A delightful reminder of what is so great about the small early voting states. They run due to the work of people like Edith and Carolyn.

Yet I am not compelled to participate in the same manner as last time. However, I am compelled to defend the process. This is a unique element of our political process that is worth keeping. First, let me defend a somewhat accurate criticism of the process, “It’s not fair.” Honestly, it’s not completely fair that NH gets this opportunity when other states don’t. The problem is that the fixes to make it fair don’t work. New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina are the three places where candidates have to meet, talk to, and take questions from actual voters. A national primary day, often described as a fair solution, actually means that presidential contenders no longer have to meet and address voters directly. It would make the process very similar to the general election where candidates with money buy ads and saturate the airwaves with what many consider hollow self-serving sound bites. This doesn’t address fairness; it simply means candidates no longer have to deal with real voters in a meaningful way.

Which brings us to the crux of this issue, why is this part of the process needed and important. The New Hampshire primaries are an important test of the candidates. It’s a sincerity test; can this candidate look me in the eye and honestly tell me why he/she should be leader of the free world? It’s a competency test; can the candidate explain their positions competently and clearly without talking down to the voter, or over simplifying their message? Also, can the candidate deal with the crazy protester in the back that starts wildly yelling when all the protester needed to do was raise their hand and ask their question? It’s a test of empathy and compassion; when a voter who disagrees with a candidate nervously tries to get their question out, does the candidate mow them down, or do they hear them out and address the voter’s concerns? None of these things are adequately addressed via TV. Voters need to meet the candidates in person and this is the point in the process where that’s done.

So why does New Hampshire have the first primary and not other states? First, is tradition – not tradition for tradition’s sake, but tradition because of the level and sincerity of participation. Generation after generation has gone to town halls to test the candidates, and many Granite Staters accept it as a duty and responsibility. By and large, they participate in significant numbers, and they test the candidates in a sincere and responsible manner.

Many states think they want to move up in the primary process, but their citizens are not invested in the manner that Granite Staters are. Do they really want the campaign phone calls a year and a half before the general election? Do they really want to spend their Saturday driving to see a candidate at a town hall that they may find out does not actually suit them? States want the attention that could come from a jump forward in the process, but have not shown that their citizens actually want the responsibility.

Also, there’s a logistics issue when states try to move forward in the process. The more that try to move up, the earlier the vote gets, the more crowded the calendar gets, the more the primary process starts to mimic general election politics and that unique test of the candidates is either watered down or lost.

So if you want to say I am biased, you’re right. I’m a New Hampshire voter and I want to preserve our unique tradition. However, the reason I want to preserve this tradition is not so that I can say that I have something you don’t. I want to preserve this tradition because it significantly enhances the presidential political process. It does benefit New Hampshire, but more importantly it benefits the country. This is an important first hurdle that gives candidates short on money a shot, and stops candidates short on sincerity, ideas, and motivation in their tracks. Don’t let this part of the presidential process evaporate, no one benefits from that in the end.

Check out the listing for this charming Epping NH Condo.

 Time’s Bin Laden cover with the Red X on Twitpic.

Usually don’t like Hitler comparisons, but think there’s a relevant point to be made about the fate of political mass murders.

A second big congratulations goes to the military, CIA, and all other operatives that played a role in pulling this off.  Fortunately, America has learned it’s lesson from Vietnam and gives it’s service members the respect they are due.  However, many of these operatives and Special Forces members can’t be fully recognized for their exceptional service, as secrecy is obviously vital in what they do.  So a special thank you to those we don’t really know, whose job we often don’t fully understand, who sacrifice greatly without glory or adulations.  Kudos to a job so well done.

Readers of this blog that know I was and avid McCain supporter last election may be surprised to find out that it is possible for President Obama to win my vote.  I am undecided, though I do have specific concerns about both sides of the aisle and their candidates.  My big problem with President Obama is simply spending and the size of government.  The health care bill is too invasive, too expensive, and appears to be largely ineffectual at addressing the issue of cost.  The other part is not just the spending that came with the stimulus package, but the thinking behind it that spending ones way out of economic difficulty is either wise or effective.

On the other hand, I am impressed with President Obama’s foreign policy.  While he hasn’t been perfect, he does seem to have learned from mistakes and corrected them as he’s gone along.  Don’t think one can ask much more than that out of a politician.  He’s receiving a lot of heat from both sides about the intervention in Libya.  The left doesn’t want any military commitments made.  The right seems to be split in there opinion.  Some are upset about the cost of intervention; others think more should have been faster with a stated goal of removing Gadhafi.

While there isn’t too much doubt that quicker would have been better, the basic decisions were solid.  Gadhafi stated he was about to slaughter his own people (again).  Obama worked with the international community (as he said he would during the 2008 election) to prevent that slaughter.  That group of participating countries found that seeking the removal of Gadhafi was not an appropriate goal for their group – a completely reasonable decision.  Having Secretary Gates, and Secretary Clinton on his side is a big advantage to him, and surrounding oneself with good people is part of what makes for a President good.

On the flip side of the aisle, the type of candidate that is most likely to win me over is one that is focused on the economy and being fiscally responsible.  Also, he/she would need to demonstrate that they have the capacity to handle the difficult foreign policy decisions that are bound to arise.  A candidate like Governor Romney has a very good chance of winning my vote as he is smart enough, knows the economy, and seems like someone who makes things work.  There are likely other Republican candidates that could win my vote too.  However, some Republican candidates have no shot of winning my vote.  Those are the candidates that are full of rhetoric and short of substance.  Both parties have this type of candidate.  They are often very popular with the party faithful, and gain momentum after a big win like the Republicans had last year.  While I hope that isn’t the type of candidate that Republicans nominate, we can only wait and see.  So welcome to New Hampshire – it’s game on.