The New Hampshire Primary

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Thank you very much. For those of you that are going to cover the caucuses in Iowa or the primary in New Hampshire, my one piece of advice would be to dress very warmly. I don't think it's going to warm up any time soon.

I don't know the extent to which you're familiar with the primary in New Hampshire, whether you've visited the state, or your understanding of either the local politics or how some of the national issues in national politics feed into what happens in New Hampshire.
So what I would like to do is just start with the basics. Some of this may be very mundane to you, but lay out how I view New Hampshire and what I think makes it special and unique in the political process. And then we can just go to a question and answer, back and forth from there. Because I'm happy to talk about the primary in the state in whatever light you find most interesting.

New Hampshire is a small state. We have two House members compared to over 50 in a state like California, but therein lies one of the advantages of having it as the first-in-the-nation primary. If the first primaries were California and New York, the person with the most money would win, period. I mean, you know, someone who wasn't well known, who didn't have a strong political or fundraising organization couldn't possibly work within a -- work competitively against a candidate that came into the race with the millions of dollars necessary to advertise on the markets in New York or California.

Having said that, we all know money is important in the process and, you know, we read about the quarterly fundraising. But at least in New Hampshire, someone that initially doesn't have the depth of fundraising capability or the name recognition can be much more competitive. It's a state of about 1.2 million people. It has a long tradition and a long history, not just of a primary process, but of, I would say, a very activist citizenry.

Now, my opinion is that this draws from the way our local governments, or the way our state and local government is organized. In New England, in New Hampshire in particular, there's a long history of towns governing themselves through a town meeting process. Originally, most of the decisions in the town, including the budget and other matters, were determined at a regular meeting of the town, called "Town Meeting." And those that showed up participated in the process, had an open forum, and made decisions.
From that original design, which goes back to the colonial times in the states, from those designs has still been maintained, again, especially in New Hampshire -- very strong local governments.

A large portion of the decision-making on schools and roads and law enforcement are made at the local level. And I believe very strongly that encourages people to be involved. It's pretty challenging as an individual to be able to shape and influence decisions that are being made here in Washington. It's similarly, but not quite, as challenging for them to change and influence decisions that are being made in the state capital of Concord, New Hampshire.

It's a lot easier when the decisions are being made by a local selectman, who happens to be your neighbor. And that's really the power of local government. And I think that's one of the reasons the people in New Hampshire, the voters in New Hampshire, are so active, so interested, and so eager to participate in this primary process, because historically, they have been able to influence the political process and decision-making. And as a result, there's been, just a very positive process for them.

Of course, New Hampshire was also one of the states with the first direct primary process. Back in the 1800's, delegates to the nominating conventions, whatever the party, were often made at state conventions. The political powers, you know, mostly white men would get together in a room and decide who their delegates to the convention was going to be that year. And those delegates at the national convention would then choose the party nominees.

New Hampshire was one of the first states to decide, you know, we're going to elect those delegates by popular vote, by the people coming to the polls to cast a vote. And then, in turn -- that happened just after the century -- then, in turn, they were one of the first states to go to a direct primary where it wasn't just the delegates representing the state at our Republican convention or Democrat convention, but the candidates themselves, their name, whether it's Bill Clinton or George Bush or Richard Nixon or George McGovern or Dwight Eisenhower. The candidate's name appeared on the ballot.

So at one time, it was only the delegates that were being elected. And what New Hampshire helped pave the way toward was a direct primary system where not only are there people voting, but they're voting for the candidate as an individual. So we were on the forefront of the primary process. We had a history of going first. We had a history of being right in the selection of the candidate. For a while, the slogan was, "Always First, Always the First Primary, Always Right," in that the President of the United States was always an individual that had won the New Hampshire primary beginning with the first New Hampshire primary, and in 1952 -- I think it was the first primary where we elected the candidates directly.

So it's a very strong tradition. It's just expected. It's expected that I am in New Hampshire, in person, as often as possible, meeting with people at the local level, firehouses and school districts, at hospitals, that I interact very personally with the people in New Hampshire. It's expected that the House members do it, that local politicians do it, and it's expected that the presidential candidates do it as well.

And we get into some of the historic details, but if you just go back to the year 2000. This is one of the reasons that John McCain's campaign was so strong. He understood this early. He spent a great deal of time at town hall meetings, and early on in the campaign, they were small -- they were 20 people or 30 people or 40 people. And in the weeks immediately before the primary, they were 300 people and 400 people and 500 people and 1,000 people. But, but it was the early effort that really paved the way for this success.

Finally, what's the value of that personal interaction? I think they're two-fold: One, people get a better sense of who you are as an individual: How well do you think on your feet? How well do you answer questions? Do you come across as an honest, straightforward individual that's willing to tackle what people perceive are the important issues or the difficult issues of the day. And so it helps the voters make a decision. But I also believe, and it's probably equally important, it makes the candidates better. It makes the candidates stronger to have to go through this vetting process, that it's question and answer or trail by fire, to speak to the different issues, to be able to connect to somebody who isn't necessarily the party elite; to connect to an individual, a man or a woman, old or young, at a level that they understand, I believe, makes candidates, no matter if their -- what their party, better: better candidates, better thinkers, better decision-makers and better-versed on the issues.

President Bush lost in New Hampshire. I think they were surprised by how much they lost. But in the end, I think he would say it made him a much stronger candidate, gave him a much stronger sense of his strengths or weaknesses as a candidate, gave him an opportunity to reshape his campaign, retool his campaign in his message. And in the end of it, of course, it made him a better candidate in the primary because he won the primary. But I think it made him a stronger general election candidate.

Another example we were just talking about before coming here is former-President Clinton. He was in a very difficult, tumultuous primary coming through New Hampshire. He didn't win New Hampshire. He came in second, but he beat expectations and that ultimately paved the way for his resurgence and victory.

But I believe going through this primary process made him a much more formidable general election candidate. And while then-candidate Clinton probably would have said, "I would love for there to be no primary, just put me in the general election against whoever the Republican nominee is, or against President Bush in 1992, that would be better for me. I would rather have no primary," I think he probably would have lost the general election without going through the New Hampshire primary and other primaries that forced him to hone his message, strengthen his style of campaigning, develop an ability to connect effectively with voters.

With that, let me just open it up to questions.

MS. PAPAZIAN: Could everyone just introduce themselves before the questions?

AN ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Please.

QUESTION: Roger Minton from The Singapore Straits Times. This is the Democrat primary. Can anyone vote in New Hampshire? I mean, Republicans and --

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: No. You have to be an Independent or a registered Democrat.

In New Hampshire, let's see, the registration is approximately -- let me get the numbers roughly right -- 35 or 36 percent Republican, 35 or 36 percent Democrat -- or Independent -- and 30 percent or perhaps a shade more or less Democrat. So it's a lean Republican state with a very significant block of Independent voters.

One of the reasons they had such a wide swath of Independent voters is because of the primary, because people like to be involved, and because voters that consider themselves Independent, like to be able to vote perhaps in the Democrat presidential primary or the Republican presidential primary.

Now you have to have -- be registered. You can't change, I think, within 60 days of the election. So you people say, "Well, the Republicans could all change to Independent, and then turn out and vote for who they think is the weakest candidate." In theory that could happen, in practice, it does not.

There's, I mean, nothing along those lines happen and -- this is about the presidential primary, not about me, but I was in a primary for my Senate seat where this became, at least, a topic of discussion. "Oh, the Democrats will come out and register as Independents to come out in my primary and vote for the candidate that they think would be weak." But nothing like that happened. It has to be done 60 days before and voters are smarter than that. They have more integrity than that. So but that's one of the reasons we have so many Independent voters.

Now one of the mistakes that's made though is it's wrong to view these Independent voters as being all in the middle of the political spectrum. Generally, Republicans are more conservative, Democrats are more liberal, and you have the far left and the far right, whatever that might mean, but the Independents in New Hampshire represent a very broad spectrum of voters.

Among those registered Independents are, proportionally, a lot of people that voted for Ralph Nader not just in the primary, but in the general election in 2000; a lot of voters that voted for Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, when they had strong, relatively strong candidacies in 1988 and 1992. Then you also have some, you know, traditional, middle-of-the-road voters. Again, they pride themselves on voting, on being independent-minded.

And you, for example, you would be surprised at the number of these Independents that voted for maybe both Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, even though you may think that they don't necessarily have too much in common.

QUESTION: Sorry. So they come up and they say, "I'm a registered Independent?"

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Yes. They're on the rolls either as "RI" or it's actually "U," Undeclared, or in some cases -- I think it's -- it's either "U" or "I" on the checklist.

And they go up and they say, "John Smith", and they say, "Okay." They look at me, they say, "You're a Republican," and they give me a Republican ballot. Or they might look under "Undeclared," if I were undeclared, and they would say, "Would you like a Republican ballot or a Democrat ballot?" Because there will be -- there are 60 candidates -- excuse me, there are roughly 40 Democrats and 20 Republicans on the presidential primary ballot this time around. They just had a debate yesterday of the lesser-known candidates. It's $1,000 to file to run for, to be on the presidential primary ballot in New Hampshire.

So there is quite a Republican ballot as well as quite a Democrat ballot. As you can imagine, the Democrat race will be a little bit closer than the Republican race. President Bush will get, you know, 98 percent of the vote, I would expect.

QUESTION: Rik Winkel, Financieelle dagbladet. Who is opposing President Bush in New Hampshire?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: I don't know the name of any of the Republicans that are on the primary ballot. If you go on the New Hampshire -- the Secretary of State in New Hampshire has a Web site, and you can get that easily enough. They have a page that shows all of the candidates, has little photographs when they filed their papers, and, you know, gives at least their name, their party affiliation, their home state.

QUESTION: Michael Backfisch, German Business Daily, Handelsblatt. Howard Dean has a very strong lead in New Hampshire, much stronger than in Iowa, for example. Knowing the folks back in New Hampshire, what do you think that they appreciate about Howard Dean, and why is John Kerry so weak? He was supposed to be a frontrunner of the --

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Both Howard Dean and John Kerry started with some level of local sentiment known by, Howard Dean, especially, in that Connecticut River Valley, the border between New Hampshire and Vermont. John -- well, and John Kerry may be a little bit more in the southern tier where Boston media penetrates most heavily into the area.

Howard Dean has obviously done something with that base that he began with, and John Kerry has not. I think what the greatest appeal of Dean's campaign to the presidential primary electorate has been the perception, especially early on, that he was very straight and direct in his thoughts and opinions and position on issues. In a similar way, I think that was a good proportion of John's -- the appeal of John McCain in his candidacy.

More recently, I think Governor Dean has undermined some of that credibility with some of his missteps -- we call them gaffes -- whatever you'd like to call them. He's made some pretty, you know, outrageous statements on a couple of issues, throwing out this conspiracy theory having to do with 9/11. But he's has also changed positions. He's changed -- altered his position on the social security retirement age, on trade with Cuba, wasn't very clear, initially, on whether he would leave troops in Iraq or take them out. And I think that's -- that could be his biggest problem in the next few weeks as we see more and more advertisements on TV from his opponents that might, might be targeting him.

I think that's the one thing that, that is most likely to hurt a candidate with this swath of Independent voters is the perception that you are waffling on issues, wavering back and forth.

MS. PAPAZIAN: Next.

QUESTION: Khaled Abdelkareem, Middle East News Agency. I wonder if you can give us, generally, the sentiment of the state. I'm sure you're not a pompous state, and I wonder what position the general public has on issues like the invasion of Iraq, the gay rights, religion, immigrants, generally speaking?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: I think if you, if you poll the electorate -- back up. First, the Democrat primary voters will be a much more liberal group than the national electorate. And I think that holds for the state doing a caucus, for any state having an election, the pri -- those that turn out to vote in the primary tend to be, on the Democrat side, more liberal than even the entire Democratic Party, and certainly far more liberal than the electorate as a whole.

And it's probably fair to say that Republican primary voters are more conservative than the base of the entire Republican Party and certainly more conservative than the electorate as a whole, which is why you see the candidates struggling to, in many cases, move to the left during this primary on social issues, on economic issues.

And I mean, most of them reject the President's economic policy and policy on tax relief and the economic growth package, although they are splitting hairs now about "Yeah, keep the parts for certain people in the middle class." They're trying to draw distinctions among themselves, but collectively they are to the left on economic policy. Most of the candidates support various types of nationalizing the healthcare system. And even those that supported the resolution authorizing the use of force and supported the funding for troops in Iraq, at the same time try to criticize the President's national security policy.

I think that's driven in part, or largely, by their desire to appeal to this relatively liberal segment of primary voters. But the challenge, as is often the case, will then be whoever wins the nomination, not to appear in the extreme. And I think it will be relatively easy for the President to make a case that they are in the extreme in the degree to which they have opposed his national security policy in the Middle East or Iraq; that he opposed their economic growth package that appears to have had a very significant impact in increasing business investment and beginning the process of job creation. And, you know, the idea of socialized medicine was rejected very wholeheartedly in this country eight or ten years ago; and I don't think it's something that the bulk of the electorate is going to be interested in.

And I think the views of the electorate as a whole in New Hampshire, I think, approximate fairly closely the national views. Look at what happened in the presidential election in 2000. President Bush won New Hampshire by 1 percent. It was a very close, close race in New Hampshire. Of course, we all know it was a very close race nationally for the presidency. There aren't many -- it's not an especially parochial state in the sense that it's a diverse economy. It's a fairly modern economy. We have a very high percentage of high-tech workers per capita. You know, there -- in Iowa you have probably the influence of the farm industry. Agricultural subsidies probably play a disproportionately heavy role in the economy and, therefore, into the politics. You don't have any comparable issue or sector of the economy [in New Hampshire] that distorts what people want to hear about or talk about at any rate.

QUESTION: Andrei Sitov from TASS from Russia. Are we to gather from what you've just said that people are not generally interested in international issues, international politics? And kind of to give it a little bit of a narrow focus, these days Americans find it hard to explain themselves to the outside world. They are strained relationships, even with traditional allies. Does it worry you a little?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: It concerns me. I think anyone who's elected to represent the views of their state, it would be concerning to them. But with regard to interest in international issues, I guess I'll go with the good news first in this regard.

I think New Hampshire is a state where discussion about trade, certainly national security, the effort in the Middle East, war in Iraq, rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the people there are generally quite interested in these issues. We have an international border with Canada. Because of the economy that I just described, pretty diverse, pretty high-tech, we export a lot, and yes, to Canada, but also to Europe and to Mexico and to Asia.

Before getting elected to Congress, I was the director of operations for an electronics firm. We had 30 employees and sold roughly $5 million a year in equipment. A third of our product sales were exports. And so it's not just the big companies that are exporting products. So I think that's something that really is of interest.

Now, having said that, I think in general terms – this is not news to this group -- people in the United States are not nearly as focused on international affairs as citizens in other countries. And I haven't traveled that extensively. I've certainly traveled through Europe and in the Middle East, but the level of exposure to the foreign stories and foreign affairs is just much higher in other parts of the world. And I think that's -- you go anywhere in America, with the exception of the front page of, you know, two or three daily newspapers here, that's going to be the case.

I don't think we want to go into it now. We could hypothesize as to the reason of that and the psychology, but it's just a fact. Economic issues will, in the end, I believe, dominate the general election in this country. Foreign affairs will be more important and national security will be more important than it has been in the past for the obvious reasons, beginning with September 11th, and extending to the current mission in Iraq. But economic issues will still dominate.

QUESTION: My name is Masanori Matsui of Nikkei Newspaper, Japanese newspaper. I wonder, sir, I tried to clarify the, your last answer. The Iraq issue, in some parts, foreign affairs, but it is, of course, related closely with U.S. domestic security.

So my question is, which is the biggest issues? Obviously, it's difficult, but which is the biggest issues about security in New Hampshire, which has a big -- the swing voter? So the Iraq issues and the job?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: I think the jobs. Jobs and the economy, if I had to point in one direction. People, I think, in many ways, feel that more closely. They understand this is a concern. They understand in the long run our ability to pay for strong national defense or national security is dependent on the health of our economy. My personal experience, as limited as it may be, is that economic issues always play slightly higher in the political process, in public opinion, than the national security issues.

QUESTION: Yunzhao Pan from Xinhua Agency in China. My problem is a press release, the date of the state primaries advanced by a few days from 2000. What's the reason? What's the cause to rushing?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Why did they move it up?

QUESTION: Yes.

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Just to maintain the position relative to the other primaries. We take great pride in being the first of the primaries, and it's written into the state laws in New Hampshire that New Hampshire will have the first primary by seven days. And power to set that date has been vested almost exclusively in our Secretary of State. So there's a public commitment there, there's the commitment of the elected officials, and then it's actually been manifested in legislation that's been passed saying, "We will be the first, and our Secretary of State shall do whatever he needs to do to set the date so that we will remain first." And if that means moving it -- having the, you know, primary, the 2008 primary in 2005, then we'll do that. But of course, I'm being a little facetious. But it's written into our laws that we will be first.

QUESTION: But the state makes the decision as to the date of the primary, not the national party?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: That's generally correct. The process can become a little bit more complicated. Because the national party does set the criteria -- the limitations -- regarding the selection of delegates to the convention. And of course, historically, it's given states large latitude. "Okay, the New Hampshire state Democratic party shall have, you know, choose the delegates," and then New Hampshire decides how to have their election, how to vote these delegates.

Now, the national party, what they could do and what they have done in different ways is to say, if you choose delegates by a primary and you hold that primary too early, then we will penalize you and not give you as many delegates at the convention. So that is the way the party has tried to establish some boundaries around when these primaries take place.

Now, on the Democrat side, they took it even a step further in that they used what powers the national party has to try to establish the entire schedule of primaries. And I think the conventional wisdom is that that resulted in a schedule that's very compact and that will result in a nominee being chosen quite quickly.

Now, their goal in doing this -- I'm not a Democrat, but I'll -- being as fair as I can about this, their goal in doing this was to avoid a prolonged and bitter primary, choose the nominee quickly, and then let that nominee unify the party to run against the Republican. But now -- its unintended consequences -- what they're worried about is that it will result in a very intense expenditure of money that beats up their potential nominee and then leaves the nominee sort of hanging out there in space for a long period prior to the convention and they keep getting hammered by the Bush campaign, which will have the resources to do it.

So they tried to manipulate the timing of all the primaries, and I think in doing so, have ended up with a process that they're not really happy about.

QUESTION: Could you perhaps explain how this is coordinated between the parties, because that's kind of unclear, if you look at it from the outside?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: I'm sorry, how the Democrat party coordinates this?

QUESTION: The Democrats and the Republicans, they agree on dates for primaries?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: No, they don't. Okay. It's not really coordinated between the national parties. To the extent that there's coordination, it's coordinated at the local level in the state of New Hampshire by Democrats and Republicans who agree to a legislative process to set their primary date. And I want the New Hampshire primary to be strong and good, and Democrats in New Hampshire want it to be strong and good, so they come to an agreement, Democrats and Republicans in New Hampshire, as to how to, then, handle the primary.

Just as in Iowa, it's a totally different system, this caucus process, the details of which I don't understand very well. But it's a very different system, much lower level of participation, but Republicans and Democrats in Iowa have gotten together to decide that this is the best way for them to choose their delegates to the national conventions.

So in this regard, the national parties don't coordinate with one another, and even don't have a great deal of influence as to what kind of a system Iowa or New Hampshire chooses to use for this election.

QUESTION: I am Matthias Rueb. I'm with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and I have, actually, two questions. Is the voter turnout, as well as in primaries as in general elections, higher in New Hampshire than the national level?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Yes.

QUESTION: And secondly, you mentioned that, let's say, that the electorate is quite politically educated in New Hampshire. And take that into account, I'm even more surprised that Dean surged like a star in New Hampshire. And is your prediction that he rather will come back to a normal level and will be maybe caught by even John Kerry? Because, you know, Dean is appealing to, well, face it, to the Bush-haters, and usually, you know, if the electorate is very politically educated and is used to take part or to have a high level of participation in the political process, they are not -- well, then Bush hatred is not very contagious to them, so that's why it's even more strange.

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Well, a couple of -- first, on turnout. Yes, their turnout's higher, it's quite strong. I think in 2000 there were approx-- roughly 780,000 voters on the rolls, on the electorate rolls, and well over half of them voted. So for a primary that's a pretty significant turnout. I think the turnout was roughly 400,000 -- Democrats, Republicans and Independents. So the turnout is historically very strong, and I don't think you can go to any other state and find a participation level that is that high.

There are two questions here, slightly different ones. One is about the level of interest in activism or, I don't know, you didn't use the word "sophistication," but the voters in New Hampshire. My point is that they're very active and interested and pay a lot of attention, and I think are thoughtful in their approach.

Now, but at the same time, no one should assume that they can predict what the electorate will do in the right, left or the middle, so Dean's strength took me a little bit by surprise. What will happen in the next few weeks, I don't know. I do think he'll probably -- the level of support will moderate somewhat as some of the other candidates can bring resources to bear that they couldn't until right now.

Dean has had a lot more money than other candidates. And that doesn't -- that means that other candidates have had to wait a little bit to spend their money. And then, but obviously, they will spend it just prior to the election, where it can have the greatest impact.

He'll be very difficult to overcome in New Hampshire. But at the same time, I believe -- and what little I know about national demographics -- that he will have a much tougher time in the South. Now, but even if the South is more conservative than the rest of the country, we still have to remember that this is a Democrat primary electorate, so this will be the most liberal voters in that state who are choosing the delegates or the nominees for the presidency. So it will still be pretty liberal, and I'm sure he's got a very strong base of support, and you've described them as Bush haters -- and there are a lot of people out there that don't like the President. You know, even if it's only 10 percent of the electorate or 15 percent of the electorate, that's still millions of people. And if they are energized to come out to the polls and to vote, they can have a disproportionate effect on the Democrat primary process.

Yeah.

QUESTION: A follow-up, maybe. How many delegates is New Hampshire sending to both the party conventions?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: There is a different number for Republicans and Democrats. I think the Democrats have something in the high 40s, 45 or 47.

QUESTION: Deon Lamprecht from Media 24 in South Africa. Does Dean's early surge and development reflect Al Gore's early backing of Dean -- lessen the importance of the New Hampshire primary?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Lessen the importance?

QUESTION: Or the impact thereof ?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: No. And I think the importance of the primary is what it is. It's very important. It has historically had a very big influence in the process, and I think it would be easier to argue right now that it's more influential than ever. If you are Howard Dean, are you for or against New Hampshire having the first primary? Do you think it's been -- has it been important to Howard Dean to have New Hampshire, an early primary state? You bet on it has. It's been enormously important.

Now, could he have succeeded without it? Perhaps. He seems to be doing reasonably well in other parts of the country. But only time will really tell. And even if he wasn't from a state sort of next door, I think it still would be a very good venue for him.

Actually, I think it's been a very fair venue for all of the candidates, because you can't say the people -- the people are interested, they're paying attention, your money goes a long way. It's easy, relatively easy, to put together good organizational networks. You cannot argue that you haven't been -- no one can argue, and nobody has argued, that I know, that they haven't been treated fairly and equitably and had every opportunity to be competitive in New Hampshire.

So I think it's been -- I think it's been quite good for him.

QUESTION: We keep hearing that the Republicans are actually very happy with the possible selection of Dean as the Democratic candidate. Do you agree with that? And who do you think would be the strongest, aside from Dean?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: I am a very strong adherent or believer in the wisdom of the phrase, "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." (Laughter.) In politics, I think it's substantively the right thing and politically the right thing just to plan the best campaign you can. What's my message? Who do I want -- how do I want to get this message across? Which voters do I think are important to connect with? What do I believe in? What are my priorities going to be? And then develop a campaign plan that implements this vision.

And if you spend your time wishing for or hoping for a candidate and planning a campaign based on who you think your opponent is going to be, your effort will be fraught with disappointment: disappointment that it wasn't the candidate you hoped for; disappointment that it wasn't the issues that you thought that candidate would bring up; disappointment that the demographic -- the group of voters that you thought would be turned on by that candidate are turned off by that candidate, happen not to be. You need to worry about your own election.

I genuinely believe that to be true. It's not just the right thing to say when asked that question. And there are some people -- some Republicans in Washington, with whom I have spoken -- who seem a little bit too preoccupied with who the nominee might be, and even seem a little bit too eager to campaign against Howard Dean or John Kerry. Those two are often viewed as potentially some of the weaker nominees.

But I -- and I genuinely, I don't have an expressed opinion about who would be toughest or who would be weakest except to say this: The person who will be the toughest general election candidate is almost always the person who wins the primary. Because whoever wins the primary -- the nominee, whoever it is in July, a Democrat nominee, will be a better candidate in July than they are today.

If it's John Kerry, he will be a far tougher general election candidate than he is a presidential candidate today. If it's Howard Dean, he'll be far tougher in July than he looks to any Republican or Democrat today. If it's Dick Gephardt, if it's John Edwards, they will be a different candidate, a different person in July when they get this nomination.

And if you don't believe that, if any of you were covering -- look at George Bush in early 1988 when he was being criticized as being weak and not prepared, and he ended up creaming -- beating very handily -- Mike Dukakis. Even Bill Clinton, you know, Republicans in 1991 and early 1992, were thinking Bill Clinton would be a fairly weak general election candidate, at most -- the conventional wisdom.

QUESTION: Still if I may follow up on that also. In terms of name, of name recognition, I would say in my country, General Clark would probably beat out all other Democrats.

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Higher name recognition?

QUESTION: Because -- yeah, because he was a NATO commander in Europe and --

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Spoken like a true Russian.

(Laughter.)

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: No, no, it's --

QUESTION: A general one, though.

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Among Democrats, Joe Lieberman probably has started with the highest name I.D. because he was the vice presidential nominee. And Dick Gephardt has been a national political figure, a national political name, for a very long period of time; and then I would -- then the Senators would probably come behind.

QUESTION: Okay.

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: General Clark, I'm guessing, could probably be started with name I.D., you know, not much greater or less than any of the Senators who are in the race.

QUESTION: No, I mean, in America it's different, obviously. I'm saying that in Russia, the name recognition for the General is higher, and that's why I'm interested in how you view his chances in the United States.

QUESTION: What's the track record of New Hampshire picking the eventual winner then? Is New Hampshire --

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: 100 percent.

QUESTION: I thought you said they didn't -- that Clinton didn't get it.

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: We missed once, yeah.

Well, Clinton lost to a favorite son, Paul Tsongas. So most people would say, "Well, that's actually, that's accurate." President Bush was the first misstep, so to speak. He lost the primary and -- but still became president.

MS. PAPAZIAN: Let's go with Michael.

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: We put an asterisk next to President Clinton, because it was a --

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: How about a little bit more about the preoccupation that was in the Republican Party, that's during election, officials of New Hampshire, enough senators are in this meeting, maybe you can be a little bit more frank?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Preoccupation?

QUESTION: No, the preoccupations within the Republican Party. You mentioned that there is too much preoccupation and then the problem arose --

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: No, really --

QUESTION: -- that Kerry and Dean might be considered as the weak candidates, so the question is: Who are the strong candidates? Who are the most worrisome candidates for the Republicans? And secondly, --

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Go ahead.

QUESTION: And, secondly, with the economy picking up considerably, and Iraq being much less dramatic as it was a few months ago, what, actually, should stop Bush? Is there anything you are concerned about?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Well, okay, the last question first. You've answered your own question. If everything is going great and the people love George Bush, and the economy is good, and national security is good, and there's peace and harmony, you know, what could go wrong?

Well, by definition everything is going right, so of course, in that scenario he'll do very well. But that presupposes that the economy continues to go well, and they continue to make progress, and revitalization, and the transfer of power in Iraq, and many other things. So, yes, if everything goes well for the President, I think things will go well for the President. But if they don’t go well for the President, then things won't go well for the President.

On the candidates though, I don't believe they find a particular candidate worrisome, but they're not hoping it's not this candidate or that candidate. But I think that some people assume that Howard Dean would be among the weaker candidates because he's positioned himself so far to the left on nationalizing health care, and so far to the left in opposing anything the Administration has done in dealing with the war in Iraq and other issues of national security, that he's from a relatively small state -- he doesn't have a natural political constituency.

So I think it's just that they, some people in Washington, have viewed Dean as among the weakest candidates.

QUESTION: What about Gephardt?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: If -- no, well, I want to say something, you know, useful, substantive. If Gephardt were to win the nomination -- back to my earlier point – he will be a much stronger candidate than he is today. And on paper, he's got some potential there in that he has very strong union support; he has a more -- well, he began, at least, a little bit more centrist than he is today, but he had to really move to the left in his ascendancy to a leadership position in the Democrat party.

But he's from a central state, Missouri, with some southern ties. He has, maybe, the potential to do a little bit better in the central part of the country, which would be very important for the Democrats electorally. If you were to try to find someone right now, who would be best positioned on paper as the nominee, it would be hard to argue against Gephardt. But, again, I don't think that he or any other candidate is especially worrisome to Republicans.

QUESTION: Can you -- I understand that New Hampshire is, as you said, a small state and a small population, but what about Arab- or Muslim-American registered voters in the state? Do you have any information about them?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: I hope they all registered Republican, so that they could vote for me in the primary.

QUESTION: And also, why do you think Dean is leading, you know, the polls? It's 24 percent and I think the latest is Clark comes after him with 20 percent. Why is Al Gore endorsing Dean? Why is everybody rushing toward Dean? Is it because many people think that this Administration has extreme policies to the right and they want to go to the left, so maybe they can lead to the middle? I mean, why, why is he leading?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Well, he's leading because he's been able to capture the imagination of the largest number of Democrat primary voters, which, as I indicated before, is a relatively liberal constituency where you will be likely to find most all of those -- not all -- but most all of those who opposed the President's position on national security or the war in Iraq.

So as a result, Howard Dean's message along these lines is going to find the greatest number of adherence within that constituency. That's one reason.

Second, and I think at least, well, equally important, is this sense that he's come through as being very direct, very plain spoken on issues in generally. And I think that being direct, honest and plain spoken is a characteristic that is very underappreciated by, surprisingly enough, most people that run for office.

It -- look, it goes a long way, but -- and then the reason I say it's underappreciated, it's not always easy to do, you know, nobody likes to tell someone to their face that, "I disagree with you, that I think you're wrong on this issue," because we're instinctively fearful that then they won't vote for us, but I very much believe that, especially in New Hampshire, voters are smart enough to realize they will not agree with you on every issue.

But if they walk away saying, "You know, I asked them about these three issues. I agreed with him on two points he made, I disagree with him on the other, but he was pretty straightforward with me about where he stood." That person is very likely to vote for him.

QUESTION: President Bush is safe?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: What's that?

QUESTION: President Bush is safe?

AN ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: I think in general terms he's been pretty good in those regards, although I think it took him awhile to get there, and that's one of the reasons he didn't do as well as John McCain in the New Hampshire primary, and I think that was John McCain's greatest single strength. People voted for John McCain largely -- in New Hampshire, in particular, but I think this carried nationally -- people voted for John McCain because they believed when he was asked a question, he answered just the way he believed, whether -- no matter what he thought you -- he cares what you think, but his answer, he doesn't change his answer because of what he thinks your belief is, and people respect that.

Now, Howard Dean was able, I think, to establish that position fairly early on, but I do think he has undermined it somewhat and his movement back on forth on issues -- just an example, his latest discussion about how he thinks it's more important to talk about religion now in politics. It's sort of at odds with where he was earlier. And no matter what the motivation for this change in approach, it's a shift. It's a shift.

And I think people are going to push him on it a little bit, and it's -- I don't think people will vote for you because, like Joe Lieberman, perhaps, you believe that faith is very important in shaping your values, or as, maybe as former President Bush, you don't necessarily speak publicly about your faith, but they care that you're consistent. And I think if you move back and forth between those two approaches, then they're going to be less comfortable with you as an elected official. So consistency is very important.

MS. PAPAZIAN: We're probably going to have to wind up fairly shortly, but maybe if we could have a final, one or two questions, maybe?

AN ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: We can take a couple more.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I'm not sure you could answer a question about the Arab world, but --

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Sure. Oh, no (coughing). I'm sorry -- yes.

QUESTION: And how do you -- I'm sorry -- how you think the Arab voters, how do you think the Arab voters, how big is the community after all that (inaudible), and what are, then, the political leanings?

AN ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Sure.

QUESTION: Is it more Democratic, more Republican?

AN ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: I'm sorry, yes.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. And I wonder if you can give us an idea about how it points to the democracy of, let's say, of immigrants, if it has multi-racial, and finally, about the Arab states, how far did we have a change of heart among Arabs in the states after what many perceive as President Bush's anti-Arab and anti-Muslim and pro-Israeli policies? How far did that affect the political shifting of the Arab communities? Thank you.

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: First is the demographics. The Arab-American community in New Hampshire, I suppose if anyone should know this I should, but it's probably on the order of 1 percent of the electorate. The strongest largest community is probably the Lebanese-American community and Manchester and Nashua, and over on the sea coast in Rochester.

Immigration issues cut both ways in the state. You know, you win some voters on them, or lose some voters on them for following reasons -- and I tend to be very supportive of legal immigration. I'm very pro-trade, very free-trade oriented -- Free Trade Act with Jordan, Free Trade Act of the Americas, NAFTA, Singapore Free Trade Act -- have been not just supportive of but, where I'm able to be, I've spoken as possible on the importance of these.

And New Hampshire has a very positive history of growth, both economic and population growth, through immigration. I talked about the Lebanese-American community. There's very strong Greek-Orthodox community in Manchester and Nashua and Laconia.

Where I grew up in Salem, there's a fairly strong Armenian community. I went to school with, I guess they were second-generation Armenian families. They had come to Salem right around, say, the 1920's, 1930's. And the big influx of immigration, Greek, Orthodox, Lebanese-American, Armenians were in that period, right around, I'd say, 1910, 1900 to 1930.

Then there's also a very strong Franco-American community: French-Canadian immigrants that came down to work in the mills in Manchester, the largest city. The west side of Manchester, the three wards in Manchester, still have a very strong Franco-American, French Canadian feel, flavor. You'll still find first-generation immigrants there, people who speak English as a second language, French being their first language.

More recently, there's been an influx of immigrants from all over the world. Small, but I think probably strong and connected communities from Bosnia, Serbia, a strong growing Muslim community that centers -- not centers around, but has a strong component of Pakistani-Americans. I think there are plans on going to build, I think, the first mosque, what would be effectively the first mosque in Manchester.

I think that within the, within those communities -- now, you asked about the policies -- I think you'll find mixed opinions. I don't think there's a monolithic attitude that -- one way or the other with regard to our effort in Iraq. I think you'll probably find more support than not for the war in Iraq, for removing Saddam Hussein from power, because of the belief that it will, in the long run, lead to greater national security here.

Probably a bit more mixed feelings and mixed emotions, as I have, on things like the Patriot Act. And New Hampshire has a history of independence, and probably some -- I don't know how to put it -- strong underpinnings of, or strong feelings about civil liberties.

I'm a cosponsor with Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold and Larry Craig of a bill to modify the Patriot Act. And that's -- I can poll it. I don't know how it would poll, but I've received very good feedback and response, not just from immigrant communities or the Arab-American community or Muslim community, but from other people in the states, because they think that we ought to be able to establish a balance here between protecting our national security but also being respectful and protective of civil liberties that are very important to the -- our democracy and our country.

Leanings. Republican, Democrat leanings. I think it's probably a pretty broad mix. The Arab-American community, being the, I suppose, the second Arab-American to run for state-led office in New Hampshire, I hope I did quite well within the community. And we really did make an effort to, you know, go out to those parts of the community that might be more of a tendency to be registered Democrat. I mentioned some of the seacoast community over in Dover and Rochester, which tend to lean a little bit Democrat, and, you know, have them register as an Independent so that they could vote for me in the primary, and then hopefully that support would follow into the general election.

But, if I had to guess, yeah, they're probably a -- probably right down the middle. And with my father's campaign statewide and my campaign statewide, they're probably a lean Republican group right now on issues on the whole.

QUESTION: Can I have another one? The national -- yeah, the national party seems to be concerned with what George Soros is doing and those private financiers that tried to put President Bush out of office. Do you feel any of the results of their efforts in New Hampshire, and how significant are they?

ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE: Concern about George Soros probably stems from the fact that he's writing a $15 or $20 million check. And it's going to benefit the party, generally speaking, the Democrat party, that carried on a campaign saying, "We want to get big money out of politics."

So, you know, there's -- one, there's this element of just concern that one individual is pouring so much money into a partisan process, and second, that there's this element of hypocrisy that it's going to benefit the party that insisted that their goal was to eliminate big money from politics.

How has it affected New Hampshire? You know, George Soros hasn't campaigned to try to beat me, but it has, if you look at my campaign, then I think you'll get a snapshot of where the process was heading, even before campaign finance reform went into effect or the Supreme Court's decision. And there were a lot of interest groups, non-aligned interest groups, that came in and spent millions of dollars on both sides.

And I assume this is of some interest -- this is the problem with the so-called Campaign Finance Reform bill, is that what it has done is it is pushing money away from the place where there is the greatest accountability, and the place in politics where there is the greatest accountability for money is in my campaign or in the campaign of a candidate themselves, because I have to report all -- who contributes to me, who doesn't, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And the place where there is the next level of accountability is the parties themselves, and yet we, you know, it's soft money and we could have some big contributions before, but ultimately those parties had to be responsible for and accountable for their message, who they'd hired and fired and the ethics of the people that were within these parties, et cetera.

And the place where money is least accountable is in some group or an individual that doesn't have to file with anyone. George Soros can go to a media company and write any ad he wants, and pay for it, and not even tell anyone that he's done this, and then just start running the ads all over the country.

If it's just an individual -- so we're moving money away from the candidates where there's the most accountability and most responsibility and toward these shadowy groups that are funded by individuals where there's the least amount of accountability. And I think that's a problem and I think this is something that carries lessons and where there are parallels and other -- not just developing democracies but existing democracies around the world.

MS. PAPAZIAN: Thank you.