To Chairman Howard Dean & Superdelegates,

As an "04" National Delegate for Sen. Kerry, Henniker Democratic Chair,
a dedicated Woman for Obama, and Co-Chair of NH Educators for Obama,
I believe that Super Delegates such as Sen. Kerry, Sen. Kennedy and Gov. Patrick
should not have to vote along with the Primary results of MA.
They have all ENDORSED Sen. Obama and should be able to vote for Sen. Obama.
I also feel that votes of FL & MI are not valid, first due to the fact that Hillary was the only name on the MI ballot...
come on...how bias is that?
Second, with the fact that Candidates were not aloud to campaign or even step foot in FL...
You need to re-think this situation out!
Do the elections again, the right way maybe.
Make it "Fair and Balanced" in everyones favor, or don't count it at all.
No way will this be a fair Victory for Hillary,
if she is allowed to keep the delegates from FL & MI
due to the way she won them.
It is up to you to do the right thing!
You are in control and need to make the right decisions for the American people.
"Don't Let Me Down"
Peace, Beatles and Barack,
Brenda MacLellan

There are a lot of problems with our current political system, for which there is no silver bullet solution. There are, however, many things that could be done to improve the situation. It would be an improvement if we got the media out of the role of running candidate debates, for instance.

There is wide agreement that it would be a huge improvement if we could eliminate, or at least minimize, the influence of big money on both the election of candidates and on their performance in office once elected. We have a number of campaign finance laws on the books right now, but there is disagreement as to their effectiveness, and court challenges to campaign finance law restrictions are a regular part of our political landscape.

Many people feel that rather than tinker with campaign finance laws we should simply begin public financing of elections. Two states, Maine and Arizona, already offer public funding as an option for candidates for legislative and certain statewide offices. They have done so since the 2000 election.

A Government Accounting Office study of the 2000 and 2002 elections in Maine and Arizona was inconclusive as to the effects of public funding of campaigns in those two states. It will be difficult and take time to measure the effects of public funding. How do we determine if the quality – whatever that means – of candidates improve, or if they make better decisions once in office? Not easy to do, but the answers are important and over time they will become evident in both Maine and Arizona.

The movement toward public financing of elections seems to be growing, led in large part by N.H.’s own John Rauh, founder and president of Americans for Campaign Reform. ACR figures that for just $6 per citizen we could have public financing of all federal elections. For more information, visit ACR’s aptly-named website, www.just6dollars.org.

The only fly in the ointment is that very rich candidates can, under Maine and Arizona rules, opt out of public financing. I would favor laws to prohibit that from happening, although it is certain such laws would be challenged on constitutional grounds. I would argue that laws designed to level the playing field between candidates for office are not restrictions of free speech.

Television is one of the mixed blessings of modern society. No one doubts its useful capacity to inform, educate and entertain, but we also know it promotes unhealthy eating, encourages alcohol consumption, depicts way too much of what most of us deem senseless violence, and coarsens society in myriad ways. But worrisome as these issues may be, they pale in comparison to the risk television poses for our democracy.

Television certainly serves to educate and inform the electorate, thereby encouraging voters to vote. It provides them with some of the information they need to make informed decisions. The problem is that the information provided by the major television networks is being filtered in ways designed not for the benefit of our country and its citizens, but for the benefit of those who own and manage the television networks.

The result is that those who set the rules as to who and what will, and will not, receive television coverage have a powerful influence on our thinking. And our thinking, of course, influences our choices when we vote. Broadcast media influences elections.

Two illustrations. Representative Paul was recently excluded from the FOX News debate here in N.H., and last night (1/15) Representative Kucinich was excluded from the MSNBC debate in Nevada. We can all agree that not everybody who files to run for president should be given a place on a national stage, but it shouldn’t be the broadcast companies who make that decision. Like them or not, both Paul and Kucinich have millions of avid followers who were disenfranchised in a significant way when their candidates were excluded from these recent debates.

The presidential campaign “race” is already narrowing due to the results of voters, both in the votes they have cast, and in their willingness to fund the campaigns of individual candidates. The broadcast media companies should let this natural selection process proceed, and should not arbitrarily exclude any candidate who has established that he or she has a sizeable following.

Moreover, the broadcast media has done a generally poor job of selecting the questions and topics presented to the candidates during debates. Many questions have been repeated almost verbatim, debate after debate, other very important issues have rarely been mentioned.

MoveOn.org just pointed out in an e-mail message that “last year, the major TV networks asked presidential candidates 2,679 questions.” (Who adds all this stuff up?) The question is, how many were about global warming? Hint: 165 were asked about illegal immigration, 3 were asked about UFOs. You know where I’m going with this, yes, there were just three questions about global warming, it ranked right there with questions about UFOs.

There has to be a better way. Let’s get the media out of the business of running presidential debates.

I was surprised a few months back when President George W. “The Decider” Bush again changed his rhetoric about what lies ahead in Iraq. Instead of saying that when the Iraqi troops stand up, we’ll stand down, or that when we win in Iraq, the troops will come home, as he has said in the past, he stated that General Petraeus will decide when and how fast our troops will withdraw from Iraq.

I found that to be quite astonishing, given as how throughout his presidency he has sought to burnish his reputation as a decisive commander-in-chief, one who makes the final – if bad -- decisions. Perhaps, at a time when the results of the surge and new military leadership were largely unknown, he was more interested in being able to deflect blame for any failure of the surge to work as expected back on Petraeus, than he was in promoting himself as a decisive decision maker.

Under the normal scheme of things, Petraeus reports to Admiral Fallon, the Central Command unified commander, who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, with a dotted line type of relationship to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen. Secretary Gates reports directly to the President.

It is in this context that I did a double-take when I heard Senator McCain recently say the same thing as Bush, that in his administration Petraeus would make the decisions about troop withdrawals from Iraq. Petraeus’s recommendations should be carefully and fully considered by our commander-in-chief, no matter who he or she might be, but the military chain of command should be honored. Fallon, Mullen and Gates should all weigh in on the issue of troop withdrawals from Iraq. There are many factors outside of Petraeus’s purview that come to bear on a decision affecting troop levels in Iraq.

What was McCain thinking? If some other candidate made the same statement, I would excuse it, but I can’t do so with McCain, the presidential candidate with the greatest military experience and expertise.

Senator Clinton, on the other hand, clearly understands the military chain of command. She says the first thing she will do as president is to direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop an Iraq withdrawal plan, the implication being she would review that plan, modify it as she felt necessary, then direct the Secretary of Defense to carry it out. That’s the right way of changing military strategy.

Clearly, some voters are rational in their thinking about which presidential candidate deserves their vote. Denise Rock, in her January 11 post, recommended a selection process we would all do well to adopt. I’ve thought a lot about the candidates, but I was not as rigorous in making my choice as she was.

I recently read a post on another blog about a couple who listed the ten factors that most concerned them, ranked the factors with numerical weights, then compared the candidates against their weighted priority list. That sounds both logical and rigorous.

Blithe Damour, in an earlier post, recommended one of the select-a-candidate websites that are designed to help voters make reasoned choices about their candidates. Such tools are imperfect, but they do make us question our decisions. What strikes me about these websites is that they often suggest choices we don’t accept, for one reason or another. I don’t have any reliable statistics, but I keep hearing of instances where Representative Kucinich comes out on top of a Democratic voter’s select-a-candidate list, but the voter opts for another candidate in spite of the computer’s advice.

In this connection, I read a January 11 New York Times story by Eric Konigsberg about former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, who recently endorsed Senator Clinton. He stated he was supporting Clinton, even though he liked Senator Obama as a person he would more like to have “in your living room every day for four years.” Then Kerrey said that after being prodded he took one of the select-a-candidate online quizzes, which suggested that the candidate who most closely matched his views is – you guessed it – Representative Kucinich.

I think the bigger problem is in the choice of questions on the select-a-candidate websites, but I believe there is more to it than that. My point is not that we should all have voted for Kucinich, and certainly not that we should let a website make our decision for us, but that we should, as Denise pointed out, question our own thinking process before casting that ballot.

The piece of information that got me on to this issue again was a poll result I read yesterday (damn the polls!) that showed that Mayor Giuliani had dropped from a 22% favorable rating to 10% in about a month’s time. Does this mean that even if we make an informed decision about who we support, if we don’t see much press on that candidate for thirty days because he or she is not campaigning in the states that are getting the media attention (Iowa and N.H. in this case), that we lose interest in the candidate? Must our decisions be continually reinforced by the media? Can select-a-candidate websites help us make better decisions? Or, in this case, were voters simply swayed by new, more complete information about the candidates?

I’ll be closely following the results of the upcoming primaries, but I’m as interested in the system we use to elect presidents as in our final choice for president. If we improve the system, we’ll have better presidents well into the future.

My concern is that for a variety of reasons, and despite a patch here and there, the primary process is becoming more not less broken. One can argue whether Iowa and N.H. should be first in the process, but it’s hard to argue against the merits of Iowa’s and N.H.’s retail politics, politics that allow relatively unknown candidates to make their case directly to concerned and involved voters. Most important, they can do so without a lot of money.

The fly in that ointment is that during this election cycle national campaigning among the well-known candidates began at the same time that retail campaigning began in Iowa and N.H. That drew attention away from Iowa and N.H., but even more important, the nationally broadcast debates and the incessant handicapping of the races on the national stage influenced the process in Iowa and N.H. The question of who is electable, based on the latest national poll, got asked much too often.

I propose three changes. First, the states that follow Iowa and N.H. in the primary process should reverse their moves to have their primaries closely follow Iowa and N.H. Most of these states will see less of the candidates than they otherwise would have, which seems to be the exact opposite of what was intended. If that happened, Iowa and N.H. could move their caucus and primary elections back to more seasonable dates.

One thought is that each state’s primary or caucus should be scheduled based on population, from smallest to largest state. The small states would establish the trends and weed out the weak candidates, the larger states, with their rich delegate counts, would be the king makers

Second, I propose there be no nationally-broadcast debates between the candidates until well into the primary season, to give low-budget, unknown candidates maximum chance to show their wares in the small, early states, before becoming overwhelmed with national attention.

Third, we must have some sort of independent organization that schedules and moderates the debates. The media must be excised from control of the debates.

The pollsters and pundits are still speculating about the various factors that influenced the discrepancy between the projected results and the actual results in the Democratic primary race. I have seen many possible causes advanced, but there is another one that has not been advanced that I think may explain at least a portion of the gap.

One of the things I first noticed when I moved to New Hampshire was that there was a strong tradition of male dominated families, i.e. the patriarchal family was very strong in the state. From my experience as Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Commission for Women, I had learned that with that type of family structure that it wasn’t unusual for the head of the household, the husband, to declare that he was going to vote for candidate X and would expect the other members of his family, a spouse and adult children living at home, to do the same. Even if the wife or other family member wanted to vote for someone else, in order to keep peace in the family, they would give lip service in support of his choice.

With that background for my premise, I would speculate that if they were asked by a pollster whom they supported, they would name candidate X, especially if the head of the family was around or they feared that the information might get back to him. However, in the privacy of the voting booth, they could actually vote for the person of their choice. Now if the heads of enough of these male dominated households said they should support Obama, their family members would tell that to the pollster and inflate his numbers. However, on election day, if their real choice was Hillary, and they voted for her in the privacy of the voting booth instead, you would get a gap of the type that occurred.

I live in New Hampshire and on primary day I carried a sign for Hillary Clinton at the poll. Throughout primary day I sensed that there was something very favorable happening for her. The number of older women voting seemed higher than usual at our polling place. A surprising number of those over 50, most of whom I didn’t know, would give me a thumbs-up sign as they exited the area and usually very inconspicuously at the waist level, rather than the usual shoulder high level. Several came up to me to thank me for being there holding a sign for Hillary. Some of the bolder women would come up and tell me that they voted for Hillary and that they had waited a long time to be able to vote for a woman for President. It was very unusual that people would tell me who they voted for, either directly or indirectly. You could sense the pride and excitement in their action. Many women found their voice in New Hampshire during the presidential primary, not just Hillary Clinton.

The more I read and think about presidential primaries, the clearer it becomes that the entire system is broken and getting worse. The issue of voters in open primary states voting not for the candidate they want to win, but to influence the election in some nefarious way has raised its ugly head again. While I don't know of this being a problem in past N.H. elections, apparently it has been a problem in Michigan in the past, and threatens to be a problem again.

On Thursday, 1/10, Markos Moulitas (Kos) posted a piece on his widely-read blog that urges Democratic voters in Michigan to vote for Governor Romney in the upcoming Republican primary. The idea behind the tactic is to keep Romney in the race, so that the Republican battle for the nomination remains wide open for a longer period of time, draining the Republican candidates of resources they would otherwise direct against the Democratic candidates.

You can find the blog at http://kos.dailykos.com/. Look down the page for a 1/10/08 entry titled, "Let's have some fun in Michigan." The blog describes three cases where this tactic has worked in the past in Michigan.

Will this work? Probably not, Kos is not that widely followed, but who knows? I do know I don't like the idea if even one voter follows Kos's plot.

It's time to close the barn door on open primaries before the horse gets out of the barn, and we're standing around shaking our heads after some election wondering, how could this have happened?

AP and other news sources are reporting that Representative Kucinich has requested a recount. Under N.H. rules, his campaign will have to pay the cost of the recount, except there's no way to calculate the indirect cost of a recount. Lots of people will invest lots for time for which they will receive no or below market rates compensation. The question is, why would he do it, the race wasn't even close for him?

Kucinich cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday's election in his recount request. Really? Will he present the evidence?

Speculation has it that the Obama campaign is behind this. I hope we soon find out if that is, or is not, the case. It will be a big black eye for Obama if it turns out he is behind this and is using Kucinich as cover. On the other hand, he shouldn't be cast as the bad guy if it wasn't his, or his campaign's, doing. We need to know the truth behind Kucinich's request.

Bev Harris, writing about recounts on http://www.opednews.com, describes some of the issues involved in N.H. recounts. Most notably, she quotes Nancy Tobi, a N.H. election integrity advocate, who says the big problem is that we have no chain of custody control on the ballots once they have been cast. That is, we don't have a verifiable system of knowing who has had access to them.

This looks to me to be a campaign game and not a real effort to seek the truth. It smells like rotten fish to me.

Now we learn that the nicest person in the whole campaign has dropped out. Governor Richardson withdrew from the race yesterday (Jan. 10). While I'll be the first to say we shouldn't elect someone as president on the basis of how nice he or she is, it does strike me as a bit odd that the three Democratic candidates at the top of my "nice" list have dropped out of contention. That's Senators Biden and Dodd, and Governor Richardson. So much for being nice.

One of the beauties of blogs is that one can spout off on anything, with or without the facts necessary to substantiate their opinions. Doing so without the facts is exactly what I did when I made N.H. out to be an oddball state with its semi-open primary.

Listening to POTUS-08 on my XM-Radio (C-SPAN radio has totally ruined my drive-time music listening), I heard someone talking about South Carolina's OPEN primary. That got me thinking about the issue again. Checking Wikipedia, I discovered that fifteen states have open primaries, where a registered voter can pick the ballot of either party at voting time. Two states are semi-closed, N.H. being one of them, and twenty-three have some form of closed primary. The difference is made up by caucuses of various types.

Having plugged that gap in my knowledge, I looked to see what I could find about South Carolina's open primary. What I found is that some there want to keep it open, and others are lobbying to change it to a closed primary, for reasons similar to those I've posted against the way we do things here in N.H. The interesting thing is that in 1980 Republican-controlled South Carolina adopted its open primary as a way for Republicans to build party membership. For more information, follow this link: http://screpublican.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-debates-closing-primary.html.

A bit more research uncovered a paper written by two professors from Dartmouth and one from UCLA, titled “Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing: Undeclared Voters in New Hampshire’s Open Primary.” It posits that undeclared voters, i.e. Independents, behave and vote pretty much like registered partisan voters, and don’t have as much influence on results as popularly imagined. Said another way, they are not a problem as far as election results are concerned.

That takes a bit of wind out of my sails on my arguments against the way we do things here in N.H. But, just as there are now those in South Carolina who want to shift back to closed primaries there, I continue to believe that the trend in N.H. of increased numbers of undeclared voters is not good for the two-party system.

It is evident to me that our entire presidential election process is under assault by a confluence of forces. Over the longer term, how we conduct our elections will be even more important that who we elect in this election cycle. Open versus closed primaries is just one issue that deserves more thought and discussion.

Thanks to Donna Richards and Jackie C. for their responses to my post about Independent (undeclared) voters. Let me make clear that my principal point is not that Independent voters should be excluded from the primary process, but rather my belief that we would be better off if more of them chose a party and worked to make it more reflective of their own views. I agree with many of the points Donna raised in her rebuttal to my post.

The question, it seems to me, is do we, or do we not, believe in the two-party system? It appears that some 40% of N.H. voters do not. That to me is not a good omen. What if the number grows, as it has been growing, to 60% or more? What would be the implications?

Our high number of Independent voters, who we allow to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries, provide just one more argument for those who claim N.H. is not a representative state, and should not retain it's first in the nation privileges.

I left my PC on last night with two of the latest Democratic poll numbers on the screen, one showing Senator Obama ahead of Senator Clinton by 9 points, the other by 13 points. It was an interesting juxaposition as I read the front page of the Concord Monitor this morning, which showed Clinton over Obama by 3 points.

Much as I dislike polls, I confess to watching them and frequently getting sucked into giving them some credence. It's good to know that while we may be influenced by polls, clearly we voters are not being controlled by them.

From my perspective, it's still a wide-open race between Clinton and Obama, and on the Republican side between the top four candidates. Now all we can do is watch, cheer, and send money if we care enough to do that. Except, of course, for those political diehards who will travel to some of the other states to continue working for their candidate of choice.

I just rode the wave back from Concord. I know now at 48 yrs. old tomorrow, that I will never to listen to the polls again. I congratulate now, all the Hillary supporters and wish that Chris Mathews never ever had a voice. If there seems to be a probblem it's not the voters, it's the media. How do you loose a state that you are ahead in the polls by 10+ percent. But not to sound lame, New Hampshire is an interesting place. It was a weird night for me, but I will go to bed thinking about Thomas Dewey. Once again, congrats to all the Hillary supporters.

It has been fun to be part of the New Hampshire Primary experience. Obama is not a god, but he is someone who captured the spirit of America at it's best. People in Iowa listened to him and voted for him. People in New Hampshire asked him questions and voted for him. Obama won the last Democratic election because of the principles of democracy. I hear the line outside of Nashua is already a mile long to see Senator Obama and I am glad others have become part of this proud New Hampshire tradition. I am heading to Concord to meet with the young and the old Obama campaign workers. Larry the next beer is on me. I hope along with Barack Obama that people continue to use their voice to fight for the change, that many people in this country deserve. It is good for this country that people continue to participate and that their voice will be heard in the halls of Congress.“Obama in 08”. It's fun to get to ride a wave.

Campaigning is over, and during the interregnum between endless campaigning and what will become incessant analysis of the results of the voting, I’d like to raise another issue, the role of undeclared voters, the so-called independents.

Conventional wisdom has it that it’s a great thing that people who register as undeclared can pick up a ballot for either party before they go into the voting booth. I look at them as nothing but uncommitted spoilers. They should be barred from voting in the primaries of either party. What’s wrong with registering for one party or the other, then working to make it better reflect your own views? What’s wrong with folks who can’t abide by the platforms of either party working for a third-party candidate?

There are a lot of problems with our two-party system, but flaws and all, it has worked well for us over the years. The American federal government has been exceptionally stable since it’s founding. And, third-party movements can and do get started here. If Ross Perot weren’t such a kook personally, he might well have created a very viable third party in 1992. (As an aside, why isn’t Representative Ron Paul running as the Libertarian that he is?)

The thing that most bothers me about undeclared voters is that they can and sometimes do, even if they don't do it often, vote for the weakest candidate from one party as a way of trying to help their favored candidate of the other party. There is no way to stop this, and perhaps as they say, all is fair in love and war, and politics. But it’s sleazy.

It’s time for those who are undeclared to come out from under the bushes and either commit to one party or the other, work for a new third-party, or stay out of the process until the general election.

Larry, We pray you have peace and rest in Heaven.
We have never met a sweeter, more gentle man.
Our prayers with you Edie.
Brenda and Bob

Larry Parrish voted by absentee ballot from his bed at Hospice House in Concord. Larry was no fuzzy idealist; he was a hard-nosed, lapsed Quaker pragmatist, and an unwavering Obama supporter. Before we moved over to Hospice House from Concord Hospital, an old middle-aged friend came to visit and talked about entrenched Washington, D.C. corruption--you can't beat it, he said, you have to join it. Experience means knowing how to play it to get at least a little something for the people, and Hillary, he said, knows the ropes.
Later, while we were in hospice, a younger friend visited and during talk about the primary, let slip that he wasn't going to vote at all--what's the point--nothing ever changes?! These attitudes keep many people away from the polls. It seems to me, the attitude of my two friends is exactly what Barack Obama's campaign speaks to and why it is so important--his campaign and message re-energizes a disillusioned, cynical electorate who believes its vote doesn't matter and won't bother to vote. This development should distress us as much as anything else amidst the distressing state of things in the U.S. over the twenty year or so. As we've been told, the President of the United States has been elected by less than haIf of the nation's voting-age adults. You might say we deserve what we get if we let this go on. And you'd think these last eight years would make it clear how much it does matter who's in the White House, who appoints Supreme Court Justices, Federal Appeals Court Justices, signs executive orders, wages pre-emptive war, rescinds habeas corpus, and so on.
Maybe not this visiting old friend, but Obama has some of the most cynical people I know totally engaged in electoral politics this primary-- reading about issues, dreaming about change, believing that nothing will happen if we believe it can't and don't bother-- I haven't seen this level of intensity in a long time.
I don't know if my young friend will bother to vote; I sure hope he will. And I sure hope everyone else will vote for someone who makes them believe in something. We can't leave running the government to people who think they run things better without our imput; we won't have a democracy very much longer, will we. Larry Parrish made voting one of his last acts of will. He died peacefully Sunday afternoon.

It's nearly fish or cut bait time in N.H., and Senator Biden has, as everybody knows, withdrawn from the race, along with Senator Dodd. I'm now forced to make a decision among the remaining Democratic candidates. There is no point to be made in casting a vote for Biden.

I believe Senators Clinton, Edwards, and Obama and Governor Richardson each have something positive to offer, and I agree with many of the arguments supporters give for each of the four. The question is, which would make the best president? I believe the answer is Senator Clinton.

There is a certain amount of angst in my decision, as it bothers me to see two people who were at the apex of the U.S. Government for eight years ascend again to that high peak for another four or eight years. It's the 22nd Amendment thing, the concept that we don't want any one individual to gather too much political power. I believe the thinking behind the 22nd Amendment applies to husband and wife teams just as much as it does for individuals, but of course the lawyers would say we're stuck with what the words say, not what I or anyone else might propose was the intention of the amendment.

Having gotten that off my chest, and having just heard President Clinton discourse for over an hour at Daniel's Restaurant in Henniker, on Senator Clinton's behalf, I believe that of all the candidates, Senator Clinton is our best choice for president. In particular, her views on the way forward in Iraq most closely match mine.

Senator Clinton is more organized and disciplined than President Clinton, and she would most likely be a better chief executive than he was. She will tend toward less polling and quicker, more decisive decisions. The former president's strength is his knowledge and comprehension of the issues facing American and the world. I doubt there is anyone who can match his mastery of the issues that our next president will face. Senator Clinton could have no better advisor.

Life is about hard choices and compromises, I've decided that electing the person best prepared to lead our country forward is more important than worrying about the Clintons amassing too much political power. I believe they both have the best interests of this country at heart, and I'm comfortable with my decision. I believe that another four or eight years of Clinton leadership will produce the kind of real change that will benefit all of us.

Eleanor repeats the attacks that are coming from the Clinton camp, that Sen. Obama is somehow weak on the issue of choice. Obama has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood based on his votes in the State Senate and U.S. Senate. These organizations are none too happy about Clinton's distortion of Obama's record. She should certainly highlight her own very positive record for women's rights, including choice, but forget the attacks. They make her look desperate, which is what she is.

Speaking of attacks, she attacked John Edwards at the last debate (and since) because he touted his role in the Patient's Bill of Rights. It passed in the Senate, but then died. That is clearly not his fault, but that does not make a difference to the Clinton campaign machine.

Our nation is more than 200 years overdue for a woman president. However, Hillary Clinton is just too conservative and/or politically calculating to get the nomination (or to get my vote in the primary). If she gets the nomination, she would, as the polls indicate, have a hard time beating any of the Republicans. This scares me.

As I have said in the past, I like Obama for many reasons. I could get very excited about his nomination. However, for the NH Primary, I will be voting for the person who clearly has the fire in his soul to make the fight for the working class and the poor and the environment and against corporate power: John Edwards.

My family and I attended his event in Keene yesterday and were once again deeply moved by his passion for economic justice. Granny D, who has endorsed him, introduced him to the crowd. It was a great moment. A Maris Poll out today shows that he is within 6 points of defeating Hillary Clinton for second place in the NH primary. A vote for Edwards is an endorsement of the idea that we need a president who will have the courage to confront corporate power. Haven't we been waiting for such a president?

OH YEH, OH YEH !
Imagine Barack as President,
It's easy, if you try...
I've imagined Barack as President,
Many, Many, Many times before...
It's not like me, to pretend,
But we'll get him,
we'll get him in the end...
Yes we will,
we'll get Obama in the end...
OH YEH, OH YEH !

We work hard for him night & day,
We need Obama, it's true,
When we work hard for him everyday,
We'll help him change the country too,

So I'm telling you my friends,
That we'll get him,
we'll get him in the end...
Yes we will,
we'll get Obama in the end...
OH YEH, OH YEH

Well this primary is the time...
That Barack's gona change your mind...
So you might as well resign yourself to him,
OH YEH

Imagine Barack as President,
it's easy, cause I know...
I've imagined Barack as President,
Many, Many, Many times before...
So I'm telling you my friends,
That we'll get him,
we'll get him in the end...
Yes we will,
we'll get Obama in the end...
OH YEH, OH YEH
OH YEH

Peace, Beatles & Barack,
Brenda MacLellan

"Two Things" First, the next time the young supporters of Obama go to a 100 Club Dinner, I will read them the rulebook. Second, Hillary may have experience, but that does not mean the Republicans appreciate her experience. She will have a harder time convincing moderate Republicans to vote with her. Some people just do not like her and her husband Bill. They are not as perfect as some people try to make them look. I was teaching 7th grade when the President embarrassed himself, and for a few months I could not even mention his name in class without a snicker. Hillary and Bill are two hard workers, but they also have cut the throats of few people over the years and not everyone is happy with them. Where was Bill when Rwanda needed him? What about his dealings with the Chinese? What about her votes on Iraq and Iran? This other thing on the blogs, about Obama being like George Bush because he is a likeable guy. That is crazy talk. They are from two different worlds with two different visions. Obama is practical person who obviously enjoys hard work. Obama's ideas in many ways encompass the Democratic party. With Obama you get an intelligent, practical, hard worker who does not carry the baggage. The Clinton's carry baggage and in Iowa and in New Hampshire their baggage missed the train.

I watched the debates last night, and at one point they had all ten candidates on stage together. And what did I see---nine men and one woman. Women comprise over 50% of our population. In over 230 years of history we have been governed by men at all levels in the federal government. If we want real change, huge, significant change, we need to elect a woman president. We need a president with the courage of a Benazir Bhutto, the toughness of Margaret Thatcher, the persistence of a Rosa Parks, the compassion and human rights leadership of an Eleanor Roosevelt, and the intellect and political insight of an Abigail Adams who told John Adams while he was writing the constitution to “Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.”

Hillary Clinton embodies change. She has been a change agent for 35 years and has helped make this amazing moment in history possible. Let’s really change America and elect Hillary Clinton President of the United States of America. I am ready for REAL change. Are you?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”—Santayana

Remember how we found George W. Bush more likeable than Al Gore? Bush was the guy we liked and wanted to have a beer with. He was the guy we elected to be President of the United States and look what a mistake that was. He was likeable, but had no real experience other than being the Governor of a weak-governor state. But we liked him. He said he would work with the other party. But we know how that turned out. He said he would bring the country together. But we know how that turned out. Likeably doesn’t matter, performance does. We need someone who has experience; someone who has a proven record of performance in making real change. We need someone who can lead the country forward from day one. We need someone who has proven she can work with members of both parties. We need someone that leaders around the world know, respect and can connect with from day one. We need Hillary Clinton’s experience, strength, intelligence, and common-sense grasp on the realities of the national and international political terrain. When you need major surgery, you go to the surgeon with the most experience; you don’t go to the intern no matter how likeable he is.

As I've previously posted, I don't like having the media moderate political debates, the media's job should be to report, not make and shape the news. But, I was very impressed and pleased with the way Charles Gibson and Scott Spradling ran last night's debates. They were the best debates of this campaign season.

I keep looking for the consistencies and inconsistencies between the candidates, and the degree to which the candidates are consistent in their own positions. I identify with Denise Rock's earlier post about wanting to take the best of several candidates, to mold various parts of each into a one perfect candidate.

I agree with those who see Senator Clinton as well-prepared to be our next president. She did an excellent job at the debate last night, and I don't see how anybody can fault her for not stating her views and positions clearly. On the other hand, Senator Obama is right on when he says, as he said last night, that words can make a difference. It is clear that he understands how his rhetoric has fired up millions of people nationwide, and that the enthusiam he is generating is good for this country. Vision, brains and leadership count for more than specific experiences when it comes to the presidency. It's a tough call between the two candidates, although I confess, I have more questions about an Obama presidency than I do a Clinton presidency. Clinton is a known commodity, for better or for worse.

As for Senator Edwards, the more I hear, the more he sounds like the same kind of uniter that Geoge W. Bush is, one that talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. I keep wondering just which of those special interests in Washington he's going to fight. Will it be teachers' unions, the Sierra Club that lobbies on behalf of the environment, the AARP which lobbies on the behalf of oldsters, or one of many other organizations that lobby on behalf of issues that we Democrats solidly support? I believe the best model for an Edward's presidency is the Carter administration, which was brought down by it's own hubris and disdain for Washington politics.

As we get down to the end, I urge everybody to question his or her own decision-making process.

I have no argument with the posts citing rude behavior at the 100 Club dinner by many Obama supporters, but I take issue with Jan McElroy's implication that there were more Clinton supporters in the audience than Obama supporters.

Admitedly, mine is a subjective observation, and I probably overstated Obama's support when I estimated it at two to one over Clinton, but I'm quite certain that Obama had more supporters at the event than did Clinton. Standing and clapping when a candidate is introduced doesn't translate into voter support. I stood and clapped for all of them, they all deserved to feel welcome.

The boys were at it again tonight in a sort of tag team effort to accuse Hillary of being incapable of bringing about change -except for Bill Richardson who made the case for experience being important.
Hillary's comments about change- she has been a change agent for 35 years - from the special education law in the 70's right up to last year fighting Bush and the Pentagon in getting health care for the National Guard. She stands on her record and it is one that proves she knows how to make change happen in Washington. I liked her pointing out that she "embodies change"- she will be the first woman president - a huge change - one that is overdue in the US.

What we saw tonight from Hillary is a good example of how she would deal with a Republican opponent in those debates in the fall. She would correct their inaccuracies and not let them make false claims. Armed with the facts, and quick on her feet with a comeback, she is the one to send up against the Republican opponent.

I particularly liked her comment tonight while Edwards and Obama were waxing poetic about their "changes" that there needed to be a "reality check". She noted that the Patient's Bill of Rights that Edwards was touting as a change he was able to achieve, had actually never made it into law, only cleared the Senate. NO real change for the American people, and I wonder if he has anything else to point to that he did make changes on in his six years in Washington. You get the impression listening to him that he thinks governing is like winning a lawsuit.

And Barack Obama's repeated references to his ethics bill highlighted the fact that he is in his first term in the Senate and has no actual experience beyond that one bill in actually making change in Washington. I was shocked when he said he was watching the football game during part of the Republican debate. He didn't really answer the question about how he would respond to their comments that if he were the Demcoratic opponent they would challenge him on his lack of experience. Did he hear that part - or was he tuned into the Redskins then? Almost every one of the Republicans said he is too inexperienced and not qualified to be President- except for Huckabee who was shrewdly quiet on the issue. "Don't tip your hand to the Democrats before they vote. If they send us Obama instead of Hillary, we're golden" is how I read his quietness. Obama has an insolvable flaw - he can only get experience with time. And he is not ready for prime time.
This election is ours to lose, Democrats - the Republian candidates just spellled out how. Hillary is the candidate that we need to send to fight for us and to win back the White House. You don't have to "like" her - we're not voting for prom queen here. You just have to agree with most Americans that she is the most well-qualified candidate and the most able to win against the Republicans. And vote for her.

I was at the 100 Club for the Democratic Party last night and heard Kucinich, Clinton, Richardson, and Obama speak. Edwards had a prior commitment at a meeting in Portsmouth. I sat in the back of the room in the general admissions section, and there was a great advantage to that. I had an excellent view of the entire audience and its reaction to the candidates. What I saw was quite different from what my friend John Kjellman or the press reported who could only see the audience in the front tables. The largest and longest sustained reception was for Hillary Clinton. Almost the entire audience of 3,000 was standing and applauding and waving signs reading “READY” –ready to lead on day one.

The college kids, who the Obama’s campaign bussed in, were seated in groups of tables along the two sides of the room. Their behavior was appalling. As mentioned by other attendees, they were rude to the other candidates, especially Bill Richardson. While he was speaking, they got up and walked into the safety lane between the TV camera platform and the VIP front tables and podium and stood there waving signs so that others in the back three-quarters of the room couldn't see well. Richardson was a gentleman and didn't comment on their disruptive behavior as he was speaking, but the majority of the audience noted it. Later during Obama’s speech, while the kids were waving signs and applauding at a speech most of us heard at the last convention or repeated endlessly on TV ads, most of the audience figuratively sat on their hands. Other candidates had distributed signs and were cheered by people throughout the room. Their supporters---young and old---showed their enthusiasm, but their supporters didn't disrupt other candidates or rudely flaunt their signs by marching into the safety lane, violating both fire regulations and the rule of civility that is expected at these events to promote Democratic unity. This showed a lack of respect and an arrogant disregard for other people and reflected badly on the candidate.

Just as I posted my remarks (in "Obama chopped liver in the fall" ) about Obama skipping the vote to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organizantion, and his pattern of voting "present" in the Illiniois legislature, the mail arrived and re-inforced my observation.

If I were undecided, and also pro-choice, these facts would affect my decison.

Clinton- has long fought efforts by far-right Republicans to limit or overturn Roe v. Wade.
Clinton- original co-sponsor of Freedom of Choice Act- guaranteeing the right to choose to every American woman
Clinton - secured FDA decision on over -the -counter sale of Plan B emergency contraception.

Obama - seven opportunities to stand up against Republican anti-choice legislation in the Illinois State Senate.
Obama - Seven times voted "present" - not "yea", or "nea".

Being there is not enough to protect choice.

I'm a State Rep. in the NH legislature - we had several "choice" bills this year. Lots of pressure from passionate groups- anti-choice groups, pro-choice groups, lots of hearings. Our job is to stand up and be counted. I stood up for choice, why didn't Obama?

Having just fielded a phone call and a visit from three obviously young and eager Obama volunteers, I wanted to add these thoughts. As a high school teacher who always urges her students to GET INVOLVED in SOMEBODY'S campaign, I think the excitement and involvement these young Obama volunteers are showing is GREAT! Just as Gene McCarthy brought a generation of us McCarthy kids into the world of political activity and commitment, Sen. Obama's candidacy is having a similar effect on this generation's teens and college students, and I hope they will remain as involved as many of my generation have. Political awareness and activity are not always easy, even though the rewards when they come are well worth it. Watching a candidate you absolutely adore go down in defeat can be devastating, especially to a twenty-something. I know: I witnessed it too many times in the 60's and 70's. And living through the past seven years has been both painful and embarassing for many of us. That said, I believe every committed Democrat, Independent, AND Republican must look to the future and carefully consider which candidate has not only the beliefs and values he or she wants our President to have but also the experience, knowledge, staying power, and judgement we all need our next President to possess. The idealism of youth is exciting; no one can argue with that. What also excites me is that this year we have several candidates- Edwards, Clinton, and Richardson- who have not only the beliefs and values but also the other qualities so important in this race.

For the past few weeks, I have accompanied distinguished visitors from the military retiree community as they have visited NH and endorsed Hillary Clinton. Lt. General Claudia Kennedy( the first three star female in the US Army) , Maj. General Paul Eaton ( whose op-ed piece in the NY Tmes criticized the war in Iraq) and former presidential candidate, General Wes Clark have each expressed their utmost confidence in Hillary's ability to lead the nation as President, They also expressed their confidence that she would do the necessary diplomatic work to avoid the use of military force. As Wes Clark repeated many times in his own 2004 presidential campaign, "War should only, only, only, be used as a last resort when all else has failed". Only one Democratic candidate is ideally suited, by temperment and experience, to meet the challenge we know will be posed in the general election. And that is- whom do you trust to keep you safe from the extremists who have sworn to bring down the US? And whom will do it while also preserving your civil liberties under the Constitution? I trust Hillary Clinton to do this - she has the strength, the stamina, and the experience to negotiate, to stand firm, but bend when necessary, and ultimately forge alliances with friends and foes. That is the underpinning of any work to create and maintain peace. Because of her work advocatng for the military and veterans on the Armed Services committee for the past 8 years, she has an intimate understanding of what it means to serve one's country in the military and the sacrifices military famlies make - and she has passed legislation that acknowledges and supports those who serve, and our veterans. She will be a great president and, in Wes Clark's opinion, also a great commander-in-chief. We have been at war for over five years - we lost over 1000 of our people just last year. Hillary can end this. And she'll do it in such a way that we do not need to go back to put out a fire we left smoldering. Oh, for the days when we could stop the genocide in Kosovo without losing one soldier, and create the Dayton Peace Accord that survives a decade later. Wes Clark, the person who led NATO and masterminded that great achievement has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Please vote with him and me for Hillary.

For political theatre, last night's 100 Club dinner was terrific. Governor Dean gave a great speech with good ideas about moving the Democratic party forward over the next year (knock on 25 doors three times), and he even simulated a primal scream.

The highlight for me was Representative Kucinich's speech. Near the end, in a paroxysm of fury, he appeared ready to levitate right off the stage. A grand performance! That doesn't mean he gets my vote, even though I like much of what he says. My disagreement with him is on Iraq, we just can't pull out precipitously, and my belief that his isolationist views are out of step with reality. The globalization genie is out of the bottle, and can't be stuffed back into it. (That doesn't mean that our trade policies don't need to be changed.)

Senator Obama gave a great speech, too, and his resonated with the Obama-friendly crowd. My guess is that Obama supporters outnumbered Clinton supporters by close to two to one. Senator Clinton did what she does best, she delivered a good, reasoned speech with nothing new and nothing to get excited about. I'm sympathetic to the reasons that both Obama and Clinton supporters have for supporting their candidates, and largely turned off by the arguments both groups of supporters give for the reasons the one they don't support would be a disaster.

Clinton's view on Iraq most closely matches mine. She is not (now) in favor of an immediate withdrawal, but would if elected develop a plan for withdrawal that would be implemented 60 days after the plan is completed. How fast a withdrawal, that she leaves to the imagination. Given that we're already drawing down from the mid-2007 peak of 160,000 troops, and indications that troop withdrawals will continue throughout 2008, her plan seems to me to be a plan for the status quo. That fits the profile of one who is plugged into the Washington establishment and is ready to go on Day One. And that's not a bad thing.

On the other hand, Obama looks to be on the cusp of a big new movement. It could fizzle quickly, just as Governor Dean fizzled in 2004, but there is excitement in the air that seems bigger than the excitement Dean generated. Obama is more of a risk than Clinton, but if he can draw millions of our youth into the process, and mobilize them in the same way Kennedy mobilized the youth of the 60's, that would be a tremendous thing and might be a risk worth taking. Without continued, ongoing support from his supporters after he was elected, Obama would be a failure. Big downside, big upside.

Senator Edwards was conspicuous by his absence last night. Anybody know why? I had already decided that with Senator Biden out, my vote is between Obama and Clinton.

The Democratic turnout in Iowa was fantastic. Obama has inspired a ton of young people to become active in the political arena and that in itself will help make America a stronger and better balanced country. I was at the Hundred Club Dinner last night and once again the young passion of Obama supporters was everywhere. I know other candidates can claim their support from the young, but the Obama campaing has really rekindled a torch. There are some who are complaing about the crowd surging to the front last night and they have their reasons. If you decide not to vote for a candidate because young people showed their enthusiasm, then the Obama campaign does not need your vote. I could list 100's of reasons why I decided not to vote for Hillary, but one of them is not because of the politics she plays. Political tricks and showmanship have been part of the Clinton playbook for decades. We will remain active over the next few days helping to get the vote out. On Monday my son and I are going up to Dixville Notch to film the historic voting at midnight. We are making a DVD for the History Channel and the NH Political Library. It should be interesting. Try to go see a candidate in the next few days and become part of the New Hampshire first in the Nation Primary.

Welcome aboard, Blythe D. I heartily agree with your observations about the behavior of the Obama crowd last night. The thought that comes to mind as I watched the well-organized and pre-planned march to the stage of the Obama crowd was "Are we obserivng the democracy in action, or demagoguery?" Made me very uncomfortable. Some Democrats seem to have stars in their eyes and are in love with "inspiration" . I prefer to see signs of Perspiration! Hillary has been in the trenches working for the American people in Education, Health care, the Environment ,and all the traditional Democratic causes, for more than 35 years. When Barack Obama was cutting his political teeth on the streets of Chicago, or was a state legislator in Illinois, as recently as 4 years ago, she was leading the country with innovative progams to reform education in the state of Arkansas, or tackling the health care issue when no one else would touch it. She was traveling the world, a la Eleanor Roosevelt, as our de facto ambassador. That world is watching and hoping we elect her. She has the record of achievement. He is not qualified to lead the country - even his speech last night was filled with feel-good platitiudes. He did not vote on Iraq because he was not in the Senate - but where was he last month for the vote to identify the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization? He skipped it - follows his pattern of voitng "present" instead of "yea or nea" in the Illinois senate. And now he claims Hillary was wrong on the vote for the UN resolution on Iraq, but he is not on the record for the Iran vote. For a guy who decries politics as usual, he seems like a master of it to me.
We need to vote with our intellect, not with our emotions. Would Obama be great to deliver the commencment speech at his alma mater, or a fascinating dinner guest? Sure. But America has already elected a guy they thought would be great to have a beer with- how's that working for us????. Let Obama earn his creds- in the Senate - he is just not ready to lead the country. We are charged with an awesome responsibility here in NH. We need to elect the person who will be the best President and also who can withstand the attacks of the Republicans over the next year of campaigning, I am convinced of HIllary's ability to be the best President - look at her record in her eight years in Senate working with both Republicans and Democrats - exemplary! Just as importantly, she has met the Republican attack machine over and over again and not just survived, but triumphed- ask the voters in conservative upstate New York who have re-elected her as their Senator. They judge her actions for them. I am afraid if we in NH give a second boost to Mr. Obama, we will be watching the Republicans make chopped liver out of him next fall.

I've just driven back from the NH Democrats Annual 100 Club Dinner with Jan McElroy. It was an interesting evening. All of the current candidates except John Edwards were there, and each gave a pretty impressive speech. Four days before our primary, it was helpful to see and hear them up close (or, at least, relatively so). However, it was one candidate's supporters and their obviously choreographed presence that actually brought me closer to Hillary's camp (I think she is electable AND she's definately up to the task of running against the Republicans and their frequent dirty political tricks) and made it clear I won't vote for Obama, and I don't want him to win NH. He's a good speaker, and I'm sure he's sincere in his candidacy, but the behavior of his supporters was inappropriate for this type of event and certainly insulting to Governor Richardson, who was in the middle of his speech when hundreds of Obama supporters, signs in hand and voices ready, surged toward the stage. I don't like the kind of "shove-it-down-your-throat" tactics Jan and I witnessed tonight, and I can't support a campaign or candidate who encourages them. Actively cheering your candidate when he or she is on stage is one thing, but rudely interrupting and, perhaps, trying to intimidate your opponents is something quite different. That behavior seemed indicative of the kind of media frenzy surrounding Obama's campaign. Earlier today I had a conversation with a much younger colleague. I was explaining to him why 40 years ago a 20-year-old college student supported an anti-War candidate who could not possibly win while today her almost 60-year-old self is carefully measuring which Democratic candidate can realistically move into the White House next January. I don't think I've become more cynical, but I certainly have become more practical AND more thoughtful about important decisions and choices. That 20-year old college girl, caught up in the glamour and media hype, might easily have joined tonight's Obama bandwagon, but this older gal will cast her vote for a candidate with more substance, more experience, and, I believe, more staying power. Hope's a wonderful thing. Certainly Bill Clinton made that clear back in the 90's. But we need more than just hope. We need a President with a clear vision and the ability to turn hope into reality.

Iowa's history and the media circus focus is on us now. We New Hampshirites are the tawdry darlings of the moment -- but come next Wed. morn the romance will be over and we'll be spurned. So let's make the most of it!
It's sweet to be a Democrat once again. Our 3 major candidates remaining have many more similarities than differences. The Republicans have a nasty situation brewing with their mismatched crew of candidates. Most of us Democrats can support any of our candidates with some enthusiasm. The Republicans can't say that.
Obama is the candidate who is most capable of beating any of the Republicans. His strong character and vibrant charisma can and will inspire - period. A rung down from Obama, Edwards has the passion and the credentials to draw Republican and Independent votes in Nov. As in Iowa, Hillary comes in third in terms of electability -- too many voters are simply turned off by her.
So let's keep the wave building for Barack!

Sen. Obama inspired people, particularly young people, to come out and caucus for him. They saw in him something different from the same old same old (and it is not just about race). His victory speech certainly reminded us of his elloquence and ability to inspire. I was impressed.

I was very happy to see Sen. Clinton come in third. Her positions on the issues, which are clearly to the right of all of the other Democratic candidates, failed to inspire. Many recognize that the last thing we need (as a party or as a country) is the same old politics. Clinton is the biggest recipient of campaign money from the defense and insurance industries, she is pro-clear power (same as Obama), she has generally been pro-"free" trade (although she has changed her tune a small bit during the campaign), she has never seen a Defense budget bill she didn't like, she voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002, which she has failed to adequately explain or apologize for, and then, this past year, she voted for the Iran resolution (unlike all the other candidates). Now, some Democrats reading this might accept or even embrace some of these positions, but taken as a whole they show that Sen. Clinton is out of step with her own party and not really offering us anything new or different. On top of all of this, polls show that she would be the easiest Democrat to defeat in November. Yikes!

Although I admire Sen. Obama and if he was the nominee I would certainly be very excited about his candidacy, I am still concerned that for all of the beautiful words, there is not enough substance. I am too unclear about what he would do and how he would do it. He needs to do a better job communicating the specifics. (He has offered a very specific health care policy, but it is the worst of the bunch.)

I remain an enthusiastic supporter of the number 2 finisher in Iowa: John Edwards. He has the fire, conviction, and commitment to challenge what some might call America's ruling elite. I do not seem him compromise away the well-being of the working class. I do not see him turning away from the poor, or dragging his feet on the war. His populist message is EXACTLY what we need today, for our party and for our nation. That is why New Hampshire's own Granny D has endorsed him. It is certainly why I will vote for him.

As I reflect on the Iowa Caucuses held yesterday I find myself feeling a little put off by the process. Not only are the rules for the Iowa democrats confusing, but they also seem to weed out ALL competition other than the main big name's in the election. True living in a place like New Hampshire or Iowa, you do get the privilege (some would call it a curse though) of reviewing all the possible candidates very in a light that most of the nation will not see or get until the general elections.

This being said, I still feel that here in New Hampshire we in the Democratic party (though this also still applies to our Republican friends across the aisle) still have the burden of almost dictating whom the nomination will go to, or at least how the rest of this primary season will play out. It is my feeling that if Obama does take New Hampshire that will be the beginning of the steam roller effect, (the same with Huckabee). Though should another candidate pull New Hampshire then the election is very likely to stay rather heated till Super Tuesday. I look forward to seeing how this plays out, as well as casting my vote and making my voice heard here in New Hampshire.

One of the most unique features of both the Iowa caucus process and the NH primary process is that they are both “open” processes. That means that they both allow people to enter the process at the last moment without pre-registering and that they allow people to switch their party affiliation on the day of the vote. For better or worse, it is different from the way most other states run their elections. Most states have “closed” elections. You have to have registered x numbers of days prior to an election, and Democrats can only vote for Democrats and Republicans, for Republicans. Independents may not vote for either. Candidates in Iowa and in NH can appeal to the Independent voters to switch and support their candidacies in the caucuses or in the primary, or bring in new voters for their events at the last moment. This distorts the results in fascinating ways as we witnessed in Iowa. We don’t get a picture of the voting pattern of the “core” party base in either of these states, and therefore, they are not a very reliable predictor for other states that are closed. But because of their front loading they do have an affect on perception that is disproportional to the small size of the population actually voting. So hang on folks, this race has just begun for both parties. It is going to be a rough and tumble ride for all who remain in the race, and we have lost a few passengers already.

There were no primal screams in Iowa last night, at least none in public, but Senators Biden and Dodd are out of the rece, and talking heads are suggesting that Governor Richardson won't be far behind.

The overall results were more or less as predicted by the pollsters. I understand that while Biden was able to portray himself as a very experienced, competent, even wise, foreign policy expert, there is something about his style that didn't come across as presidential. And that lead to the undoing of his campaign.

That said, I find it hard to accept Biden's 0.93% showing in Iowa, especially since he was polling in the 5% range. That brings me to my main point. Should Iowa Democrats be the ones who winnow down the field of Democratic presidential candidates before any other state gets to weigh in with its views?

Unlike N.H., where the preferences of voters for all the candidates are reported directly, and there is no 15% threshold to overcome, the Iowa Democratic caucus is designed to weed out the weak sisters of the campaign before the real voting starts. I think N.H. Democratic voters should be given the same chance to vote for all the Democratic candidates as N.H. Republicans have to vote for their candidates. Iowa Democrats should either change their caucus rules to match those of their Republican brethern, or should go to the end of the presidential campaign voting line.

It's down to voting, and horse trading of votes for the Dems, shouts, and perhaps a primal scream or two (or not) in Iowa. For Senator Biden, it all gets down to what Time used as a title to a story on him yesterday on it's website (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1699170,00.html), "Can Biden Defy the Iowa Odds?"

According to stories coming out of Iowa, many initiated by the Biden campaign itself, but some corroborated by journalists reporting from Iowa, Biden has been finding pockets of real support in rural Iowa. The big question is, when voting starts, will Biden supporters have the fifteen percent of the votes needed to pickup more votes from the other also-rans, or will Biden supporters be the ones giving up their votes to other candidates? There is a history of come-from-behind surges in Iowa. Tomorrow we will know. The results will obviously affect voting here in N.H. next week.

Unless you're an absentee ballot voter, you may be surprised to know there are 21 Democrats and 21 Republicans listed on N.H.'s primary ballots. (I assume that 21 each is a coincidence.) It is reasonable to assume many are not viable candidates for president, for one reason or another, and that it would be a disservice to host a "debate" for either party with all 21 candidates on stage.

That said, who should decide who gets on stage and who doesn't? Right now the question of who gets to decide is pretty clear, the large corporate media organizations that are planning to host the events this coming weekend (ABC: Dems and Reps on Saturday, FOX: Reps only, natch, on Sunday.) At this point, ABC is withholding some or all invites until after the Iowa caucus, but FOX has already said Representative Paul is persona non grata.

I strongly believe that TV news organizations, and I use the word "news" loosely, should go back to reporting news, not shaping it, and that political campaign debates, such as they are, should be managed either by the political parties themselves, or by some other non-partisan organization. FOX, ABC, CNN, and the rest of them should have their cameras there to report what happens at debates, they should not be controlling them. This issue may in the long run be even more important than who wins the next election, and I'm going to say more on this topic.

As I listen to candidates tell us what they would do as president, I ask myself, how many of those promises are realistic?

Governor Richardson comes to mind in this connection. He says he'll pay all teachers a minimum of $40k a year. Sounds laudable, although $40k a year in Berlin, NH is not the same as $40k in New York City. More to the point, teachers are primarily paid by local taxpayers, and their salaries are set by local school boards. You know, the old "local control" issue. Much as I'd like to see teachers paid higher salaries, I don't think the Feds should be creating another unfunded mandate for local school districts.

Here in New Hampshire we can't even agree on state funding of education, and Richardson is going to set teacher salaries on a Federal level? I just don't see how he can deliver on that promise. And, by the way, I've heard Senator Obama say something similar about paying teachers more money.

I'm not arguing against the objective, I favor paying teachers more, but I think the candidates should be promising things that are realistic, not pie in the sky.

And I must add, I think Richardson's plan to bring all the troops home from Iraq immediately is irresponsible and would lead to big problems in the Middle East, which is just now starting to settle down a bit.

One year down and one year closer to GW getting out of the White House. It is important to remember how the Bush administration has been a disaster for millions of people. It is important to remember in the year coming up that we need to elect a democrat that will pass health care initiatives, make efforts to improve our environment, be committed to making education a top priority and turn our foreign policy in the right direction. The world needs a break from Cheney and Bush. They have made their millions and will make millions more while they are still alive. They have robbed the bank of human kindness and should be shown the door. The bottom line for every democrat is to pick someone who whose policies are good but whose ability to get elected is better. If we can get a democrat into the White House, I feel the American people can push that President to accomplish many positive goals. There are really only two choices Edwards or Obama. Obama is not a superstar. Obama's ideas are not new. But he has proven over this campaign and in his choices in life that he picks the right avenues to travel. He has excellent skills in judgment and he we be able to work both sides of the isles. John Edwards is a good man, but he did not help win one state in the last general election and I do not want to take that chance this time. OBAMA IN O'EIGHT. Happy New Years.

I took Blithe Damour's suggestion to try Select a Candidate 2008 (you can find it by googling that phrase). I had some difficulty because I had to either skip questions (I skipped one) or select the best choice out of one or more that did not adequately represent my views. Knowing Blithe, based on her comment I'm guessing it was Kucinich who topped her list. More surprising to me, he topped my list, too, and my candidate of choice, Biden was several spots down. It made me question my own consistency, but mostly I took the difference between my first choice, and the one the computer said should be my first choice to the fact that few of the answers to the questions accurately reflected my views. This is the dilemma of finding the right candidate. None match our views exactly.

I was pleased to see that it was Democrats who topped my list, and the Republican candidates were all at the bottom, even the one I admire (with reservations), McCain. As one who believes in consistency, I found that to be comforting. To me, it's better to be wrong than to be inconsistent (say one thing, do another).

Stop sending money to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaigns, it's only making printing companies rich. Does anyone on any of those campaigns seriously think that any of us are going to change our voting intentions on the basis of the deluge of campaign brochures that have been flooding mail boxes for the past couple of weeks?

I would stop and read one good brochure from a candidate, but when campaign brochures fill my mailbox almost as fast as the snow has been filling my driveway lately, often multiple pieces from one candidate on the same day, I can't be bothered to read them. I toss them all (into the recyling bin, or course). All this overkill does is convince me to never contribute to a campaign that is doing well in the polls, as I just assume my contribution will be wasted.

Thanks to Donna Richards for a particularly insightful post on Dec. 28. She describes her journey through the primary season, her observations of the candidates, and how she made up her mind. I related to her journey...being most excited about Kucinich at first, seeing the many positives of each candidate, but finally coming around to a belief that Edwards was the best choice and would be the best president.

I am very excited about the prospect of an Edwards candidacy in the general election. More than any other candidate, he has the potential of winning big in the general election, having strong coattails that would lead to larger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and getting the most accomplished once elected.

Think of what a real populist could do for our nation!

This morning a friend forwarded me the Select a Candidate 2008 questionnaire. She and I are among the many still deciding whom to vote for on the 8th. I answered the questions and found the results quite interesting. My best match was Edwards, not a surprise at all. However, the ranking of the rest of the candidates in terms of my answers on various issues such as Iraq, Gay Marriage, Illegal Immigrants, the Line Item Veto, SS, and the Death Penalty did make me gasp a bit. My second best match is a candidate I've never even considered and whose last name I'm not sure I can even spell. After him are the two Democratic front runners who simply don't appeal to me and then the other guys I do like. Now I am asking myself what's up with me? Why do three of the candidates whose views are in sync with mine not interest me at all? I guess it comes down to my gut feelings about the candidates. Chris Dodd was near the bottom of my Democratic matches, but I could easily support him and vote for him. I am beginning to believe that for me this election is more about trust than about issues. I want an America we can feel good about again and a President I can respect but also like. If you haven't tried Select a Candidate 2008, you may want to go to the site and fill out your responses. The results may confirm the choice you have already made, help you make your choice, or raise some interesting questions for you.

Is national security still an issue for democrats? Some of the candidates have generated voter support on the reasonable assumption that their experience would enable them to make good decisions on national security matters. Certainly that is part of the support for Clinton, and it is a reason why I support Biden. But not much is being said about exactly what the next president should do about the military aspects of our foreign policy, other than a few obvious caveats such as not invading other countries without sufficient cause.

My concern here, and my one misgiving about my support for Biden, is that if at the beginning of 2007 we had followed the advice of any of the Democratic candidates we would have withdrawn tens of thousands of troops from Iraq by this time, with more on the way. Good, some say.

Disastrous, I say. No one knows for sure what would have happened had we followed the Senator Reed/Speaker Pelosi prescription for Iraq, which was supported by all the Democratic candidates and our Congressional representatives, Hodes and Shea-Porter, but I believe Iraq would have been even more violent and unstable now than it was in January 2007 had we done so. It is especially hard to imagine how Iraq could be in as good a situation today as is, had we begun withdrawing early this year. The evidence is very strong that the situation in Iraq improved in part because of the "surge," and most important, the change of leadership in the Pentagon (Secretary Gates) and in Iraq (Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus).

Invading Iraq was stupid, the majority of us are in agreement on that. But like the dropped piece of fine china, you can't go back in time and "undrop" it, you're stuck with the consequences of your slippery fingers. We now owe it to the world, ourselves, and the Iraqis in particular, to make the best of our initial bad decision.If we Democrats weren't strong enough or smart enough last January to tell the American people that we must stand up to Al-Queda in Iraq and finish the job we started there, can we be trusted to make the hard choices necessary to protect this country from those who would destroy it?

I think we are, but I am concerned about the positions on the war in Iraq that all the candidates espoused last January. Governor Richardson and Representative Kucinich still advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The other candidates have tempered their positions somewhat, but none can bring him or herself to say that Bush was right on the issue of the surge. I think that indicates a failure of leadership.

I do give Biden credit for being willing to speak out early about Iraq, and to be the only one to offer the framework of a plan for the way forward in Iraq. Some aspects of the Biden plan are already being implemented in Iraq, even though his plan is not official U.S. policy, but even he wasn't willing to commit more troops to help make his plan a success.

As first lady, Hillary Clinton had an unique opportunity to observe the give and take of Washington politics which only 43 men (presidents) and 42 women (first ladies) have had. Few first ladies have been better suited to use this opportunity than Hillary Clinton, except for, perhaps, Eleanor Roosevelt. She was able to meet and converse with world leaders and high level government officials from all over the world, learning how they thought and related to America’s role in the world. Mrs. Clinton traveled to over 82 countries from South Africa, to China and India. She met both with government leaders in capitals and ordinary people in small rural villages. In Bangladesh she learned how the micro-loans programs started by Mohammad Yunus stimulated economic development and improved the lives of women and their families. She helped to spread word about micro-lending programs, even before Mr. Yunus became a Nobel laureate. In her travels, she was a strong advocate for human rights and, especially, women’s rights, and she was very well received.

Hillary Clinton’s White House experience gave her tremendous insight into how the processes of governing at that high level operate. Her biographer Sally Bedell Smith describes her as a confidant of the president. She was the person he always tested his ideas on and sought her advice. From an office in the West Wing (Hillary was the only First Lady to ever have an office in the presidential wing), Hillary Clinton played a strong behind-the-scenes role in policy and political decisions. By all measures, this was a very productive and effective presidency which dealt successfully with many of the biggest issues we are again facing—a huge and growing national debt that has a wide impact throughout the world’s economy and weakens America, a destabilized middle east and troops in harms way, a need for health care reform, rising poverty and a declining middle-class, and more.

Experience counts and Hillary has had substantial experience through close involvement with the presidency and the experience of a second term Senator. She has the broad perspective to see what needs to be changed and the experience to do it. She doesn’t just talk about the future, she has the experience to make it better.

I find people's reasons for supporting and opposing particular candidates almost as interesting as the candidates themselves, and sometimes another person's post does make me think about a candidate differently.

In that vein, I found Jan McElroy's post on 12/22 particularly interesting. She cited a NY Times news report that Senator Obama voted "present," vice "aye" or "nay," 130 times when he was in the Illinois legislature. That sounded bad to me, even though it was only 130 votes of a total of 4,000 cast. So I read the article, wondering if this guy really isn't the leader he claims to be. I didn't reach a clear conclusion from the article, but finished with the thought that his (or his campaign's) explanation of his non-votes did in fact demonstrate leadership, as he was clearly trying to make a statement, or accomplish some objective of his party's leadership, in many of the votes. By voting differently, you sometimes get a chance to explain yourself, which provides the opportunity to make a point that would be lost in a simple aye or nay vote. If Obama's leadership is an issue to you, check the citation in Jan's post and read the article at www.nytimes.com.

I was also interested in Carol Weyler's laudatory post about Guiliani. Even though I'm not going to vote for a Republican in the general election, I have liked listening to Guiliani, and he makes a lot of sense to me on some issues. He may not have been a perfect mayor, but it seems clear he has some good and important accomplishments to his credit. But unlike Carol, I'm really bothered by his personal ethics. Anyone intending to divorce his or her spouse who chooses to use a news conference as a way to communicate the message doesn't even understand good manners. And he wants to host a state dinner! And to move your mistress into the governor's mansion while you're still married, give me a break. It's one thing if our sports and entertainment idols don't always live up to our highest standards, but I think a president should set the highest standard for ethical behavior. Guiliani doesn't make the cut in my book.

On that score, I thought Bill Clinton should have resigned after the Lewinski affair broke, as I thought he sullied the Office of The President. I wrote letters urging his resignation. Think what would have happened had Clinton resigned.
1) Al Gore would have become president.
2) Al Gore would almost certainly have defeated "W" in the 2000 election.
3) NO WAR IN IRAQ!

Everything is interconnected. The butterfly in India is initiating the next hurricane in Bermuda! Our upcoming votes will change the world, the only question is, in what ways?

As we get to primary crunch time, two things stand out. First, we the voters can't agree among ourselves about what characteristics are most important for a president (freshness vs experience, for example). And for any particular characteristic, we have trouble agreeing on how to assess assess each candidate's "worth" (experience as first lady vs governor vs long-standing senator, for example).

It seems to me that that at the end of the day what we're really interested in is the decisions a president will make, and his or her leadership capabilities. Jimmy Carter, probably our best ex-president, entered the White House with lofty ideals, a fresh, outsider's view of how Washington should be run, and a certain arrogance about how he was going to change Washington. He failed miserably as a president because he couldn't get the rest of Washington to follow his lead. I believe that an Edwards presidency -- he's going to Washington to FIGHT for you -- would suffer the same consequence.

As for experience, I submit President Bush (W) assembled as experienced and managerial competent White House as we've ever had. Moreover, Bush accomplished much of what he set out to accomplish: more power for the presidency, less for Congress, Saddam overthrown, lower taxes for America's financially elite, and the Supreme Court shifted significantly to the right. That says to me that getting the most experienced candidate (think entire team in the case of Senator Clinton) isn't particularly important if that candidate won't or can't lead us to where we need to go. Which is to say, demonstrated leadership ability and a philosophy of governance that is in synch with our own counts most.

For me, Senator Biden fills the bill, but I think Obama has some chance of mobilizing American's behind him in the same way Kennedy did 45+ years ago. Kennedy made some serious mistakes, and is remembered more for the way he motivated us as Americans than for specific actions, save perhaps for the Cuban missile crisis, where a lesser leader might have gotten us into a nuclear war. I look as Senator Clinton as a safe choice, I wouldn't expect greatness, but I wouldn't expect failure either. I think Biden has far more imagination and passion than she has, and I have a much better feel for where I think Biden would take us than I do for Obama.

Just a few thoughts.

At every Christmas Party I've hosted or attended this month (and they have been numerous), several of us keep having the same conversation and confronting the SAME question: Whom are we actually going to vote for next month? I know that many of the Henniker bloggers settled that question months ago, but I am part of that large NH group that's still not 100% sure. And judging from these conversations, many of us are not particularly happy with this year's primary process. The amount of money candidates have had to spend TO KEEP UP this year is absolutely outrageous! And all of the events I have attended for the two frontrunners have felt more like the large, impersonal rallies I'd expect in my home state of New York but not the much more personal living room, back porch, or, perhaps, back yard events I have been attending or hosting here in NH since 1972. That type of event, and the Edwards and Dodd campaigns seem to understand this, has been both the backbone and the spirit of the NH Primary season since its inception. It is that type of setting that helps us REALLY get a feeling for the candidates. Unfortunately, this year's front-loaded primary schedule, coupled with the seeming "celebrity" status of the two frontrunners, has made these more intimate settings less feasible. And speaking of the frontrunners, from these holiday gathering conversations, I am finding that I am far from alone in having been turned off by Oprah's intervention on behalf of Obama and in still having serious concerns about Hillary's ability to #1 get elected and #2 bring this country back together. My problem, and one apparently shared by many of my democratic and democratic-leaning friends, is whom to pick from the other VERY appealing candidates. I am leaning toward Edwards and will probably choose him on the 8th, but I could just as easily check off Dodd, Biden, or Richardson. Each is an intelligent candidate with good ideas and sound experience. His lack of experience is part of my problem with Obama, AND none of these four elicits the type of animosity Hillary brings out in so many Americans. We democrats have some excellent choices among these four, and my hope is that enough of us can figure out which one of them is the dark horse that can make Obama and Clinton the also rans and take over the White House next year.

I think Tami Littleton's choice of McCain over the other Republican candidates is spot on, and yes Tami, I encourage you to put up a McCain sign. Just tamp down the snow, or perhaps shovel a small pile of packed snow, and that should be good enough.

McCain is the candidate I'd like to vote for in the general election, but won't, for reasons I'll make clear in a moment. I think he has demonstrated more political and personal courage than any of the other candidates. I think he deserves the presidency. But then I look at some of his positions, and I just can't go there. No matter how much he deserves the presidency, if he is not right for the country he shouldn't be elected.

My big break with him (as a former Republican turned Democrat) came in 2004, when he gave a keynote speech at the Republican National Convention lavishing praise on "W" and his war policies. The war was stupid, and even though I agree with McCain now on our current Iraq policy (the surge coupled with new military leadership in Iraq and the Pentagon was the correct) , I can't get over his early strong support for Bush and his policies.

I would also worry about a McCain presidency on other issues, as I think the religious right has him in their pockets. (No women's right to choose, no stem cell research, etc.)

And, he says, he going to lower taxes! With a deficit like we have now, it's not going to be possible to lower taxes any lower. (The old Republican trick, lower taxes, spend like a drunken sailor, turn over a huge deficit to Democrats, then accuse Democrats of "Tax and Spend" when they raise taxes to payoff the Republican deficit.)

Much as I don't like the fact that poll results affect elections -- although by just how much is unknown -- I have been following the results from Iowa. If you think about the so-called top three canidates (Clinton, Obama and Edwards), they are each strikingly different in terms of backgrounds, experience, and personality.

Then look at the next three, Biden (who is now #4 in latest Iowa poll), Richardson, and Dodd. To me, they seem to be somewhat similar candidates, in terms of background and personality. Sure one's been a governor, but in my opinion all three are serious, competent candidates for president. As I've posted before, my choice is Biden, but I'd be reasonably comfortable with a Dodd or Richardson presidency.

That gets to my point, which is, the three of them are appealing to the same demographic, which divided three ways gets down to pretty weak support for each. Combined, however, the three are at 18% in Iowa, which ties them with Edwards, and puts them only a couple of stone's throw away from the purported leaders, Obama at 25% and Clinton at 29%.

Should they draw straws to see which one stays in the running, with two dropping out and endorsing the one remaining?. Or should Richardson and Dodd just pull out, and support Biden, given that he is now the leader of the three in the polls? That could make for a much more interesting and meaningful 4-way race.

Obama voted along with other senators to fund & support the troops...
who were and are "still trapped" in Iraq...
Let's not go there and confuse the voters.

Still trapped in Iraq due to the original votes of Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, etc.
to give Bush a blank check, for his "intuitive" Iraq war.
All senators I listed above have apologized and said that they were sorry,
all except Hillary.

Why can't and why didn't she,
admit she made a mistake like everyone else,
and say I'm sorry?

This will be short . I still need to go shopping. Happy Holidays to everyone

It is great to see Senator McCain back in the race and getting ready to overwhelm Mitt' I can Change" Romney. Mitt Romney's views on issues change like a New Hampshire winter. People in New Hampshire do not respond well to fakes. McCain is back on the Straight Talk Express and could pull off a big upset. "Go McCain Go". The fact that Romeny changes his views all the time is only half his problem . Senator Judd Gregg may win his elections, but he has backed a losing horse in every Republican Primary since the days he could walk. The change Romney needs is to get as far away from Senator Gregg if he wants to win.One last thing Obama is going to beat Hillary. Happy Holidays

In the December 22 Concord Monitor , it stated that Barack Obama seeks to find common ground, but from his record it looks more like fence straddling to me. He skipped the tough vote on Iran and then distorted what the bill authorized and criticized those who voted for it (including his mentor Dick Durbin, IL-D.) He never had to vote on the Iraq war as a sworn in U.S. Senator pledged to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. A Senator's oath places quite a different set of responsibilities on its bearers from those borne by a private citizen, and yet he acts as if they were equivalent. They certainly are not, and acting as if they are, does him no credit in my view, even though I also was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.

Obama has a history of dodging commitments on tough votes. In a New York Times article on December 20, Raymond Hernandez and Christopher Drew report that Obama's often voted just "present" in the Illinois Senate. They write:

"In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate. In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator."

He, of course, can give all sorts of reasons why he would just vote "present" and not "for" or "against", and this doesn't include the votes taken when he wasn't even "present" during his years in the state senate. This isn't seeking common ground. Obama is trying to have it both ways by avoiding recorded votes on tough issues for which he would be answerable. Where is the strong leadership in this?

I have been leaning toward voting for John Edwards for some time now. After further reviewing the various positions of the candidates, listening to the debates and considering the various issues at hand, I have decided that I will definitely vote for Edwards. There are many reasons for my choice. For one thing, he recognizes that the root of so much that is wrong in our society is the growing class divide. Many years ago, former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis declared, "We can have democracy in this country, or great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." He understood what many did not: Significant class inequality is not good for our democracy, let alone for the material well-being of our citizens. Edwards has demonstrated the courage to tackle this most important, overarching issue.

There are many other reasons to support John Edwards, but I will save most of these for other posts. I will, however, point out one additional factor that people should consider. In head-to-head match-ups with prospective Republican nominees, Edwards shows the greatest strength of any Democratic candidate according to virtually every poll on this matter taken in the past couple of months. Hillary Clinton, according to these polls, would be the weakest candidate. She might pull out a victory, but the next Democratic president could really use a clear mandate in order to achieve real change. We also need a Democratic Congress, hopefully with some additional seats after '08. This will be more likely if the top of the ticket is strong. Edwards is the one!

I like many of the things that Senator Edwards says, even though he is not my first, or second, or third choice for president. But I cringe every time I hear him say that Washington is corrupt, as though he's going to be the Lone Ranger or Marshall Matt Dillon riding in to bring the bad guys to justice.

There are a lot of problems in Washington, but I don't believe corruption is anywhere near the top of the list. My experience has been that the great majority of elected politicians and civil service workers in Washington are smart, competent men and women trying their very best to serve the public efficiently and honestly. Yes, there are a few crooks among the bunch, but we have our share of them right here in New Hampshire. I think it demeans all those in government service when Edwards repeatedly refers to Washington as corrupt, and I wish he would change his campaign stump speech to say something good about the good people working in Washington.

If Edwards wants to talk about the undue influence that money plays on the decisions that are made in Washington, I'm all for it. Let's fix that system, but let's not label all who work in Washington as corrupt.

Today's (12/19) Concord Monitor has a front-page story by Ethan Wilensky-Lanford about Senator Biden, an outgrowth of his meeting with Monitor editors and reporters earlier in the week. What jumps out about Biden, again, is his incredible knowledge and understanding of world affairs, and in particular, his ideas of what we as a country should be doing to enhance our own standing and interests in the world.

Biden offers simple, no nonsense solutions to complex problems. He's the only candidate who's offered a specific plan for Iraq, which the Senate finally approved overwhelmingly a couple of months ago. The situation in Iraq is developing along the lines that Biden has proposed.

Biden's plan for health care is not for what is commonly called universal coverage, which is something not likely to pass Congress in the next few years, regardless of what other candidates promise. Biden would provide universal coverage for all children and for catastrophic medical events, which he says can be done for only $50 billion and which is supported by most Americans. If most Americans support it, it can get through Congress. That makes it a campaign promise that can be kept.

Today's (12/18) editorial in the Monitor was fairly glowing about Senator Biden's knowledge and experience across a range of issues, not just foreign policy, but it closed with a comment which discounted his candidacy as a long shot. I don't argue with that assessment, but it bothers me greatly that where a candidate stands in the polls seems more important than the candidates qualifications.

Polls can be interesting, but I think we would end up with better results if there were no polls, and we entered voting booths on election day thinking that our favorite candidate had as good a chance of winning as any other candidate. The result would be reflective of our true collective wisdom.

As for Biden, he has been getting more attention lately. Not only do the other candidates often say, "Joe's right," voters who listen to him usually say so, too. It seems to me that he has the best combination of values, courage, experience and leadership of all the candidates. I'm expecting Iowa caucus-goers will come to the same conclusion on Janurary 3rd, and that the Biden campaign will have new momentum here in N.H. on primary day.

I quibble with the use of the term "debate," as it wasn't much of a debate, but I liked the Iowa Public Television Democratic Debate better than any of the other media-driven debates I've watched this campaign season. It was clear the moderator, Carolyn Washburn, the editor of the DesMoines Register, was interested in getting the candidates to display their wares, as it were, and was not trying to create controversy for the sake of controversy. I thought she asked some good questions about some of the candidates' pasts.

Let's get the TV media folks out of their self-assumed role of campaign debate moderators, and let's put trained print news gatherers and producers in charge. I'm sure we would learn more about the candidates that way.

I might add that what I'd most like to see is a one hour interview with each candidate, with a good interviewer such as C-SPAN's Brian Lamb.

Recently the major news papers released their endorsements of political candidates. I applaud the Des Moines Register for endorsing Senator Clinton. They cited her relative experience in comparison with other candidates, combined with her candor and moderate stance on most issues pushed her over the top. On the other hand, the Boston Globe chose to endorse Senator Obama, a man who has a history of voting only "present" on important issues such as involvement in Iran and abortion, just to name a few. This is a pattern of behavior that goes back all the way to his time in the state senate of Illinois. His lack of a firm stance on these issues as well as his complete disregard for the youth of New Hampshire worries me. His appearances have been localized to very large venues. He only has a single year in Washington to run upon. That will leave him at a great disadvantage, it has been proven in the past when the President comes from outside the beltway. When President Carter was elected he was a beltway outsider, and as such was unable to accomplish much of what was vitally important. The question of Obama vs. Clinton boils down to that simple question, do we want to repeat that mistake or not? I for one do not want to see that experience repeated and as such will be casing my vote to support Senator Clinton in this election.

I have decided to cast my vote for Obama. He has the best combination of reasonably progressive positions on the the issues, capability of working with a wide range of people, and ability to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. I believe that he represents our best opportunity to bring change to Washington and our country.

Hillary is not Bill. It is that simple. We can not return to the days of Bill Clinton, he is not running. At this point in the Clinton campaign, I would not want to be around Bill. His famous temper must be rising, as Hillary's poll numbers keep on sinking. Iowa and New Hampshire are important, but it's still going to be a long race. Obama not only has money, but after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire, his name will be everywhere.

I am glad the Boston Globe has endorsed Senator Obama. I hope it gives him another lift in the polls. I realize that Senator Clinton would make a better President then any other Republican running. However, Senator Obama will make a better President than Senator Clinotn. As the Boston Globe explains, the Obama campaign is not about government restraints or it's limits. It is all about possibilities. Obama's campaign looks forward in the direction this country needs to go. There are only a few weeks to go in shaping the future of this great country. The time is now! Help Senator Obama bring hope and change to America.

Lately I have been thinking a lot about the importance of my vote this election. I know as a an American it is vital to take part in the political process, but I get the distinct impression from many of the major candidates that the vote of the youth is rather unimportant to them. I say this for a number of reasons. I am a student here in Henniker at the wonderful New England College. We have had a history of pulling in major political candidates regularly for years. In fact in the 2004 primary season, every candidate, major or otherwise made a stop at our school and spoke to the students. This primary season has been vastly different. Of the major candidates, we only saw former Mayor Rudy Guliani, and Senator John Edwards. We were also visited by Joe Biden, Tom Tancredo, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucenich, Bill Richardson, and a host of surrogates for the major candidates. If it were not enough that the candidates avoided the school as a stop on their campaigns, they also avoided one of the largest events that pulls large numbers of college students from across the nation was completely avoided by major candidates. One candidates representative (one for the John McCain campaign) went as far as to say that an event like this was "not a high enough priority". Even Rudy Guliani, who was staying in the same hotel as the Convention itself at the same time as the convention, did not so much as walk through to shake hands. This issue is not just a republican problem either, the democrats have had some major problems that I have witnessed first hand. After Senator John Edwards spoke at the commencement ceremonies at New England College last spring, his speech was little more than a lengthy campaigning speech, after which he immediately left the area. He was not even present for the presentation of the gift that the Senior Class was making to Cancer Research on behalf of him and his wife. Many found it to be very rude and off putting.
It amazes me that the candidates go on and on about youth involvement, yet none of them are make any more reaches than lip service. They attend YouTube.com debates, they make claims on television about supporting the youth, yet they spend the least possible amount of time actually talking to the youth as well as talking about issues that affect the younger portion of America the most.
It is very rare to hear a candidate talk about afford ability of higher education. The costs have risen to exorbitant levels, student loans are becoming hard to obtain, and the interest rates are flying through the roof. This is not to mention the fact that higher education is becoming more and more vital to being able to obtain a job that pays better than minimum wage, which is another issue rarely spoken about on the campaign trail. I would be glad to hear/see/read more about these issue, as well as see more than lip service paid toward the youth of America. All this combines to the growing disenfrachseing of American youth, as we spend more and more time feeling left out of politics, the nation will be run more and more to favor the older Americans.

Have you all seen in the news yesterday the comments from Sen. Clinton claiming Sen. Obama is too liberal? As if we needed any more evidence that Hillary Clinton is rejecting the progressive base of her party and is firmly established in the corporate wing. Obama's response, though, was very disheartening His spokespeople say that the views in question--pro gun control, pro single-payer health care, and anti-death penalty--come from a candidate survey a decade ago. They say that the candidate actually did not sign off on the survey and, in any case, his views have changed. This is truly pathetic and disgusting. People voted for Reagan twice because he had the courage to take a stand. Most people disagreed with Reagan on a whole host of issues, but they voted for him because he did not seem weak and indecisive. He exhibited certain leadership qualities in that respect. So many Democrats have learned nothing from our history and think equivocation and caution will win them votes. It is up to the Democratic primary voters to decide whether they wish to support this tactic. I hope they reject it.

Taking issue with Bob's accusation that HIllary voted for two acts of war. She did not. She was the first to take to the floor of theSenate- back in February - to warn Bush that he would need to go to the Congress before any action against Iran. The recent bill to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization - the one Obama missed voting on- a pattern of his in the Illinois senate - was an acknowledgment that they were the ones who had supplied the advanced technolgy and equipment to the Iraqis that allowed them to make more sophisticated IED's and other devices that were so effective in killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in the last year of increased violence in Iraq. Also, the Revolutionary Guard has been taking hostages on the seas bordering Iran and Iraq, and that is an aggressive act that needed to be acknowledge and spoken against - before they become dominant in that area and close shipping of oil to the West. That bill was to give our diplomats the tools they needed to negotiate with the Iranians and get them to curb the activities of the Revolutionary Guard.
As for the first vote - Colin Powell and British Intelligence had also convinced me that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -and we had seen Saddam had gassed his own people and had been threatening us for years after the first Iraq war - and trying to shoot down our planes. Remember we had been through years of sanctions trying to contain this person? We had already been to war once with this madman. I would have voted in favor of the UN resolution, because I believed George Tenet,Colin Powell, British Intelligence. Knowing what we now know about the neo-cons and their plans ,and the colossal incompetence of the Bush administration, of course, I would decide differently. But there has been so much Monday morning quarterbacking on this issue - easy to condemn now, but we did not know all the facts then. For all we know, the WMD might have been shipped to Syria - we may never know that answer. Those who objected to the UN resolution did so because they did not believe the evidence and the evaluations presented - and they guessed right. Nothing to be especially proud of - or to now claim superior wisdom and judgment about.

Anyone else think it odd that the candidate who originally protested being compared to a rock star has welcomed the biggest Rock star to the early primary states to help him? Obama is a candidate now because of his ability to inspire with a wonderful speech at the 2004 convention. He might sometime in the future after some time in the Senate have become qualified by experiences in governing the country to be a good President. But he isn't there yet. And we can't afford an another amateur in the White House. I know state senators here in New Hampshire who are more well qualified to be President than Obama. I urge voters to not be complicit in his "simple twist of fate".

How effective the Oprah strategy is remains to be seen. Many people at the events stated they were there to see her, but that her endorsement would not sway them. As for her TV audience, who watches TV in the afternoon ? and buys books based on the advice of an afternoon TV program host? Does this demographic also stay tuned for the evening news? are they registered to vote?

On the vote for the Iraq war we do know one thing. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for it, and gave missle pounding speeches on the floor of the Senate. That is a fact! We do know as Dennis Kalob has pointed out, that 23 Democratic Senators voted against the war. I have been saying that one fact for years. It was not a slam dunk by our Democratic Senators. An interesting fact is, only Democratic Senators who voted for the Iraq war have run for Preseident. Those 23 who voted against the war, well they have not run for President. It seems if you were going to run for President in 2004 or 2008 on the Democratic ticket you had to look powerful and patriotic.
Obama has recorded interviews during the Senate vote on the war in Iraq, stating he was against it and it would be a mistake. If Obama had been a Democratic Senator, maybe there would have been 24 that voted against the war in Iraq. That is what we know. We also know that Senator Clinton gave President Bush another green light to do his vodoo on Iran. We do know that Obama missed that vote on the campaign trail, but in a Concord Monitor editorial he said he was against it. The real question is with all Senator Clinton's experience, why she voted for these two acts of war in the first that place? I was against the war in Iraq from the start, and I have only been to Washington a few times, so how important is Washington experience? That is what I want to know.

In talking with several of my progressive friends, I find that although many still haven’t decided whom they will vote for, the greatest number think they will vote for Obama. Like me, some like Kucinich’s positions best, but for a variety of reasons, would rather vote for Obama. Some of the reasons they have given: Obama is the most electable, he will best be able to bring people of opposing views together and unite the country, he has the most charisma, he most represents change and a new era of politics.

These are compelling reasons. I need to decide if they are good enough to allow me to feel comfortable with what I see as weaknesses in his positions in the areas of nuclear power, health insurance, and Iraq policy.

I was very surprised to see my friend, Jan, attack Sen. Obama and his supporter, Oprah. It was a very angry attack that basically criticised these two for being too much like Hillary Clinton. Now, I can understand the attack in some ways, but I thought Jan was supporting Sen. Clinton. That is what made me so surprised True, Obama was not in the Senate when he was an outspoken critic of the war. If he WAS in the Senate, maybe he would have been a craven political opportunist like Hillary and voted for Bush's war. But 23 senators were not fooled by Bush, so maybe he would have been in that anti-war camp. We do not really know for sure, do we? What we DO know is Hillary Clinton not only strongly supported Bush's war--perhaps the single most catastrophic foreign policy decision in our nation's history--she has chosen to mislead us about her original intentions. Sen. Clinton has said that she really didn't vote for war, but for a greater use of diplomacy to handle the alleged Saddam threat. But she voted against amendments to the use of force authorization bill that would have required Bush to make a greater effort at a diplomatic solution.

I am not a great fan of Oprah. She has done some good things, but Jan did point out how she caved in on the war. The mainstream media, including Oprah, did us a very, very grave disservice when they actively promoted the war without question. No doubt. Perhaps the media might have shown a little backbone or at least some professionalism on this issue, had they witnessed a more vigorous and courageous opposition in Congress. Don't blame Oprah if you are not willing to blame Sen. Clinton who probably knew better, but for the sake of her political skin decided it was safer to promote war.

Obama did miss the vote in the Senate on the Iran resolution. He should be condemned for that. I agree with Jan. Clinton, on the other hand, made it a point to vote and she voted the wrong way! Sen. Webb and others pointed out that this vote was a first step toward war with Iran; that it could be construed as an authorization of the use of force. How could she do this...again?! I just do not trust Sen. Clinton to do the right thing when it comes to national security and foreign policy. I am not supporting Sen. Obama, either, but he does deserve some benefit of the doubt on such matters.

Barack Obama continues to condemn Hillary Clinton and all the other Democratic candidates for their Iraq vote claiming he was against it from the beginning. But he wasn't even in the Senate then. He didn't have to vote. He was at home in Illinois as a soon-to-be-elected newbie Senator and hadn't yet actually set foot in the Senate. At the same time his friend Oprah was hosting surrogates from the Bush/Cheney administration allowing them to beat the drums of war, selling their stories about Saddam Hussein having connections to Al Qaeda and 9/11 and accusing him of having weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to use against America. As shown on PBS's Bill Moyer's Journal in the story "Buying the War," when a women in the audience questioned their information by simply stating "I don't know what to believe." Oprah cut her short by saying, "We're not trying to propagandize, we are just showing you what is." And in a curt sarcastic tone designed to ridicule the questioner for challenging the administration's view, Oparah angrily added, "You have a right to your opinion," which draw a laugh from the audience. It wasn't funny, as she was acting as an enforcer for the attitude sweeping the country that if you didn't buy into their pro-war scenario, you were anti-American and unpatriotic for doing so.

If Obama had had to vote in the U.S. Senate, I would guarantee you, he would have voted with most of the other Democrats in a set-up by Bush that was scheduled right before the November elctions to force Democrats into a vote they could not refuse without being branded as unpatriotic or worse.

Obama wasn't courageous to take his position, he faced no risk. He didn't have to vote as a member of the senate--a fact he cheerfully leaves out of his statements, which leaves the listener assuming he was.

As for his integrity, courage and dedication to his position in the Senate, there were two important votes since he joined the Senate that required these characteristics: One, to condemn MoveOn.org for its ad on General Petrueas and two, the vote on the Iran Resolution. Obama was AWOL on both of these votes. His excuse was: he was campaigning. I have news for you, so were the other Senators running for the White House, and they made it back for the votes. And yet he stoops to criticize them for their positions, while he takes a free pass. He is not courageous; he is a coward, who talks the game, but won't vote the hard vote. And now, he is using Oprah, who was one of the media facilitators to the war in Iraq, to shill for him so he can draw votes from women and blacks, since Hillary is doing better with both groups than he is. He has shown no leadership, only the ability to avoid the real tests and make big noises about it.

It is going to get interesting in the next few weeks. Hold onto to your holiday hats!!

I really don't like Governor Romney, but I feel sorry for the owner of the company that lost his landscaping job at the Romney's mansion. There are a number of folks in the Bush administration that are casuing more harm to this country then a few landscapers. There was a time when I did alot of landscaping and getting a job like the Romney's mansion was your bread and butter. I wonder how many people were hurt by this person losing his contract. Does Rudy really care? So what is important in Politics? Is it a resume, is it experience, is it connections, is it money, is it a family name, is it character or is it a good sense of judgement? I hope it does not come down to who is raking your leaves.

The media continues to make it confusing for lots of people. The best thing to do is to read, to study votes, and to look at issues. Vote for someone you feel comfortable with, who you would consider following into the a new era that is rapidly approaching. Because in the end we are voting for a leader. Don't listen that much to the media and do your own research. The bottom line is that in this country many people don't even vote, so your vote really is important to all of us. I wish those folks who lost their job before the holidays good luck. Like I said, I really do not like Governor Romney's political agenda. He did not lose my vote because of who he hired to do his lawn.

I tuned in to the Republican debate from Florida just as McCain was giving Romney an experiential lesson in torture. Poor Mitt looked like a whipped dog wondering what hit him. I don't like McCain's positions on a lot of things, but on this issue of torture, he is right on. Romney is all surface, no substance, how can someone who looks pained from the push back of political debate, really understand what real pain is. Doesn't he understand how damaging our disregard of the Geneva Conventions is to America's leadership in the world? We used to believe in occupying the high moral ground, but Bush and Cheney have dragged us into the gutter and Mitt and others like him want to keep us there.

Thompson was supposed to be an actor, but he needs to find a new script writer, or maybe this is the real Fred. He looked like he hadn't slept in weeks, no wonder he seems to be sleepwalking through the debates and giving tired, boring speeches.

Where are the forward looking ideas from this group? Hunter, Tancredo and Paul are all living out of the last century, and Rudy and Mitt duel over their past mistakes and accomplishments. Huckabee seems to be trying out for Comedy Central. I am with Bob on this, these guys are scary.

Paul Loeb, author of some wonderful books, including Soul of a Citizen, has just posted on his website (and circulated on his listserv) a very interesting article about Hillary Clinton and the coming election. I quote a few of his words:

"When Democrats worry about Hillary Clinton's electability, they focus on her reenergizing a depressed Republican base while demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the war, and consequently losing the election. But there's a further danger if Hillary's nominated--that she will win but then split the Democratic Party."

"We forget that this happened with her husband Bill, because compared to Bush, he's looking awfully good. Much of Hillary's support may be nostalgia for when America's president seemed to engage reality instead of disdaining it. But remember that over the course of Clinton's presidency, the Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, 46 Congressional seats, and 9 governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior. Given Hillary's protracted support of the Iraq war, her embrace of neoconservative rhetoric on Iran, and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum."

I couldn't agree more with Loeb's analysis. We need someone new, with a progressive vision and the courage to take on the special interests.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”—Santayana

Remember how we found George W. Bush more likeable than Al Gore? Bush was the guy we liked and wanted to have a beer with. He was the guy we elected to be President of the United States and look what a mistake that was. He was likeable, but had no real experience other than being the Governor of a weak-governor state. But we liked him. He said he would work with the other party. But we know how that turned out. He said he would bring the country together. But we know how that turned out. Likeably doesn’t matter, performance does. We need someone who has experience; someone who has a proven record of performance in making real change. We need someone who can lead the country forward from day one. We need someone who has proven she can work with members of both parties. We need someone that leaders around the world know, respect and can connect with from day one. We need Hillary Clinton’s experience, strength, intelligence, and common-sense grasp on the realities of the national and international political terrain. When you need major surgery, you go to the surgeon with the most experience; you don’t go to the intern no matter how likeable he is.

Wow

After watching the Republican Debate, all I could think of was "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition." Before I went to bed that night I took my bible and propped it against the door to help keep the immigrants out. A sense of humor is key. I thought Huckabee was good. I met him once and he made me laugh a few times. But to be serious, there are many times the Democratic party scares me, but last night the Republican candidates frightened me.

Bob

Some of the more recent posts have gotten me to contemplate a number of issues. First of all, I understand completely Michael French’s struggle between principle and pragmatic politics. I think many of us face the same struggle. For many years, I always voted for the candidate in the primary and in the general election who best represented my views and values. Principle was 100% for me. I did not care whether the candidate I supported had less than 1% support in the polls (which was not uncommon, to tell you the truth). I have gotten a bit more flexible in recent years, supporting the next best candidate if that candidate has the better shot at winning. I, too, know that on the specific issues, Kucinich best represents my positions and values. But I am likely to be voting for Edwards, a person who has really been talking about class inequalities, corporate power, poverty and race.

Edwards started his campaign in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans-- an important symbol. I think of that place as ground zero of all that is wrong in America. Reagan and the two Bushes (and Bill Clinton to some degree) made government out to be the villain. For many years there has been a withdrawal of commitment to the public good. Our nation embraced Margaret Thatcher’s view that there was no such thing as society, only individuals. And so, we are left with the mighty and rich United States incapable/unwilling to respond to the tragedy that was Katrina. Even before that event, cuts in education, social programs, and levee protection left that city vulnerable to decay and destruction (places across the country are similarly vulnerable). When I saw all those people in the Superdome and Convention Center stranded for 5 days, all alone and abandoned, I thought that was very profound, not just for what it told us about that specific tragedy, but what it tells us about where we are as a nation—people are left to fend for themselves, the rich get there’s and the rest of us get stranded on our own rooftops when the literal or figurative flood waters threaten our lives.

We need to think in terms of the collective good. King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” The old Knights of Labor motto told us “an injury to one is an injury to all.” If we do not embrace these principles, if our next leaders do not embrace these principles, we will continue our collective slide toward greater human suffering in our nation and in our world.

Finally, health care. A couple bloggers said very critical things about the concept of national health care. Thoughts were expressed that basically run counter to the principles expressed in my previous paragraph. This saddens me. We cannot just look out after ourselves.

It was said that a government health care program would be inefficient and too costly. This is wrong, or rather, it is true for the system we have now. We pay more per capita for health care than any other nation on earth (and it isn’t even close). Our system is terribly inefficient in various ways this could be measured. Bureaucratic overhead is far higher in our private health insurance market than it is for Medicare. And Canada’s overhead is much cheaper still. We all pay for this heavy bureaucracy and for the corporate profits it is meant to support. And what does this buy us? We are at or near the bottom in the industrialized world when it comes to life expectancy and infant mortality. Thousands die each year because of this profit-driven health care system. More can be said, but I have already gone on for too long.

As I study the Democratic candidates' positions on the issues in a somewhat organized fashion, I find that I am in greatest agreement with Kucinich. He seems to be the most disciplined and courageous advocate for the environment, for diplomacy and peace, for workers, and for democracy. Edwards is in second position, followed by Richardson then Obama. I really haven’t looked very closely at Dodd and Biden. Clinton sounds pretty good on some of the issues, but my sense is that she is far too heavily tied to corporate America, as Dennis Kalob mentioned in his most recent blog. Also, I have a hard time trusting her, to echo Bob MacLellan in one of his blogs. By the way, I appreciate the info all you bloggers are sharing with us.

At this point, I would really like to vote for Kucinich, but, I hate to say it, he doesn’t have much of a chance to win. So I’m struggling. On the one hand, I’d like to vote my beliefs and conscience, especially in the primary. I’d like to add my voice and vote to those who believe the political climate in the US has become too corporate-controlled, too authoritarian, too anti-democratic, too aggressively militaristic, and too laden with unreasonable fear. I would like to try to help broaden the political spectrum and thereby shift the middle.

On the other hand, I also want my vote to contribute to an outcome I could be reasonably happy with. I would not be pleased if my principled vote for Kucinich contributed to the nomination of a much less acceptable candidate (Clinton) by taking a vote away from another relatively popular and acceptable candidate (Edwards or Obama or Richardson). The votes for Nader in the 2000 general election hurt Gore. I didn’t vote for Nader then, in part for that very reason. In 2004, I came out in the early summer for Kerry, because I thought he would have a better chance of beating Bush than Dean would. Defeating Bush was the top priority for me then. But now we aren’t facing Bush, and the Democrats are in a stronger position.

There is a wide range of beliefs and opinions in the US. In our winner-take-all political system, a candidate has to appeal to a broad spectrum to be able to win. For me, trying to find the right balance between principles and pragmatism is an ongoing challenge, seemingly more difficult in this election, and I’m still not sure which candidate I will choose.

If a male says he doesn't want Senator Clinton to be president, because he, or the country, is not ready for a woman president, that is generally considered to be a bad sexist attitude. If a male says he is againt Clinton for some other reason, there seems to be a presumption by some that he is simply a closet sexist.

If a female says she wants Senator Clinton to become president because it's time that we had a female president, is that sexist? If not, why not?

I resent being told that the reasons I give for preferring other candidates to Clinton are simply masks to hide my secret desire to continue the White House as a male-dominated institution. There are other good and valid reasons to think that Clinton is not our best choice for president.

Happy Thanksgiving and many more to enjoy.
It seems in some new polls that the Barack Obama campaign has taken a small lead in Iowa. Good news for their campaign, but the question they need to ask is why are they ahead? Obama has spent over sixty days in Iowa and only 25 in New Hampshire! That may be the reason, but I sense something stronger. In a recent poll that is not about issues, but about voter’s beliefs or possibly their values, voters have found Obama very appealing. In a poll about who is more honest and trustworthy Obama came in first. In fact, Hillary Clinton came in fourth behind Edwards and Richardson. She received some of the worst scores on whether she is honest and straightforward. It is something I have a difficult time with. This is an issue that is connected to Bill and I hear it more often when I have discussions with people about politics. I teach at a Middle School outnumbered by women, and it seems to be the number one issue among women who are not aboard the Clinton crusade. They do not trust Hillary. That will become a huge factor in the General Election.

What this country seems to be searching for is a President we can trust. We are looking for a leader who is honest and straightforward and who does not carry baggage that is filled with bricks of distrust. That type of baggage will slow down our next President in Washington, to accomplish some major goals. Obviously under the Bush administration the Neocons have steered the ship of State, especially in foreign policy, to a land of make believe and distrust. Nobody really believes anything they say. The list of what the Bush Administration has lied about has already filled a few books, but they are not the first Administration to do so. I have been involved with politics on many different levels and one of the things I have always thirsted for in a Candidate is the honesty factor. To tell it like it is and project a future that will not be tarred and feathered by distrust. The constant lying in politics is one of the reasons why I hate politics.

In this General Election, the Democrats will need a candidate with broad appeal across the Nation. Democrats cannot run a campaign based on winning Ohio in 2008. We need a candidate who can run and win in as many States as possible. Yes, there are issues that divide the candidates, but if a voter in Arizona or South Carolina walks into a booth and already feels the candidate is not honest, straightforward or trustworthy well forget it. It's not going to work in the voting booth and it will not work in Washington DC.
It looks like Obama is doing better in the polls because people actually feel they can trust him. Good for him

There is an old saying, be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

We have an outstanding health care system that is loaded with problems. Many of us are getting the best of care, and living longer, more productive lives because of it, but others aren't able to access the system and receive little to no benefit from it. Collectively we spend too much on health care, and most agree that the system is not very efficient financially.

Is universal health care (UHC), which the Democratic candidates are all endorsing in one form or another, the answer, or will it simply make a bad system worse. Surely some deserving people would benefit, but I worry that UHC takes us further down the road where more people don't feel responsible for their own health. I don't want my tax dollars being spent treating someone for diabetes who lived on Coke and candy bars (junk food) for the first half of their lives. And I don't want to pay for lung cancer treatments for someone who smoked all their adult lives. (Yes, I know that not everyone who gets cancer is a smoker, and that some smokers don't get cancer. But the relationship has been proven.)

If you believe in UHC, and worry even a little about the issue of runaway costs, then that would seem to lead to the situation where the government could (and even should) start to more extensively regulate our health-related behaviors. It might rightly decide to make smoking illegal, and that you can't have more than one small Coke a day. It might decide that if you have a high cholesterol problem you must eat oatmeal for breakfast. It might decide that you must exercise at least 30 minutes a day, five days a week, and that you must eat an adequate portion of fruit and vegetables every day.

Now I think all that would be great, as I already fit that profile. When faced with the decision to start taking a cholesterol-reducing drug which would have been mostly paid for by my insurance company, I opted for diet change (inclcuding the oatmeal) instead. Good for my health, good for my insurance company.

Had I not been willing to make that decision on my own, should I have been forced into it, knowing that others would have to pay for the medicine I would have been taking because I wasn't willing to make a lifestyle change? If we adopt UHC, I think the answer is yes.

Republicans will have a field day with that policy, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

Good column, Mr. Curran. I was against our invasion of Iraq (in letters to our two esteemed senators), but I've never doubted that our need for oil was the driving reason behind the invasion. I just think there were (and are) better ways of ensuring an adequate oil supply.

But I have no doubt that if Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela all stopped selling oil to us, that we would declare that we have a right to some of that oil and would mount as robust an attack to achieve our objective as we could (which right now wouldn't be very robust). And Americans would demand it!

Senator Biden may have a reputation for long-winded answers, but faced with little air time at the last debate he set the standard for no-nonsense responses that left viewers with a clear understanding of his grasp of complex issues and of how he would deal with those issues as president. No other candidate offered such clarity on the challenges we face in Pakistan and Iran.

In my opinion, the only other person on the stage who expresses his views as forthrightly, without consideration of how they will be taken by the chattering classes, is Rep. Kucinich. I wish the world were ready for a Kucinich presidency, but it isn't. (I do give Senator Obama credit for being willing to address issues like higher taxes and higher energy prices.)

But I do believe the country and world are ready for a Biden presidency. None of the candidates are perfect, but Biden has an incredible combination of traits that I want to see in our next president.

Biden will tell us what we need to hear, not what we want to hear, and is willing to forego the presidency if he we reject his view of the world we face. I don't believe some of the other candidates meet that standard.

We are in a global economy, and a global society, and the number one challenge for the next president will be in the foreign policy arena. Foreign trade, immigration, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, global warming, you name it, they are all foreign policy issues. No other presidential candidate has Biden's experience in foreign policy, experience well-respected by all of his Senate colleagues, with whom he would have to work closely as president.

Biden has made a commitment to veterans that stands above the commitment of any of the other candidates, so far as I know. He told a veterans group that as president that he would fully fund our veterans health and medical care programs as a first priority of Federal spending. He states, "we have a sacred obligation to take care of our veterans." There is true passion in his voice when he makes that statement.

There's more, but that's all for this entry.

Issue two of the McLaughlin Group program on November 9th aired on WGBH entitled "It's the Oil Stupid." It briefly discussed the influence that oil played on this country's decision to invade Iraq.

John McLaughlin begins with a quote form Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) "Everyone knows that the war against Iraq was about oil. This administration is trying to gain control of Iraq oil with the help of Congress." McLaughlin then goes on to quote former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, General John Abizaid: "I'm not saying this is a war for oil, but I am saying that oil fuels an awful lot of geopolitical moves that political powers may have there." McLaughlin then further states that Kucinich and Abizaid were echoing what Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve has already stated. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows--the Iraq war is largely about oil."

McLaughlin then states, " The oil in Iraq's reserve is one of the largest in the world... more than Saudi Arabia. Who controls it? If Iraq's Parliament passes its oil law, designed by the Bush administration, American companies would get access to 63 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields for 30 years. And that's ownership of the oil."

McLaughlin further states, " The Pentagon now has four, quote-unquote super-bases in Iraq. The largest, an air base in Balad, is the size of a small town, Tom Ricks, author of the Iraq bestseller "Fiasco," reported in the Washington Post. The Balad air base is heavily trafficked. "We're second only to Heathrow," an Air Force general told Ricks."

The scale of the bases would indicate a long U. S. presence in Iraq. If these bases remain open mainly to protect our interests in oil, then what is the real price of a barrel of oil in treasure and blood?

It is indeed rare when politicians or the media are candid about U.S. foreign policy. But just before the first Gulf War, Thomas L. Friedman, columnist for The New York Times, on August 12, 1990 wrote a column entitled "U.S. Gulf Policy: Vague Vital Interests." In the article he states, " The United States has not sent troops to the Saudi desert to preserve democratic principles. The Saudi monarchy is a feudal regime that does not even allow women to drive cars. Surely it is not American policy to make the world safe for feudalism. This is about money, about protecting governments loyal to America and punishing those that are not and about who will set the price of oil...oil is the single most important commodity in the industrial world and it's assured supply at reasonable prices is considered essential for economic growth-not just in the United States but all of Western Europe, Japan, and the world at large."

The economic rise of China and India is having a profound effect on the American way of life. Our foreign policy for securing resources is mainly based on military action or the threat of action. This has isolated us from the world's regional powers, namely Western Europe, China, Japan and Russia. The recent economic expansion of China and India is creating fierce competition for oil. China is now making long-term supply agreements for oil with producing nations that excludes acess to other countries, and this is what we have also been doing. This over time could cause serious hostility between the two nations.

The leading Democratic candidates keep talking about restoring America's leadership in the world. I believe that they will find the regional powers eager to embrace our participation as equal co-partners in trying to resolve economic, political and environmental problems that afflict us all. But they are not prepared to take marching orders from Washington.

My opinion concerning foreign policy: the leading Democratic candidates sound more like good Republicans.

In the November 19th issue of "The Nation" Sherle R. Schwenniger in the article "Undebated Challenges" states, "For the leading Democratic candidates and their advisors, toughness and global leadership have become ends in themselves. But in today's world these ends do not automatically equal a better world for American interests or make possible a more decent liberal society at home. That requires a strategic vision of how to work with others to build a world order that accomodates the voices of an increasingly pluralistic group of nations yet serves America's core interests and values."

As a nation we should be trying to work cooperatively with other nations to reduce the world's dependence on oil by developing alternative sources of energy and trying to inspire effieciency and conservation of oil resources. If Americans were told the real cost of a barrel of oil, I believe that they would demand a change in energy and foreign policy. Let the leading Democratic candidates address those issues rather than showing us how tough they can be.

It is possible that Edwards and Obama comported themselves in a more professional manner at the most recent debate because BiIl Richardson had called them on their personal attacks of Hillary at the previous debate. I believe he used the term "piling on" when he told them to drop their "holier than thou attitudes" and stop the personal attacks. Or maybe they just reviewed the tape and realized how they both looked - accusatory, and whiny and like they were schoolboys playing "king of the mountain" and taking turns trying to knock the girl off the top of the hill. Maybe that is why HiIlary was given the gag gift of huge red boxing gloves by a group endorsing her later in the week.

The Clinton campaign does not "spin" any more than the other campaigns do-- all of the campaigns have people in the "spin room" giving their opinions after the debates - and communications staff in their headquarters.

At the CNN debate, Hilary was not surprised that the gender question was raised -- and she had a great response-- "..they are not attacking me because I am a woman - they are attacking me because I am ahead." She did raise an eyebrow at Campbell's question about explaining what the "boy's club " means. Hilary's look when she said "Campbell" kind of said it all. As if a young woman who had achieved such a position to moderate a presidential debate for CNN did not get it....please. And even Campell's sheepish grin seemd to indicate she had to ask it because it was there in her script. Sort of belies the old adage-- "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." If you didn't see it at that first debate, maybe it's because you have never been excluded from the "boy's club" yourself.

Regarding Bob's term -- the "BIllary Show" I first saw the term "Impeach Billary" on a bumper sticker right after Bill Clinton took office-- and it became clear that the new First Lady was going to continue her work for people as she had when she was first lady of Arkansas and during her entire professional life begining with the Childrens' Defense Fund. Some people just could not tolerate the idea that she would not stay home and pour tea and redecorate the White House. These same people hated the appointment of Madeleine Albright as the first Secretary of State, and many other "firsts" for women, in cabinet posts and high levels of government during the Clinton administration .

I used to believe that it was because of the influence of the religious right on Republican thinking, you know, a submisive, obedient wife is what the Bible says a woman should be-- love honor and obey-- the man is the head of the family, etc. But I think it is really much more than that. I do believe there is gender discrimination still in this country, but it is more subtle than in the past, in general. Ironically, in the black entertainment industry-- which should know from discrimination, in rap and hip-hop, women are objecitified and treated as chattel and abused. When Hillary Clinton and I were young professional women, the career choices for women were nurse, teacher, secretary, and the purpose of a college education was to get a Mrs. as well as any other letters you might earn.

After many years of struggle, women have moved beyond that, but there are people who don't like HiIlary and will not vote for her just because she is a woman--they may not be open about it--especailly in our supposedly liberal, tolerant, progressive Democratic Party, but it is there. The doubters who just say, "Yes, she has a great intellect, and yes, she is strong, and yes, she has the experience, and yes, she would be able to govern from day one, but I just don't know...." The reservation they do not feel free to express for fear of being labeled prejudiced, is that they "are not ready" for a woman president. Like the South wasn't ready for integration, either. They just can't go there for reasons that are so deep and ingrained, many do not even recognize it as prejudice. I attended a university where the ratio of men to women was 5:1, then I became an Air Force officer- in the sixties, when there were not very many of us and we had one woman general. One of the reasons I did not stay in the Air Force was that women were not allowed to train as pilots then. I spent years in corporate jobs. I know "boy's clubs." They are still out there, but the public ones have been forced to let the girls in-- sometimes. I believe Hillary is the best qualified person to be President, but I have to admit, I really relish the opportunity to vote for the first woman President. It's time -- the United States and the world is waiting.

The Las Vegas Debate was lively and entertaining. It was good to see some of the other candidates steal some of the thunder. I thought Obama and Edwards laid off being the attack dogs, when they had the opportunities. Maybe they were afraid of piling on Hillary. The piling on spin that the Clintons had played so well in the press seemed to work for her in the debate too. It's amazing that the Clinton campaign can spend days spinning the gender card, and then
on national TV be surprised that it was even mentioned.

After the last debate Hillary, Bill and their spin magicians complained about the boys piling on. In fact, I saw Hillary running around with boxing gloves later on that week. They spin everything. You can't have it both ways Hillary.

The Clinton's have been running for President for over thirty years. If they don't win the White House, maybe they can be a lounge act in Vegas. They already have a name "The Billary Show".

I understand that an organization that takes on the responsibility of sponsoring and organizing a political debate sets the format and tone. It's too bad CNN opted for what I guess they hoped would be entertainment over substance, wasting their opportunity to let us hear what the candidates have to say about some of the vital issues facing the country in this watershed election. From the opening cattle call of candidates to the stage, to the last frivolous question (which we now know was chosen over a more substantive one), the debate felt more like a pumped-up sports event than a debate among presidential candidates.

And CNN continued the tendency of the presidential season to front-load questions to the front runners. And didn't the questions seem intended to create more heat than light--create conflict, testy interactions and perhaps juicy newsbites? How many minutes before anybody but Clinton, Edwards and Obama got to speak? We know what that does-- it encourages the image of inevitability that discourages a breakout candidate.

The candidates themselves unfortunately took the bait most of the time. Chris Dodd, though, seemed able to side-step the baited questions most creatively and to find the more substantive take on the questions. Obama let himself get trapped in the headlights with the driver's license question. He tried, I think successfully, to clarify his position on nuclear power--he is not 'for' it, but would not dismiss it out of hand. We do need to question him-- his less satisfying answer on what to do about nuclear waste if he's going to keep nuclear power as an option. Edwards and Obama made the mistake of trying to go after Hillary in the same way twice, and she was ready for them. Hillary was all we've come to expect of her: clever and prepared.

Kucinich, Richardson, and Biden continue to commit themselves pretty well and seem to be good men, but they don't get fair airtime. Biden is a pretty funny guy, isn't he? You'd think a serious attempt could be made to set up a more random and less manipulative order for the candidates to answer in. Obviously, if they're going to be on the stage, give them equal airtime no matter what the polls say.

Let's hope the next debate's organizers are working on creating equal time for the candidates who appear as well as working on formulating questions that shed more light than heat.

I remember fondly the late, great Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) who identified himself as being from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. Others, including Howard Dean, picked up that phrase and garnered strong support because of it. Democratic voters are hungry for a strong, principled voice for social change, peace, and justice. The more I hear from some of the presidential candidates, the more disappointed I become. Granted, none of them are perfect, but sometimes I just can't believe what I am hearing.

Now, both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama (and the rest, except Edwards and Kucinich) have embraced the "free trade" agreement with Peru that is making its way through the legislative process. Democratic candidates have in recent years tried to distance themselves from the "free trade" position, knowing that it is not supported by the typical Democratic voter, who understands (correctly) that "free trade" has usually meant increased corporate profits at the expense of US jobs and Third World living standards. Nevertheless, the candidates have embraced the agreement with Peru, thinking that it is better than the disastrous NAFTA (championed, sadly, by Bill Clinton). Better? Perhaps. But in the end, it won't be good for US jobs or Peruvian farmers. Clinton is from the Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party, so her position is understandable, but why Obama? Disappointing.

Also incredibly disappointing (to put it mildly) is Clinton's and Obama's recent supportive statements regarding nuclear power. Can you imagine-- cheering on election night-- a grand Democratic victory only to have our hopes dashed as the new president goes forth promoting nukes and the status quo on trade? (One can also almost picture the new president declaring that we will be sure to get out of Iraq...by 2013 ... or 2017. I am getting concerned.)

Edwards' anti-nuclear position, his support for fair trade (rather than "free trade") and especially his very vocal criticism of the power of corporate America have been very encouraging. Class inequality, long a taboo subject in the US, is at the heart of so much that is going wrong in our nation and world. I give him credit for putting and keeping this on the agenda.

Sadly, the Kucinich campaign has not caught on, despite the fact that his positions on the issues have been consistent and consistently good. He, too, has spoken about class inequality. And he supports by far the best solution to the health care crisis: single-payer (a fully-funded Medicare for All).

Finally, disappointing would have to be my description of so many in the establishment media, like Wolf Blitzer. "Do you favor issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants?" Come on! First of all, what do driver's licences have to do with presidential powers? It was all about getting some of the candidates to express a less than brutal position on immigrants. If the candidate dares to suggest that there might be good, sound public safety reasons for issuing said licenses, we should just dismiss him/her as coddling those horrible law breaking "illegals." That's the idea. Disgusting.

I checked out the October 23 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Survey #547. It was carried out on 1,049 randomly selected adults nationwide and produced results with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 . There are several intriguing sets of information found in this survey that are not the type that generally make the press.

I found the comparative data on the strength of support different demographic groups give to Clinton and Obama very informing. Since June, Clinton has been increasing her lead over Obama in general, but surprisingly, at least to me, with several very unexpected constituencies. Clinton now outpolls Obama 54 percent to 24 perencet among minorities; 42 percent to 20 percent among the 18-44 age group; 50 percent to 18 percent among female college graduates; and 47 percent to 15 percent among male college graduates. These are all segments of the population in which I would have expected him to show real strength, but Hillary still has a significant and increasing lead among these groups.

The other set of numbers that I found very interesting were the responses of various groupings to the question regarding Hillary's decision to stay married after finding out that her husband had an an extramarital affair. These are the responses to the question about her decision:

...........RegisVoters..Indep..Dems..Reps..Relig.Conserv
RIGHT......30%........ 24%...42%....23%....40%..30%
WRONG .16%........ 14%.....5%....28%.....19%..21%
NEITHER 34%.........31%....41%....30%....25%..31%
....RIGHT NOR WRONG
The rest were not sure or refused to answer.

Democrats would appear to be much more forgiving than those who call themselves religious (mostly Christian Conservatives, where forgiveness is a basic tenet of their religion), or the Conservatives and the Republicans who consider themselves the party of family values and disdain divorce. I wonder why they didn't have equally probing questions about other candidates such as the infidelity of Giuliani and his divorces, or the divorce of McCain, to mention a few comparable cases?

So here we are, ever so close to the primary votes in New Hampshire and Iowa, and now candidates are being accused of planting questions at Town Hall Meetings (Sen.Hillary Clinton is the most visible and recent). Now, while this initially raises some concern, when one thinks about it, there is not much to be concerned about here. It is not like in the previous elections where George Bush's campaign was not only planting questions, but also requiring people to sign forms stating that they support him in the campaign. If it is only the suggested or planted questions being asked and answered, then there is a definite issue. In the recent case involving Sen. Clinton, it is difficult to tell, but it has been suspected of happening in town hall meetings of Mitt Romney, and even Edwards and Obama have had suspicion thrown their way. It is hard to tell, but it does bear a call for scrutiny in the future on both sides of the political spectrum.

The survey recently published in The Boston Globe indicates that the NH primary is far from decided. Some folks on this blog have commented in the past on their frustrations with the media, most notably their tendency to focus on "frontrunners" and basically trying to decide the race before voters have even had their say. This survey, I hope, will change this dynamic in the media and get them to look at all of the possibilities and to listen more closely to the voters. I would point out that Sen. Clinton may be in the lead, but 1 in 2 Democratic voters are still deciding. The race on the Democratic side (and Rep. side, as well) is very, very fluid. We know from history that candidates in the lead two months, even two weeks out, have collapsed. We know, too, that candidates thought to have little chance have caught on at the last minute. So, anything can happen.

Two specific survey answers I would like to point out: First of all, it is interesting that health care is the number one issue among likely Dem primary voters. While the debates have often tried to focus on the minor details of Iraq war positions of the candidates (certainly important), far too little time has been spent on the details of health care reform. We need to have a much deeper discussion of this issue. Single payer health care is supported by the majority of the population, according to surveys. However, because the health insurance lobby is understood to have so much power, it is almost taken for granted that we can not have this type of reform. Only Dennis Kucinich has endorsed single-payer. The rest basically endorse some sort of complicated system that leaves the health insurace industry in good shape. In fact, the candidates seek to help them by essentially subsidizing with taxpayer dollars the purchase of health insurance for the currently uninsured. These plans are improvements over what we have, but my God, we need to include single payer in any careful analysis of potential healthcare reforms. And we need to press these candidates on this issue. I have to confess that I think the worst candidate to look to if you have any hope of real health care reform is Hillary Clinton. No one has pocketed more health insurance industry money than Sen. Clinton.

This brings me to the other survey result on which I wanted to comment. (I'll be brief.) A majority of Dem primary voters seem to believe that Sen. Clinton has the best shot at defeating a Republican in the general election. I do not believe this is true and I am not alone. There are many analysts who believe that a Clinton candidacy would be truly divisive and will, more than any other campaign, bring out the Republican base. Clinton may still win, but it would be a closer election than if, say, Edwards or Obama were heading the ticket. I also worry that a roused anti-Clinton Republican base will swing close House and Senate races away from the Dems.

Yesterday, on a rather chilly morning I went to the Obama office and went out canvassing in Concord, NH. If you have never canvassed before don't worry you still have time! For someone like me who loves to talk, canvassing gives me a chance to talk even more. The only problem on any given canvass, you may meet more dogs then actually people. But it's the thought that counts. After about two hours of knocking on doors and saying "nice doggie," I had hit about 40 houses. Out of those 40 houses, I engaged in meaningful conversation with 18 people. Not bad! The overall responses that I received was, "We are still undecided," "Still looking," or "Too early to decide" and "Go away". Only kidding about the "Go away," but it does happen. Many voters of New Hampshire are not ready yet to give you an answer. They are still thinking. I did get some positive Obama support and a few bumperstickers were handed out, but the overall feel was not ready yet to commit. Now that is good news for some of the candidates because from the polls one would think that Hillary had all ready been annoited. That is not true. The independents and those undecided will be the key to winning the NH Primary. So if you are bored of watching TV or tired of reading the paper and you want to get some excercise, go out and canvass. Remember to be nice to the people you actually talk to, but to save your best manners for the dogs-- they are the ones that let you near the doors.

Bob MacLellan

Last Friday I went to the grounds of the State Capitol in Concord to see Hillary Clinton after she filed to run for the presidency. Her comments to the hundreds of people assembled were a shorter version of her usual stump speech. It was direct, concise, positive, humorous at points, and gave a clear and forceful vision of where she wants to lead the country. She showed many of the same attributes I recognized and appreciated when I first heard her speak in 1992 at the Democratic National Convention.

In 1992 I was an alternate delegate from Pennsylvania to the convention in NYC for Bill Clinton. The Arkansas delegation hosted the Pennsylvania delegation at a dinner in the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, and Hillary was the keynote speaker. I kept hearing from the Arkansas folks what a great person she was, how eloquently she spoke without notes, and that she was so bright and had been selected as among the 100 best lawyers in American. It was a lot of build up, but she didn't disappoint. I had known of her work with the Children's Defense Fund, but here was someone who could knowledgeably address a much wider range of domestic and international issues as well. She was clearly a strong, persuasive leader in her own right.

I next heard her speak in person at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, in 1995. Thousands of women filled the hall and thousands more clustered around theater-sized TV screens in the conference center to hear her speech. It was undeniably one of the most anticipated events of the conference and again she didn't disappoint. Her speech on Human Rights with the unforgettable refrain: "Human Rights are women's rights and women's rights are Human Rights", captivated the international audience of women and men and became a rallying cry throughout the conference and for women throughout the world in the years since. I also heard her speak along with Mohammad Yunus—founder of Grameen Bank's mico-lending program for poor women in Bangladesh--about the importance of economic empowerment for women. In both settings, she clearly demonstrated her understanding of international economic, social and cultural issues of countries beyond the western block.

As first lady she served as a special representative of the White House, and America, to countries around the world. She was well received by the countries she visited. When elected President, she will be able to hit the ground running to build back the trust and respect America has lost during the Bush years.

Hillary Clinton is a person of great integrity and personal strength of character, who has been consistent in the general themes and messages she has advocated for the fifteen year I have been following her public career. She has been tested in the fire of right-wing scrutiny and has come out stronger and more resilient from this tempering. America would be very fortunate to have this brilliant, caring, knowledgeable and experienced person, Hillary Clinton, as president.

A program on NHPR's Exchange on Political Rhetoric had me thinking about politics as usual. Both of the guests were professors involved in communication and media. They both agreed that none of the Democrats had really found that certain rhetorical something that had caught fire with primary voters. Were the guests saying that none of the candidates were saying anyting that mattered? If I heard them right, the guests were suggesting that the candidates hadn't come up with a slogan ("It's morning in America!" was one example) jazzy enough to catch on. Don't know about you, but I was a little discouraged that people who teach about and comment on media in politics were talking about pizzaz and not substance in political candidates speeches. One of the guests suggested that Barack Obama had disappointed them because his 2004 Democratic convention speech had promised he would be one the generations great speakers; "What happened?," the guest wondered. I say what happened is they're not listening.
One of the things that made me an Obama supporter was seeing him in Manchester early last year when he made it clear that he didn't not want to engage in the usual political rhetoric of sound-bites and slogans. He showed what I mean when he arrived to fifteen hundred cheering, excited people waiting for him at the Center of New Hampshire that day; he could have upped the decibels and the excitement but that's not what he did. Obama calmed things way done, spoke in his measured, thoughtful voice and said what has become a sort of mantra for him something like, I know you're excited, but this excitement is not about me, it's about all your intense desire for change.
I've been encouraged that all of the Democratic candidates, even those I don't agree with, are people of substance who are trying to discuss issues in a thoughtful, meaningful way. I know Democratic voters will give patient, thoughtful attention to candidates positions and vote accordingly; I only hope Republicans will be looking for substance and not for a guy with a nice smile or someone to have a beer with.

I have a really hard time understanding how Republicans especially, can place the blame on our new Democratic majority in Washington, for not bringing our troops home with comments like this, "The Democrat Party pretty much swept the last election with promises to bring home the troops, but they are not home yet. How effective were all these politicians?" Democrats can only be as effective as, President Bush's veto pen will allow them to be. I wish Republicans would accept the truth and the blame for this horrific tragedy of a un-winable civil war in Iraq!
A real mess was handed to the "new Democratic majority" when they were put into office.
We should have never gone into Iraq for many proven reasons... especially because it's apparent, there is no way to get all our troops home safely at the same time. Giving President Bush the authority and a blank check to send our men and women to Iraq without a clear exit plan was the wrong way to vote! We were told we were un-patriotic if we didn't support the Iraq war. What a lie. I am tired of lies and politicians voting for political gain. People should realize that Senator Obama spoke out against this vote, when it was un-popular to do so. Barack showed principal and judgement knowing it was wrong to go into Iraq, and that it would be even worse to get out. So much for "Washington Experience"!
I will vote for the candidate who has the guts to stand up and make a hard decison with sound judgement.

Brenda MacLellan

The issue of greatest concern in the upcoming election is resolving the war in Iraq. The United States cannot move forward on the domestic front or in foreign policy without first ending our occupation of Iraq and seeking a diplomatic solution which includes equal participation from all of Iraq's neighbors in the negotiation process. This war is draining our treasury and we have lost credibility throughout the world. But more importantly this war has cost the loss of too many dedicated servicemen in uniform. They have done everything that is expected of them and more. The fact that the war has gone badly is not their fault. I don't think it inappropriate to say that our politicians who sent our military to Iraq with faulty asumptions and planning can avoid blame. I certainly fault the administration for what many consider to be our greatest foreign policy blunder, but Congress must share the responsibility and this includes many democrats who are now running for president. They are not convincing me that they were deceived.

The Bush administration will do nothing to end the conflict because they do not want to be perceived as losing the war. The administration will stay the course and hand the problem over to the next presedent. In my opinion, they do not have the fortitude, inclination or competence to negotiate a peaceful settlement in Iraq that requires the involvement of many nations in the Middle East. For this reason, I do not believe it possible to bring our troops home with this administration conducting foreign policy. Troop removal in the absence of serious negotiations will only further destabalize Iraq and the region.

Ending the war and the diplomatic negotiations necessary to achieve a peaceful solution will fall on the next president which I believe will be a Democrat. This will be no easy task. Each of Iraq's neighbors do not benefit from an unstable iraq. However, they will all come to the table with different agendas and reaching a consensus will be most difficult.

I believe that Governor Bill Richardson has the best plan to get our troops out of Iraq and initiate regional diplomacy.

Is Iowa more important than New Hampshire? A number of the big name candidates are now living in Iowa. If they stay any longer they may get residency and vote for themselves.
One vote could win Iowa!

Last week, New Hampshire had it's full with the candidates filing in Concord and that sure was fun and informative. But if you count the days they spend in Iowa versus the days they spend in NH, Iowa is winning in a landslide. Maybe the candidates like corn better then apples, or is Iowa the launching pad to the nomination? I witnessed the Kerry bounce first hand.
Our campaign was in a deep sleep brought on by a deep freeze, before Iowa. Kerry almost bounced himself into the White House. I wish he had!

I am hoping that Barack Obama, the candidate I am supporting, bounces straight from Iowa into the winners circle in New Hampshire.

I hope that New Hampshire does not lose its appeal as a state that excels in retail politics.
It really is a unique situation to be in-- when you can talk any candidate you need to. So when they are in New Hampshire, do your best to put your coat on and go to someone's house or a school gym and raise your hand. Ask that question that has always bugged you and show these candidates that New Hampshire should stay the nations "First Primary."
It actually is fun!

Bob MacLellan

Beth and I are talking about our allegiance to a particular candidate, an allegiance that seems to be shifting for both of us. Up until now I've been content with not knowing much about the specific positions of the candidates. It's been okay to just have a sense of who "feels" like someone I can get enthusiastic about, who I can vote for -- and who doesn't. Now it's time to start looking deeper into what they have to say about the issues that are important to me.
Obama had real appeal, but now I'm listening more closely, paying more attention, and have a problem with his unwillingness to withdraw from Iraq immediately and with his support of nuclear power. I need to get more info about his stance on those issues. And with the other candidates' positions. Participating in this here blog should be helpful.

So, folks, without any supporting info, at this moment here's my list of favorites, top to bottom: Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, Clinton, Gravel.

I have found it extremely ironic that one of the stated goals of the Bush administration for the Iraq war was to foster democracy in the Middle East. Yet here at home, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been attacking our democratic principles and procedures like no other administration before them-- all in the name of the war on terror. If you are a Democrat like I am, or, more importantly, if you value our democracy, most likely you believe that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached, as I do.

I have been frustrated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi's position-- that impeachment is not on the table, and to think that our democracy is not worth protecting and fighting for here at home; that it's not a high enough priority!

Representative Kucinich has been a lonely voice in congress in his attempts to seek impeachment. He introduced House Resolution 333 calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney in April 2007, but it has been stalled by the House leadership. Still, amazingly, he was able to get it referred to the Judiciary Committee in a vote earler today. Hopefully, this will lead to impeachment hearings. I say, well done Representative Kucinich, and thank you to both Representatives Hodes and Shea-Porter for your supporting votes.

By the way, if you want to track how Members of Congress voted in roll call votes (the above vote was a roll call vote, but fewer than half of all votes are), you can go to this website: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/rollcallvotes.html .

Up here in New Hampshire, we are lucky to have the chance to look at and listen to most, and maybe all of the candidates, in what are sometimes personal forums in people's living rooms and backyards, and other times larger gatherings on the State House lawn and various fairgrounds. It's a great opportunity to see for yourself. I have to admit that with our primary only a couple of months (or less) away, I'm still looking at and listening to most of them. I was fed up with George W. Bush before he took us in to Iraq, and now I'm looking for a candidate who will work to clean up that mess. I would like to see our troops back home, but I also believe we need to accept responsibility for the disaster we helped to create in Iraq. Our next president must also be someone who will look out for the middle class, protect social security, and exercise some restraints on big business whose devotion to greed seems to be out of control. And wouldn't it be nice to have a leader who could return us to a place where we once again deserve the respect of other nations? I'm tired of the arrogant attitude "America, Right or Wrong" that's been rearing its ugly head since the 1960's. There has been too much that's wrong during the past 7 years, and our first priority should be to choose a leader who will change that. Is this all too much to ask? I hope not. In fact, I've been praying for this candidate and hoping he or she is out there. As I said at the start, I'm still looking, and I will continue to listen to all of the candidates and to the members of this blog.

I just have to shake my head at some of the Presidential Ads. Especially, the ad when Mitt Romney states as confident as ever that "We are in need of a change...more than ever..."
What is he trying to tell us? Hasn't he always supported President Bush? Wasn't it Republicans like him, who voted for Bush and this administration? Bush has a 33 percent favorability in America today and 74 percent of the country believes that we are in need of a change. I don't think Mitt Romney should be telling the American people that he is the one who knows what is best for America. Why should he feel he has the answers,
that will lead us in this direction of change?

I believe that Barack Obama is the only presidential candidate who can bring about the real change we need in America. Barack will stand up and fight for the lower and middle class.
He works for the "principal" of an issue, not caring about the "political payoff" it may bring.
Last fall in 2006, Barack was the only Senator to stand up and fight to keep abortions legal in South Dakota. He has proven that he can work with all senators: Republican, Independents and Democrats. Barack doesn't owe anyone any favors. Senator Obama worked with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to introduce legislation lowering the income limit, so that
600,000 more families can benefit from the Child Tax Credit. Yes Mitt, Americans are in need change. We are in need of Barack, more than ever. Barack will make things happen!

Brenda MacLellan

Just as there is no political party in the US named the "Republic Party," there is no party named the "Democrat Party." Anyone participating in this blog, of course, realizes that. I am just making a tiny point about respect, and the foolishness of gratuitoulsy irritating people in what could and should be a forum for honest debate and sharing of ideas-- disparate as they might be. After all if we are going to irritate one another occasionally, it should be on the issues and ideas--not mere name-calling!

In the past few days I was able to be at the State House to watch Senator McCain, Mayor Gulliani and Senator Clinton file for the New Hampshire Primary. I am working on a DVD with my Londonderry Middle School students and the History Channel to record the NH Primary. New Hampshire gives one the opportunity to be face to face with the future President. If given the chance, it's important to take advantage of this historic situation. It is history in the making. The interesting part of being at the filings was observing the personalities of the candidates. Senator McCain, showed up early. He was very comfortable in his demeanor and very accessible to the people who were at the event. Mayor Gulliani, well he showed up about an hour late for the filing. He came across as a New Yorker in a hurry and New Hampshire was just a stop on the subway to the White House. Senator Clinton, had a huge crowd, planned like it was D-day! Everyone and everybody in the right place at the right time. A great show of force, but it didn't seem to be connected to much. It was fast and exciting, but I left wondering who she really was. New Hampshire during Primary season is a fascintaing place to be and if you have the chance, make an effort to see as many candidates as you can. What you see on TV is alot different than what you see and hear in person.

Robert MacLellan

As I think about the upcoming primaries, I find that I still have some major concerns about the candidates who are seeking the nominations of their parties. I hear all about the Iraq war, the troops surge, what torture is, universal health care, and immigration. It is true that all of these are important issues, but what I have yet to hear is a clear statement from any candidate. I would love to begin seeing what candidates are planning to do to take care of our futures?

First of all, what about Education? There is so much talk about the deficit, and the economy stalling, and outsource, but what about keeping our citizens competitive when it comes to level of education. So much of the reason why Americans don't and won't take low paying jobs is that there is so much debt once we complete our degrees-- after all education does not come cheap. I have yet to see a single candidate address this growing issue for today's youth. How will we make high education more accessible and more affordable?

Another aspect to our futures is our security, which outside of dealing with Osama Bin-Laden and his like, and Iraq and possibly Iran, we hear nothing about. There are so many traditional and non-traditional, military and economic, and so many other arenas to look at. Why don't we hear more about Kosovo (another area that is beginning to develop back into a hot spot), or China and their growing economy and military. Why has North Korea faded into the background? Why has the continued weakening of the US dollar not been at the discussion table?

Basically said, candidates on both sides of the aisle need to begin addressing these issues. It seems like, while everyone agrees that things are not good right now, no one wants to move forward and talk about how and even if they will fix it. I am willing to guess that there are many other people who want to hear these things, and I hope in the coming weeks we can hear the answers to these and many more questions that have not been asked, or at least not been asked loudly enough!

There's something to like about most of the presidential candidates, but it seems to me that not one of them has demonstrated that he or she has the moral courage and vision needed to be our next commander in chief.

If you believe as I did in January 2007, that the “surge,” coupled with new leadership in Iraq (Gen. Petraeus) and at the Pentagon (Secretary Gates), was the correct policy at that time, then you have to say that not one of the Democratic candidates got a major national security issue right at that time. It does appear now that in terms of knocking out Al Qaeda in Iraq, and improving security in Iraq, that the surge has accomplished its military goals.

What worries me is that we will elect a president more concerned with accommodating public opinion than in doing what’s right for the country. I’m looking for the presidential candidate who tells us that taxes must go up to pay for the horrendous debt Bush has left us, and that the price of energy, including gas, must go up so as to encourage conservation and to make alternative energy sources cost effective. I’m looking for the president who will tell us that the effects of global warming are already here, and it’s going to cost a lot of money to deal with them.

My thinking about this has been informed by Michael Beschloss’s latest book, “Presidential Courage.” He writes about past presidents who made hard but right decisions that went against popular opinion. Had any of the current candidates supported the “surge,” I would feel better about their ability to take the long view in the development of their policies, and to stand above popular sentiment.

I should add, that on the Republican side, McCain passes my test of supporting the surge, but he fails the test of avoiding the Iraq war in the first place. (Even though I supported the surge, I was against the invasion in the first place. There was no imminent threat.)

I must say, as a college student and a registered Democrat, living in New Hampshire is quite a great place to be. The greatest part is that we get to have first hand experiences with all the candidates. So far I have met and spoke with Biden, Richardson, Edwards, and Clinton (three of the four have had town hall meetings here on the New England College campus where they were present themselves to answer questions). It is these experiences more so than watching all the debates (such as the one recently held in Philadelphia) that are the most educational. When we watch the debates, the front runners are getting the majority of the attention, and the lower tier candidates only get attention when they attack the front runners (or more likely the front runner, Sen. Clinton). While hearing and seeing people like Biden and Richardson has been great, I cannot help but see that there is no real chance. It has been proven in the past two elections, he (or she) who has the money will win the election. Money shows the direct support for a candidate, if enough people believe in them to donate money, they will believe in them enough to vote.

This all being said, I think it is time for the candidates to stop the pattern that is developing in the past few weeks, and follow the examples set by Gov. Richardson and Sen. Clinton, and spend less time attacking one another, and more time either showing us why they should be president, or even more effectively showing the nation why they will do a better job than the other party. After all, when the primary is over, we will all be on the same team.

Hillary certainly demonstrated that she can handle an assault on many fronts--and Bill Richardson was right-- Obama and Edwards got too personal and were not even on the issues. Desperate men use desperate means, as the saying goes. Hillary kept hitting those hardballs right out of the park-- forgive the baseball analogy but part of me is still celebrating with the rest of Red Sox nation. Asking Hillary to comment on the controversy, surrounding her state attorney general' s decision to have all people who live in NY get some category of driver's' license, was just the press playing "gotcha." The real question should have been about immigration reform. Her answer showed that she understood the problem that New York, and other states, face with so many illegal immgrants, and allowing them to get a special category of driver's licence may be useful. Her answer also shows that she is not sure Spitzer's solution is the best one and may not be one she would embrace. What is the problem with that? The immediate attack of her answer says more about the feeding frenzy that had been encouraged by the moderators all evening than it did about Hillary.

The Philadelphia debate was really a "let's all attack Hillary" night. It showed just how desperate Edwards, Obama, Biden and Dodd are. At least Richardson had the diplomatic tact to remind them about whom they really should be attacking. The "boys" piling on was a nit-picking display of trying to be holier-then-thou and ignoring their own contradictory or confusing or obfuscating statements. The questioners were certainly setting them up for this attack mode and they took the bait and decreased their own creditably by doing it. I want to know what they stand for, why they stand for it, and not how they interpret or misinterpret what other candidates think. They were using a standard Republican tactic, and it didn't sit well.

And let's start hearing more about the big issues like the economy-- the declining dollar, the increasing deficit, the amount of our debt owned by China and other countries, and the long term impact this is going to have on America. Funding for Medicare is a more pressing issue than Social Security. What will be done about it? And if global warming, in a whole contextual picture, including energy issues, doesn't get more attention from the Democratic candidates, we are in big trouble because the Republicans certainly aren't dealing with it.

Jan McElroy

As for the debate, it drives me mad that the media gave much more time to Clinton, Edwards and Obama than the other candidates. A debate like this should help level the playing field between the candidates. It should be a place where a less well-funded candidate can break out of the pack with his or her compelling ideas. I'm not saying I heard any such "breakout" ideas last night, but maybe I would have if Dodd and Biden had been given more time. My favorite is Biden, but I thought Dodd sounded like the real adult last night, perhaps followed by Richardson.

And there is something wrong when the people asking the questions are purposefully trying to provoke controversy rather than trying to help the viewing public make an informed choice between the candidates. The power to "moderate" these debates should be taken from the media and placed with ordinary Americans who know what their real questions are. Some of the best debates in the past have been those where the audience posed the questions, although even those questions were generally vetted by the media. (Oh, I forgot, the media owns all the TV stations. So much for the "public" airways.)

John V. Kjellman