While impassioned "Deaniacs" and party old-timers have been busy debating whether the iconoclastic Howard Dean's anticipated election to the head of the Democratic National Committee on Feb. 12 signals a new progressive era for the Democrats or is further evidence of the party's descent into oblivion, New Hampshire politicos of both parties have been watching this administrative election closely due to its possible impact on the status of New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

Up until Feb. 4, one of the leading candidates for DNC Chair, Simon Rosenberg, openly advocated a change in the primary schedule that would favor the political issues of larger, more culturally diverse states. The impact of Iowa and New Hampshire in choosing the Democratic nominee was a consistent topic at regional DNC meetings over the past month. However, Rosenberg quit the race last Friday and threw his support to Howard Dean, who has stated that he supports the current primary schedule, which traditionally begins with the Iowa caucus in mid-January, quickly followed by the New Hampshire primary.

Kathy Sullivan, Chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, noted in a statement this past week that one of the reasons the New Hampshire delegation gave its support to Dean is because "he is an unequivocal supporter of maintaining New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential primary."

With a Dean victory all but assured, can partisans of the New Hampshire primary rest easy? Not yet, cautioned Michael P. Chaney, president of the New Hampshire Political Library. One of the goals of the Library is to promote the first-in-the-nation status of the New Hampshire primary, and as such, Chaney keeps a close eye on all organized attempts to change the presidential primary schedule.

"The Republicans," explained Chaney, "have already committed their 2008 schedule to follow the 2004 schedule," but the Democrats have created a 40-member Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling that will review the current primary schedule and make recommendations for possible changes by the end of this year.

"Despite Dean's support of the New Hampshire primary," said Chaney, "the commission has to do some work and send recommendations back to the DNC, which Dean will have to consider."

The push for a review of the primary schedule is coming from several groups. First, the progressive wing of the party has not been happy with the two Democratic candidates nominated in 2000 and 2004, arguing that the demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire discourage dark horse candidates who may reflect the political ideals of more racially and economically diverse states. Secondly, Democrats from larger states, such as Michigan, California and Pennsylvania feel they have little say in the primary selection process because so many of the primary candidates drop out by mid-spring, mainly due to the prohibitive expense of continuing a campaign through to the national convention scheduled in late summer.

The problem for the Democrats, said Chaney, "is not the demographic makeup of New Hampshire, but rather the party's front-loading of primaries."

In 2004, the Democrats had a tightly packed spring primary schedule. Right after the New Hampshire primary, from Feb. 3 through March 2, candidates were faced with 19 primary and caucus contests in a wide range of states including California, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, South Carolina and Virginia. If a candidate performed below expectation in Iowa or New Hampshire, there was little time to campaign and make up lost ground with voters before the next round of primaries. The purpose of front-loading, said Chaney, is to force most candidates from the race early in the primary season, which, in theory, will guarantee more campaign money for the ultimate national presidential candidate.

In 2004, this strategy worked brilliantly, except that the candidate who survived the front-loading process, John Kerry, didn't win the national election and a good number of Democratic voters felt left out of the selection process

Progressive political analyst Marko Moulitsas reflected the frustration of many democrats when he wrote in a January 16, 2005 guest editorial for the Manchester Union Leader entitled "NH Primary Status Is Unfair": "So where is the fairness? Where is the level playing field? Why shouldn't more voters in this great nation of ours have a say in the process? What about voters in New Mexico? Alabama? Rhode Island? Or any of the other 44 states?"

Chaney challenges the argument that New Hampshire does not reflect a more urban, racially diverse America. "New Hampshire is not the hunting-hat-wearing agricultural state" depicted in the national media. Southern New Hampshire, he notes, is becoming part of the northern spread of bedroom communities from the Boston metropolitan area, and many voters from the Nashua-Manchester-Seacoast region can be defined as "urban" in terms of their political sensibilities. And despite the state's lack of racial diversity, Chaney notes that polls have indicated that "the issues important to New Hampshire voters are surprisingly similar to the rest of the country." And, he questions, "what state does reflect the country as a whole?"

The democratic debate over the 2008 presidential primary schedule leads to the question of why New Hampshire residents should care about maintaining its first-in-the-nation primary. Conventional wisdom assumes that hosting the first primary is about money. A detailed study of the economic impact of the 2000 primary in New Hampshire concluded that its total one-year impact, including $33 million in positive publicity benefits, was only $264 million, or six-tenths of 1 percent of the state's $42 billion gross state product. Direct spending by the campaigns totaled approximately $83 million. In short, said Chaney, the economic impact of the primary is about the same as NASCAR racing within the state, and "it does not play a significant role in the state economy."

A greater benefit, offers Chaney, is that through intense media coverage during the primary, the nation and world has developed a positive view of New Hampshire. And because of its highly politically engaged population, New Hampshire, he says, does a "good job in choosing presidential candidates, and this is a benefit to the nation."

The DNC commission will hold its first meeting on March 12 in Washington, D.C. Terry Shumaker, New Hampshire NEA executive director, is a member on the commission, along with former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen.

"At present it would be premature to assume what the recommendations of the commission will be," Shumaker said. He explained that the commission intends to hold regional hearings around the country, at which primary activists will be invited to express their views. The commission must then present a report to the DNC by Dec. 31.

Shumaker cautioned that the commission cannot unilaterally force a new schedule on states. Any change will have to take into consideration state law and individual secretaries of state. New Hampshire law, as a point of fact, requires its secretary of state to schedule its presidential primary seven days prior to the next earliest primary.

"The Democratic Party must not only be mindful of state laws, but also of the Republican Party as well," said Shumaker. "There is a cost to holding a primary, and it's doubtful states will be willing to accommodate two primary schedules, one for Republicans and one for Democrats."