Saturday, 31 January 2004 - 9:20 AM EST

McAuliffe has always seemed to me to be the foremost political scumbag. I don't know if threatening and bullying states is now a DNC strategy for the fall election, but I think his comments are in especially poor taste. New Hampshire's value is that it is a small state with no major American cities. If, as the article suggests, the first in the nation primary were to be held in places like Michigan or Pennsylvania the major cities in each state would consume both the money and the time of all major presidential candidates. By forcing presidential contenders to campaign in New Hampshire (and Iowa), we force them to engage in small-time ralleys, living room get-togethers, and what is normally called "retail politics." If the primary moves to a large, industrial state then the campaign will, from the very begginning, be dominated by huge, impersonal ralleys and more importantly (and more damaging, in my opinion) massive ad buys. I think there's value in having those that hope to be the leaders of the land come to a small state and literally campaign for every vote. New Hampshire also provides a good starting place because of how overwhelmingly informed and engaged the electorate is. Maybe this is an empty threat by McAuliffe, but if the Democrats ever plan to follow through with this the only winners will be well-financed candidates, whichever state is chosen to replace New Hampshire and the media.