up. The latest is this Globe piece by former John Hancock biggie David D'Alessandro. He's not alone.

I think Iowa and New Hampshire deserve their rightful status as the first-in-the-nation. After that, every two or three weeks, should be regional primaries, with the regions rotating positions each election cycle. But Iowa and New Hampshire should keep their places. And here's why.

The voters, the organizers and the politicians in those states have been through it before. They have created the litmus test for a campaign's organization and strength. If you're doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire, and have strength nationally, you're in great shape. If you're not doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire, you likely don't have much organization in other states. The theory of throwing all your time, effort and money in Iowa and New Hampshire isn't a winning one. Ask John McCain.

Sure, Iowa and New Hampshire can throw in a curveball here and there and annoint a surging candidate. Or do they just do a good job in sniffing out the best candidate? Bill Clinton used N.H. as a springboard, but he had a followup organization in place after New Hampshire to reap the benefits. I think, looking back on the Clinton era, no matter what you think about his tenure as president, the guy knew how to campaign and politic.

After decades of being first, New Hampshire knows what to look for in a candidate. It's politicians under the process of being courted and working for a candidate. It's voters know what makes a good candidate. It's been a learning experience, and now the state is a fantastic first test for all candidates.

Tradition is a good enough reason to leave N.H. where it is, but elections are supposed to be tough tests that measure a candidate's will, resolve, and abilities -- with a presidential election being the sternest and toughest. New Hampshire is now a fantastic first examination of a presidential candidate. The larger primary problem is the scurrying behind N.H. to be next or close to the front of the calendar. New Hampshire isn't make-or-break, but it's a great way for candidates to prove early on whether or not they belong.