WASHINGTON — More than two and a half years remain before Americans vote for their next president, and potential candidates are already hitting the campaign trail, shaking hands and kissing babies.
But they're not traveling to the swing states like Wisconsin, Ohio or Oregon or courting support in densely populated areas like New York, Chicago or Southern California. Instead, they're visiting Iowa and New Hampshire, locations of the nation's first presidential caucus and primary, respectively.
By the end of April, almost every member of the 2008 presidential field will have visited one of these two states to give speeches and schmooze with state party activists.
In early March, members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted 21-1 to allow one or two other states to hold caucuses before the New Hampshire primary. The DNC's motivation for shuffling the schedule is to increase cultural and geographic diversity early in the nominating process, and a final decision is expected by early fall 2006.
But Kathy Sullivan, chairwoman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, criticized the DNC proposal, as she said it will pack events towards the front of the primary process and prevent candidates from competing in all of them.
New Hampshire's primary is a "tried and tested" method of vetting presidential contenders, Sullivan said.
"Candidates have to speak to regular voters," she added.
And in the current nominating process, performance during the first few primaries can make or break a campaign. If a front-runner fails to meet expectations early on, he or she can essentially be knocked out of contention like Howard Dean after he came in third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire during the 2004 campaign.
Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., a probable 2008 candidate, told PoliticsNH.com during his March visit to New Hampshire, "I just think that early in the primary process it makes sense to have more diversity in the process."
Richardson said the New Hampshire primary would still be "the preeminent event," even if the DNC added caucuses after Iowa.
Similarly, former Gov. Mark Warner, D-Va., reportedly stated to the New Hampshire Senate Democratic Caucus that the state should always hold the first primary in the nation.
What both Richardson and Warner failed to mention to folks in New England was that, while they support the Granite State primary's hallowed status, both candidates are investigating ways they could benefit from new caucuses preceding or following the New Hampshire event.
As a westerner with a Latina mother, Richardson would like to see the Democrats add a western contest. And as the former governor of a southern state, Warner would like to see the Democrats schedule a southern contest early in the calendar.
"When they travel to the Granite State, the Democratic '08ers are going out of their way to show their fealty to New Hampshire," ABC News' Teddy Davis said in an interview with The Badger Herald. "But make no mistake: Behind the scenes, almost all of them have allies on the DNC's Rules and By Laws Committee, and they are planning to make hay out of whatever calendar the DNC ultimately decides on."
Wisconsin's own potential presidential candidate has already stated his view on the issue.
During his September visit to New Hampshire, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told a crowd of fellow Democrats, "of course the first primary should be in New Hampshire."
George Aldridge, spokesperson for Feingold's Political Action Committee, said Feingold supports moving other states with more ethnic and racial diversity up in the process, but New Hampshire, he noted, "has something special that's worth preserving in a historical context."
