A legislative father of the state’s first-in-the-nationprimary law endorsed the District of Columbia as having a caucus in betweenIowa and New Hampshire on the 2008 nominating calendar.

PortsmouthDemocratic State Rep. James Splaine said DC is not a state so it could be inharmony with the state law that New Hampshire must held be at least seven daysbefore any other state’s “similar election.’’

“Washington DC hasbeen neglected by the party leadership in both parties for decades; they aredenied seats in Congress. We can help their effort to make that happen byadopting this caucus,’’ Splaine said Friday on New Hampshire Public Radio’s“The Exchange with Laura Knoy.’’

“This is a win-win scenario.’’

St. Anselm College’sDante Scala agreed.

“It sounds likethis could be an acceptable compromise,’’ Scala said.

DC surely meetsthe diversity argument that bigwigs in the Democratic National Committee haveused to invite other states to move up and try to dilute the impact of bothlily-white New Hampshire and Iowa, home of the nation’s first caucus.

Secretary ofState Bill Gardner isn’t tipping his hand a DC caucus that selects delegates tothe 2008 nominating convention would force New Hampshire to move its contestahead of it.

Here’s the realreason why many New Hampshire supporters don’t feel threatened by DC and it’snot about status as a non-state.

DC isoverwhelmingly liberal Democratic so the Republican National Committee wouldnever embrace letting it have a preeminent role into the future.

The choice oftheir Democratic voters could be a good test of how much moderate candidatesare willing to pander in the early stages of a race but winners of thosecontests have often stumbled on the road to the White House.

By contrast, Iowaand New Hampshire show all signs of remaining up-for-grabs purple states formany elections to come.

Put simply, DC isnot a threat to New Hampshire or Iowa’s preeminence. That’s a big reason why I predict the Democratic NationalCommittee’s Rules Committee won’t pick them to go between the two states whenit meets in Washington Saturday and Sunday.

Nevada andArizona are the front-runners for the first caucus while South Carolina andAlabama appear to have the edge among those vying to have a primary right afterNew Hampshire’s 2008 event.

Party elders nowhave to worry about whether their choice gives a potential 2008 candidate toobig an advantage.

For example,Arizona’s bid is hurt by the presence of Bill Richardson, governor of NewMexico whose geography and Hispanic roots would install him as the early favor.

On the primaryfront, would awarding South Carolina be too much of a sop to ex-North CarolinaSen. and 2004 running mate John Edwards.

In the 2004 South Carolina primary weeksafter New Hampshire’s vote, Edwards romped over eventual nominee John Kerry andthe rest of the field in the state of his birth.

That would leaveNevada [-] home of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Big Labor’s massiveinfluence on party politics

(Bush over Kerry,51-48 percent, in 2004) [-] as the likely, caucus state and the beet, red stateof Alabama (Bush over Kerry, 63-37 percent in 2004) as the primary pick.

If chosen, NevadaDemocratic leaders vow to improve the state’s abysmal voter turnout in caucusespast. They estimate the cost of that caucus will be $1 million.

They also pledgeto make binding the selection of presidential candidates at the precinct level.In the past, Nevada delegates committed to one candidate on caucus night couldchange their vote either at a county or state convention when the results wereofficially ratified.

Alabama’sRepublican governor Bob Riley signed this month a state law moving its 2008primary up to early February.

Leading Democratsinsist the state can afford the $3.3 million price tag.

Republicans hold all major offices inAlabama but the Democrats still control both houses of the Legislature anddominate the politically significant, county elected jobs across the state.