Monday, January 7, 2008

Win or Place, Obama Will Be Perceived as the Winner of the NH Primary


Barack Obama has surged to a 10-point lead over Hillary Clinton and is now the undisputed front-runner among Democrats in the New Hampshire Primary. Regardless of his actual finish after the ballots are counted on Tuesday, January 8, 2008, the media has already declared him the winner. Whether he places first or second, he will be declared the de facto winner of the New Hampshire primary and the nominee apparent of the Democratic Party.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson won the 1968 New Hampshire Primary on a write-in vote, but the strong second-place finish of Senator Eugene McCarthy led the press to declare that McCarthy was the actual winner of the content. Four years later, Senator Ed Muskie, the 1968 Democratic nominee for Vie President, placed first among Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, but the press determined that the true winner was George McGovern as he had finished a surprisingly strong second.
LBJ went on to drop out of the race for President and his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, won the nomination for President but was beaten in November by Richard Nixon. In '72, Muskie -- widely perceived as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination -- floundered and McGovern took the prize, only to go down to defeat to Nixon that November.

Jimmy Carter won the New Hampshire primary in 1976 and '80, but in 1992, Bill Clinton's second-place finish behind former U.S. Senator Paul Tsongas (perceived as a "favorite son" as he hailed from neighboring Massachusetts) won him the self-bestowed moniker "The Comeback Kid." Clinton rode the tactical victory of his second-place finish in New Hampshire to the nomination and two terms as President.

Last year, the corporate mass media has declared Hilary Clinton the candidate to beat this primary season, and had all but conceded her the nomination before any votes had taken place, much as they now are proclaiming Obama the presumptive nominee after only the Iowa caucus. A first place finish would be sweet for Obama, and according to the press, would cement the nomination before the voters of the other 48 states even get a chance to cast a ballot. In the media's New Hampshire calculus, however, a second place finish will also be regarded as a win by the press, much as the places by McCarthy, McGovern and Clinton were perceived actually as wins., as Hillary still is the candidate to beat.

Barack Obama emerged as a darling of the media as soon as he won a seat in the U.S. Senate in November 2004. His victory quickly lead to two book deals and a great deal of publicity, which helped garner an unprecedented wave of support for such an inexperienced candidate when he threw his hat into the ring and declared for the Presidency. Tall, slim and possessed of good looks and a mellifluous speaking voice, Obama comes across extremely well on TV, the medium which has drive Presidential politics since at least the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon match-up, in which JFK earned on edge over his Republican rival due to his good looks and cool on-camera demeanor.

Media mega-star Oprah Winfrey, who had previously eschewed politics, endorsed Obama for President and even came to New Hampshire on December 9, 2007 to stage a rally at Manchester's $70-million Verizon Center. Home to the American Hockey League Eastern Division Champs The Monarchs, the Verizon Center is a non-union venue that the Obama campaign belatedly had to secure a union-waiver for, lest it invite picketing by disgruntled labor unionists and thus dampen the media-friendliness of the rally. The event was ticketed and quickly "sold out," though the ticketed multitude did not show up in toto. The two O's managed to pack the Verizon Center with 8,500 Oprah fans, Obama supporters, the curious, and random passersby plucked off the street as the doors were thrown open shortly before Oprah was set to hit the stage.


The Verizon Center seats 11,770 people for "center stage concerts." In its coverage of the December 9th tally, TIME Magazine reported that it was "about creating the kind of audacious political theater that makes supporters believe they're going to win, and casual observers into interested ones."


At a recent rally at Derry, New Hampshire's Pinkerton Academy, Obama organizers prepped the long-lines waiting to enter the school's gymnasium with two "cheers" they were expected to parrot at the rally, Fire it Up! and Ready to Go! It was explained to those in line by the two organizer cum handlers, a middle-aged man and woman, that if we had been at the previous Obama rally, we knew what was expected of us. For us who were not following the Obama circuit, we were told the cheers and that their recitation would be expected of us in the gymnasium. It was very odd. It was evocative of the prepping of an audience at the taping of a situation comedy in Los Angeles, whose responses were tightly channeled, the audience expected to laugh on cue.


During the almost two-hour wait for the candidate, the cheerleaders would go around trying to fire up the crowd. A score of people were arranged on the dais with Obama signs in alternating blue and maroon, and were instructed how to behave. In contrast to recent John Edwards and Mike Huckabee rallies, in which the candidates walked after only a speech from a wife (Edwards) or local supporter (Huckabee), Obama's Derry rally seemed staged & controlled and lacking in spontaneity. It was very media-friendly, as everything was lined and ready for the dozen cameras on the platform facing the dais in the back of the gym.

Regardless of the origin of the crowd, it was huge and made for great imagery for the media. Obama's steady rise in the New Hampshire primary polls soon was to become meteoric.


Whether it is sustainable outside the controllable Iowa and New Hampshire markets, remains to be seen.

Obama Surges to Lead in New Hampshire Poll; McCain Remains Favorite Among Republicans


Two days after the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released a tracking poll on January 4, 2008 showing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama still tied for first place among New Hampshire voters who intend to cast a ballot in the Democratic primary, the latest WMUR/CNN tracking poll reveals that Obama has opened up a 10-point lead over Clinton. Obama now leads Clinton 39% to 29%, attributed to his gaining a "bounce" from his first-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. The media has portrayed the battle for the Democratic nomination as a horse-race between Obama and Clinton, and Obama's surge is a result of the media's portrayal of him as the winner in Iowa.

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland believes placing first in the Iowa caucuses boosted Obama's candidacy in New Hampshire as voters are now convinced that he can win the presidency if he takes the nomination.

According to Holland, "In December, 45 percent thought Clinton had the best chance of beating the GOP nominee. But in Saturday's poll, Clinton and Obama were tied on that measure, and now Obama has a 42 percent to 31 percent edge over Clinton on electability."

With 29% of the second-round vote, Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses behind John Edwards, whose support among New Hampshire voters has dropped from 20% in the January 4th poll to 16% in the latest tracking poll, which was conducted on January 5-6th.

New Hampshire has an open primary in which independent or undeclared voters can request a ballot of either party. At the time of the Iowa caucuses, it was reported that 60% of independents/undeclared voters intended to vote in the Democratic primary. Since a direct appeal to Republicans and independents is part of Obama's stump speech, it is felt that many of those independent/undeclared voters who intend to vote in the Democratic primary will cast their ballot for Obama.

Clinton and Obama, who entered into a statistical tie back in December 2007, were tied at 33% each in the January 4th tracking poll. In the December 12th WMUR/CNN tracking poll, Clinton and Obama essentially were tied with Clinton at 31% and Obama at 30%. The December tracing poll showed that Clinton had suffered an erosion of support of 5% from the previous November poll, while Obama's support had increased by 8%, moving him into a statistical tie with the former First Lady. Clinton's waning fortunes primarily were attributed to a loss of support among women voters, which declined 10-points from 43% to 33% in December. Her support among men remained constant, dropping only 1-point from 28% to 27%.

Obama out-polled Clinton among women caucus-goers in Iowa, where he finished first with 38% after two rounds of voting among caucus-voters.

In the January 4th poll, former U.S. Senator John Edwards trailed the front-runners with 20%, representing a 6-point gain from the 14% he racked up in the December poll. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who had come in at 12% in the November 20, 2007 poll, was at 7% in the latest poll, up from 4% just two days ago. In July 2007, Richardson was in third place with 10%, but has suffered from the surge of Obama and the recovery of Edwards, who once lead in early N.H. polls. U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) polled 2% in the January 4th poll.

On the Republican side, Senator John McCain (Arizona) leads erstwhile Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the former front-runner, by 32% to 26%, with both candidates down a percentage point from the January 4th poll. McCain pulled even with Romney according to a New Year's Day poll, a stunning development as in the December 12, 2007 tracking poll, Romney had a 13-point lead over McCain, polling 32% to McCain's 19%.
John McCain won the 2000 New Hampshire primary.

Mitt Romney, the long-time front-runner in both Iowa and New Hampshire, was bested in the Iowa caucuses by former Arizona governor Mike Huckabee, while McCain came in a distant third. In the January 5-6 tracking poll, Huckabee took over the show position among Republicans with 14%, with former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani slipping from third to fourth place with 11%. This represents a reversal of position, as Guiliani was in third with 14% and Huckabee in fourth with 11% in the January 4th poll.

In the December 12, 2007 poll, Guiliani was tied with McCain for second place, polling 19%.

Among the also-rans, Ron Paul's support has gone up one-point to 10% in two days. Fred Thompson, who is not contesting New Hampshire, continues to poll only 1%, unchanged since the December tracking polls. His lack of support is stunning, seeing as how Thompson had polled 13% for third place, outpacing McCain at 12%, in polls taken before the former Tennessee Senator declared for the presidency.

The margin of error of the tracking polls in +/- 5%. The tracking polls are conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

Romney Attack Ads Hit New Low as He Fights Back Against McCain



Mitt Romney's relentless. self-financing television advertising machine rolls on, inundating the New Hampshire market with attack ads targeting Senator John McCain, who has staged a surge in the polls which threatens to upset Romney, a "favorite son" from neighboring Massachusetts.

Romney already has run misogynistic ads in New Hampshire attacking Hillary Clinton. The former first lady of Arkansas and the United States, a two-term U.S. Senator, is smeared with an allusion to Monica Lewinsky as Romney, in an apparent stump speech, claims that Clinton has never "run anything", and that the U.S. cannot afford having her "learn" the Presidency via an "internship." In fact, Clinton was one of the managing partners of a top Arkansas law firm, a fact that cannot have escaped a Republican such as Romney since the Republican Congress attacked the firm relentlessly during her husband's presidency.

The "internship" crack, of course, is an allusion to the Monica Lewinsky scandal that was exploited politically by the Republican Congressional leadership of which at least two members were having adulterous affairs at the same time. Hillary Clinton is far more politically experienced than is Romney, the one-term governor of Massachusetts who did not run for reelection as he likely would have lost and seen his national political ambitions ruined.

The misogynistic attack ad now is being run in Michigan, which will go to the polls a week after the New Hampshire primary. In New Hampshire,
Logic or consistency has never been one of Mitt Romney's strong points, as his record as governor of the Bay State has shown, and which is heightened by his rivals. However, the master flip-flopper of his generation has a $250-million fortune and is financing a media blitz on his own. He has the pecuniary power and, via TV ads, is attempting to transfigure that power into political currency. Now that he has fallen into a statistical dead-heat with McCain after leading New Hampshire polls since the political campaign began he has been targeting his chief rival.

Romney is betting heavily on a backlash against illegal immigration, as much of his literature being mailed to and distributed to New Hampshire voters features that theme, as do several of his TV ads. John McCain, who has emerged as his main opponent in New Hampshire, is the focus of these anti-immigration ads.

Romney's anti-immigration ads target McCain as an apologist for illegal immigrants who sought to grant all illegal immigrants citizenship and rights to Social Security benefits. That these proposals have their lineage in the immigration reform legislation of the late 1980s and have the support of the Bush Administration is not mentioned. Ads typically couple the anti-immigration slant with an attack on McCain for not supporting the repeal of the "death tax" and for not voting for all of Bush tax cuts. These dual-themed ads strike a populist note in a reactionary vein, as they bash illegal immigrants, that term being a cognate for "Mexican," and promote tax cuts.
Unfortunately for the majority of voters who fall for Romney's demagoguery, the reality is that the "death tax" the centi-millionaire harps on actually is the federal estate tax that effects estates worth a minimum of $6 million. This "death tax" effects only a tiny minority of tax payers but which is a favorite of the right-wing shock radio jocks, who count on their audience not wanting an explanation of the tax but simply engaging in a Palovian reaction to the word "tax." Repealing the "death tax" also is a favorite subject of the corporate-funded right-wing and conservative think tanks and media. The tax cuts that Romney complains that McCain didn't vote for inordinately were skewed towards the rich and upper-middle-class and did not benefit the middle class or working poor.

In his latest attack ad, Romney has seemingly normal New Hampshire voters, none of whom looks particularly prosperous, serving as his mouthpiece. Romney's attacks on McCain, such as those indicting his humanistic approach to immigration, lead off with an apology: "John McCain is an honorable man...." immediately followed up with the conjunction "But." The talking heads of the new ad fill in the talking points after the "but", but it is the same talking points of previous ads except for one fillip: a matronly woman ties up the ad with the observation that "He's had his chance in Washington to make things better," the implication being that he failed.

The ad does not reveal that the woman who is tarring McCain as a failure is part of the Romney campaign orgnization. According to the Associated Press, the woman, "Marie Paling, is a Romney supporter who is a member of his New Hampshire Women's Leadership Team Steering Committee."
It is a low blow and an insult to McCain, who has always been a political maverick typically on the outs with the leaders of his party in the Senate, but who remained loyal to his party, turning down John Kerry's offer of the vice presidential spot on his ticket.

McCain's response ads runing in New Hampshire are simpler. It quotes the Manchester Union-Leader and the Concord Monitor, the latter paper having called Romney a "phony," and winds up with the revlation that Romney's "home-town newspaper" (the Boston Globe, not mentioned by name in the ad) endorsed McCain, as did both the Union-Leader and the Monitor.

John McCain's theme in his latest ads highlights the barometric flip-flopping of Mitt Romney: "You haven't changed and neither have I." McCain was the winner of the 2000 New Hampshire primary.

Romney is the only candidate running attack ads in New Hampshire. A backlash against going negative may hurt Romney, as John McCain is popular in New Hampshire, his no-nonsense, straight-talking persona resonnating well in the Granite State. McCain's aura of heroism, personal sacrifice and statesmanship goes down well with the typical New Hampshirite, whose state motto is "Live Free or Die." McCain has paid his dues, and TV images of Mitt Romney with jackbooted Massachusetts states policemen in jodphurs underneath a diatribe against illegal immigrants might not go over as well as intended with Granite Staters, most of whom have a certain animosity against neighboring "Taxachusetts" that Romney's own antipathy towards his home state might not do enough to ameliorate.
Romney's attack ads were mentioned in exchange over immigration policy during the January 5, 2008 Republican debate. McCain had pointed out that Romney, while governor of Massachusetts did not call his immigration reform plan an "amnesty" but had actually commended it as "reasonable."

"It's not amnesty," McCain told Romney. "And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it will won't be true."

Trying to Understand the Iowa Caucuses & Their Impact on the Presidential Election Process


The official results of the Iowa caucus claim that, on the Democratic side, that Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico received only 2% of the vote, good for fourth place, but news sources reporting earlier on the morning of Friday, January 4, 2008, claimed that Richardson had polled 10%. Later that night, in an appearance at a teacher's college in Nashua, New Hampshire, Governor Richardson himself told the crowd of perhaps 50 or 60 that he had received 20,000 votes by caucus-goers. As there were a reported 227,000 Democratic caucus-goers, Richardson had, in fact, received something akin to 9% of the vote.

He Iowa caucus system is deliberately un-democratic, and the Democratic caucuses are worse than the Republican, who count the number of caucus-voters for each candidate and leave it at that. The Democratic caucuses, however, demand a second apportionment of the vote of those candidates who cannot achieve 15% of the vote, so Richardson's 20,000 votes and 9% of the vote eventually was whittled down to only a reported 2% of the vote, ostensibly those die-hards who would not vote for a second candidate. But who knows exactly what happened. What we do know is that the press then condemned Richardson to oblivion, reporting the 2% figure.

What does that say about the system where such a thing occurs -- that we are now, in our decadence, nearly the equivalent of the old Soviet Union? America increasingly is a Potemkin Village, such as in its use of economic statistics that leave the price of energy and food out of the inflation rate (as if we weren't affected by higher energy and food costs!)

What does it say about the media that it doesn't properly report the outcome of the caucuses, that is, how many Richardson voters were there before he was considered "unviable," but puts everything in the guise of a breathless report on a horse-race, even though the press knows the track is fixed? I've been searching the Internet from the days before it was called the Internet and before there were graphical user interfaces, and I cannot easily find a single source that simply reports the numbers. Everything is hyped up and spun. Perfect, for those who want obfuscation to give themselves power, like political pundits. But what of us who believe we live in a democracy?

Iowa's system is not democratic, that's for sure. According to an article by Jodi Kantor in theInternational Herald Tribune, "[T]he caucuses...tend to leave out nearly entire categories of voters: the infirm, soldiers on active duty, restaurant employees on the dinner shift, medical personnel who cannot leave their patients, parents who do not have babysitting and many others who work in retail, at gasoline stations and in other jobs that require evening duty."

The question, then, is this: Why is this singularly undemocratic event given so much press coverage?

When I was 16 years old, I worked for Birch Bayh in the 1976 New Hampshire primary, a high school student who took time out at nights and on weekends to volunteer. There is a new story that has been spun that Jimmy Carter got a "boost" out of Iowa after "winning" the caucuses that year (the Iowa caucuses had been moved to precede the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary only in 1972), but the fact is, there was barely any coverage of the Iowa caucuses that year. Carter won the New Hampshire primary as he was up against four liberals who split the progressive vote. It wasn't until 1980 that Iowa began receiving press coverage, possibly as it was originally thought that Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts would trounce Carter in the New Hampshire primary, as Carter was considered weak and Kennedy the "favorite son," being from neighboring Massachusetts. That didn't happen, but coverage of Iowa did.

Iowa's arcane and byzantine caucus system is difficult for the public to understand. Before going to Governor Richardson's rally in Nashua, I had to explain the caucuses to my friend Gary, who had been at my side campaigning for Birch Bayh in 1976 and was with me tonight.

Is the fact that Iowa's system is so -- obscure -- is this why the media focuses so intently on them, as it engenders power for the press? Not so not very long ago, the Iowa caucuses were seen as being just about utterly without value; they have taken on their now overwhelming prominence only fairly recently, when the media started hyping and over-hyping them.
The Iowa caucuses are the Golden Globes of the presidential system: a sham that attracts press attention because the press gives the event attention. Reading how Barack Obama is now going to be President of the United States -- the Drudge Report headlined its coverage of the Democratic caucus results this morning with the headline "Mr. President" -- is surreal.

Reading the coverage today, one finds that the press has developed this mantra that "there's only three tickets out of Iowa." This wasn't true in 1980. Is it true today? Does this mean that former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who barely registered with the very conservative and heavily evangelical Christian Republican caucus-going crowd in Iowa, is through? Or, does that only apply to the Democrats and not the GOP? What madness!

When a politician like Bill Richardson, surely the best qualified person to assume the Presidency in this day and age with Al Gore out of the race, a politician with almost as many years in Congress as the Democratic "Big Three" of Clinton, Edwards and Obama combined, a man with Cabinet experience and diplomatic experience (including being ambassador to the United Nations) and five years of executive experience in his two terms as governor of New Mexico -- how a man like this can be so poorly served by the electoral system that our Founding Fathers gave so little thought to in designing when writing the Constitution is a sin It's a sin compounded by the adolescent, money-focused attitude of the press.

The poor showing of such an eminently qualified politician is particularly egregious in a time when the Imperial Presidency now means that one man lifted by this horribly inadequate system to the Oval Office can wage war on his own initiative, due to the exigencies of his own vanity, without any effective checks. The Founding Fathers never intended the President to have such powers; if they had, they would have designed a much better system than the Darwinist anarchy that exists now.

What can you say about a system in which the best candidate doesn't come out on top, about a system focused more on heat rather than light as candidates outspend each other to manipulate the media? The media's hyping of Barrack Obama, a man of little experience but who can fit some type of civics class narrative that the advertising driven media so loves in its embrace of shallowness in pursuit of the marketing dollar, is surely one of the signs of a seriously dysfunctional system.

In reality, the system is the way it is. There's nothing voters can do to change it. This is not a parliamentary system that encourages democracy, but a plutocracy in which pecuniary power equals political power. Anticipating the reaping of the dragon's teeth that have been sown for two generations, the harvest of two generations of shallow movie-star-like media-driven politics predicted by Norman Mailer in Superman Comes to the Supermarket in 1960, all I can say is that America likely deserves the fate it is facing. And the media will be there to make a show out of it Like any old whore, it is ready and willing to go every which way. Unlike the old whore, the media claims itself as the blushing virgin, while taking the money right over the table. It is all so meretricious.

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that if he were forced to choose between a government without a free press and a free press without a government, he would choose the latter. But what would he say today of the confluence of a corporate press shackled to the demands of the all mighty dollar, and a political process more enthralled to cold hard cash each and every day?

The presidential election system is in dire need of reform

Remembering the New Hampshire Primary


I was born in New Hampshire. Politics has always been an element of life in the Granite State, part of the air breathed in from toddlerhood. I can remember the heroic John F. Kennedy as president, and I can remember his funeral. What I can't remember is that fabled day that marks the memories of the Baby Boom generation: Where were you the day JFK was shot. It's blacked out in my mind.

My high school English teacher, Joe Sullivan (now a sports columnist for the Manchester Union-Leader, the only state-wide newspaper in New Hampshire) was a bag-boy at Sully's supermarket, which is now a CVS drugstore. On November 23, 1963, the word came to Sully's that JFK was shot, and a man in the checkout line said, "Its Johnson. Johnson had him killed" Mr. Sullivan, at the time before he was a Mister, told my freshman English class a decade later that he felt anger at the man for making such a stupid remark.

I bring this up as my first memory of the New Hampshire primary was seeing that same Lyndon Johnson come to my hometown of Manchester in 1964. I did not know that there was a presidential primary: I did know that there was a President and he was coming to Manchester. My mother and father gathered up us kids and went down to Elm St. and positioned ourselves near the entrance to the underground public toilets at Victory Park. Four years earlier, JFK had made his last speech of the 1960
Presidential campaign election night in Manchester, at this very spot. I was four and perched securely on my father's shoulders so I could see over the crowd.

What I saw was a Lincoln Continental drive up to the crossroads at Elm and Merrimack Streets and stop. The President -- and he was very much the President I recognized from TV -- got out of the car and waved. The crowds were huge and happily enthusiastic. It was just like a parade, one of those wonderments of childhood. After the President waved and shook hands with those happy folks at the front of the crowd, after soaking in his adulation, he got back in the "Kennedy car" and drove off. The Kennedy car, the Lincoln, held almost as much fascination for me as did the man himself.

LBJ won a huge electoral landslide that November. Four years later, he was a politically crippled President unsure whether to go on.

1968 was a big year for the New Hampshire primary, as it was wide-open year, despite the presence of a sitting President who could aspire to reelection. I was in the third grade, and like many a Granite State child, was fully conscious of politics. I revered Robert F. Kennedy. Later during that spring, I later detail for my third grade class, each Wednesday, RFK's pilgrim's progress through the other states' primaries towards the Democratic nomination. But before the assassination changed history, there was the New Hampshire primary. And RFK wasn't running. That didn't dampen my enthusiasm.

The emotionally uncertain Johnson, as he felt befitted his presidential stature, would not run outright for the nomination, which he felt should be his by right, but he had approved a write-in campaign. In 1964, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. won the New Hampshire primary through a write-in campaign, while serving as LBJ's ambassador to South Vietnam and not actually setting foot in the state. Such was the state of democracy in New Hampshire, a state that boasted the third-largest legislature in the English-speaking world, after Great Britian and India. I did know that there was a man named Eugene McCarthy running for president, whom I tended to confuse with someone named Joe McCarthy that the TV recently had ran a documentary on. I did not watch the documentary, as I was eight years old and there was only one TV in the house (besides a small portable boob tube in my teenage sister's bedroom on which I would later watch the '68 Olympics Games), and bedtimes were strictly adhered to. I read about it in TV Guide. Eugene/Joe McCarthy -- it was somewhat confusing. At the time, I thought Napoleon Solo on The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and Robert Goulet were the same man.

Paul Newman, the Paul Newman, had come to our next door neighbor's house to campaign for McCarthy (Eugene, not Joe), and had drawn what was a sizable crowd in our somewhat suburban neighborhood, about a score or more of people, including my sister, mother and brother, our father having vermoosed from the domestic scene the year before. (I had been forbidden to leave the house but could see all from the front room window.) There were maybe half-a-dozen newspapermen, two of whom were photographers. One of my sisters left the event as Newman was late, but the other got to say "Hi, Paul!" to the superstar, whom she later claimed was only a disappinting five-and-a-half-feet tall. My brother described how Newman had signed his name on the inside of the neighbor's dish cabinet. That signature is still there to this day, although the neighbors are long gone.

My classmate Moira, whose father was a history professor at St. Anselm's College (which was a block away from our ouse) had met McCarthy as her parents had sponsored a house-party for him. Liberal that she was, McCarthy had won her support. I was a premature RFK supporter, and we got to campaign for our candidates -- giving speeches before the 3rd grade class -- as a run-up to a mock primary election. I can't remember who the winner of the mock election was, either McCarthy or Kennedy, but I do remember that out of the score of students, LBJ only got two votes. For Johnson, it was the harbinger of the end. He dropped out of the race soon after my 3rd grade mock primary election.

1972 was a more memorable year, as being 12-years-old, I had a chance of being more active. Nixon was running for reelection, and one thing about living in Manchester, New Hampshire, is that you see every candidate as they are always there. At 12-years-old, you can get around, either by foot or bicycle, and are not so reliant on your parents. Nixon flew in on Air Force One, waved to the crowd, got into a limousine and, as he motored off to some fund-raising function, popped up out of the moon roof for a last wave at the mass. He was not one to press the flesh as was LBJ. My brother and his friends ran after the limousine to wave to Tricky Dick. A Secret Service agent hanging to the limo, possibly sensing the boys' future entrepre- neurial career in stealing hubcaps, kicked my brother in the shin.

That was the year Muskie cried, standing in a snowstorm before the office of the Manchester Union-Leader, the only statewide newspaper, a right-wing rag with opinions little changed since Paleolithic times, overseen by a cartoonish, baldheaded reactionary named William Loeb who had connections to Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters, if not the Mafia, and to the Nixon White House. It was rumored that Loeb could not stay overnight in New Hampshire due to legal troubles.

Muskie was my candidate, but he took umbrage with the Union-Leader after the publication of the infamous "Canuck letter" (a dirty trick hatched by the White House) and an article denouncing his wife as a loose woman. It could be that Muskie's "tears" were just melting snow flakes on his red-hot face, but he did display emotion and had reacted to Loeb's expert baiting.

My take on the event was that he did not cry, but the media went for the more exploitative angle and claimed he did. That was also the year that George McGovern came to the bowling alley we hung out in in Pinardville (a few blocks from our house -- my brother later was banned for throwing a pool ball through the window) and went to the factory my Aunt Isabel worked at, and shook hands with her. She thought he was a wonderful man, but I can't imagine my Aunt Isabel voting for such a lefty, though my cousins probably did. It was the full lunar tide of the Youth Revolution, and 18-year-olds had just been given the vote. This was the first election of many Baby Boomers.

Warren Beatty arrived at Moira's house for a McGovern party. She told us that Beatty was beautiful, but dumb. My best friend Gary was an enthusiastic McGovern supporter, and while Muskie won the primary, McGovern's second-place finish was dubbed the true win, as Muskie -- from a neighboring state and thus a virtual favorite son -- did not win as decisively as had been forecasted.

1976 was the biggest year, a highpoint that would never again be replicated (something I did not know then). It was the Bicentennial, which was a fun thing, with the arrival of the Freedom Train, a rolling museum of American knickknacks, including most impressively an actual Academy Award statuette and Paul Newman and Robert Redford's costumes from The Sting, which had run for over a year at the State Theater in downtown Manchester. (It's funny what you remember. I'm sure there were historical documents on that train. Like Ronald Reagan confronted with the revelations of Iran-Contra a decade later, I can't recall.)

The Democrats were still riding high from the reaction against Watergate that had given them large majorities in Congress, and it was felt that the Democratic nominee likely would be the next president of the United States. The fabled "Solid South" was still Democratic: It had not yet defected en masse to the Republicans, as it would do under Ronald Reagan, who was then running against President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination.

I was in high school, and political candidates visiting New Hampshire LOVE to visit high schools. We had assemblies for individual candidates, though I can only remember the Carter and Reagan speeches in the high school theater. There was a large bulletin board outside the theater with the names of all the West High School attendees who had gone to war, and the names of my father and Gary's father were on it. They had gone down the same day to join the Navy, and would die within two months of each other of the same disease, prostate cancer.

Since my father now lived in Atlanta, Georgia, I had an interest in Carter, although he was more conservative than I liked. He came and gave a speech in the school theater, and he was not really that impressive. He was small, I remember, smaller than he appeared on TV, and when he "jumped off the stage" rather than walk to the side and down the stairs -- there was a folding chair positioned in what would be the orchestra pit, and he stepped down on it, carefully, and down to the assembly room floor, I thought it was a staged stunt).

Ronald Reagan had charisma. He and his views were anathema to me, and even then he had signs of the senility that would plague his presidency. Moira asked him a question, and he came back with a canned response to what was essentially another question. He didn't even come close to addressing what she asked. I would have heckled the Gipper if I could, but I contented myself with making nasty comments to Gary and our rather conservative pal Ed. A guy in front of us, an upperclassman, turned around, looked me in the eye, and said, "For five cents, I'd punch you in the mouth." Ed -- with whom I constantly feuded with -- took out a nickel from his pocket, but it was too late. The upperclassman already had resumed listening to the man who would become known as The Great Communicator, for his acting prowess in delivering stump speeches. At the time, I could not imagine that anyone could believe in Ronald Reagan's cant.

After his speech, Jimmy Carter had exited the building, but Ronald Reagan stuck around and there was a reception line for students to meet the ex-movie star and former governor of California one-on-one. I got in line to shake Ronald Reagan's hand, someone I considered in my youthful zest for politics to be somewhat to the right of Satan. When it was my turn, he took my hand and looked into my eyes, and greeted me with a firm handshake, neither too soft, neither too hard, but just right.

At first, I was abashed by the reddish-brown dye-job that tinted his hair, and by his reddish-brown complexion which evoked a pair of expensive tooled-leather boots, but within milliseconds, a sense of his warmth came over me. At that moment, after the initial shock of seeing him so up close -- he was taller than I imagined, and had a real solid physical presence -- the aura of the man who was Ronald Reagan washed over me, this great sense of goodness and well-being, and when I shook it off a few seconds later, after disengaging, I said to Gary, "Why can't we Democrats have someone like that?" I had never had a grandfather, both having died before I was born. This man Reagan was like a grandfather, was the embodiment of a grandfather -- a loving, warm human presence as imagined by someone who had never known a granddad outside of the smiling visage on a bottle of Kentucky bourbon purchased, underage, at the state liquor store. (The drinking age had dropped along with the voting age and no one carded back then) .

Reagan had focused in on me in those seconds like one of the heat-guided missiles sold to Afghan rebels to its Soviet target. Yet, for all that charisma, I never thought he would be president. Then, or later in 1980. I would later see that charisma again, 16 years later, when Bill Clinton was on the stump in Boston.

Charisma, as an ingredient of electability, was emerging as something much more important than a political pedigree, or a demonstrated ability to function as a leader of a government. By the 2008 election cycle, with Barrack Obama -- a man all of three years of experience in the U.S. Senate, two if you discount the year he has spent campaigning for the presidency -- winning the Democratic caucuses in Iowa and a candidate as experienced as former Congressman, cabinet member and United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson, the two-term govenor of New Mexico, finishing a distant fourth, it seems to have replaced everythng. Being media-friendly and fitting in to media-friendly narratives is what pushes a candidate to the top.
32 years ago, my friend Gary and I volunteered for U.S. Senator Birch Bayh's campaign after our initial candidate, Terry Sanford, the former governor of North Carolina, dropped out. Mo Udall, the liberal Congressman from Arizona, was the early favorite. Jimmy Carter was the wild card, for he had troops on the ground, and we were dying to meet the rumored "Georgia Peaches" that were canvassing for the former Georgia governor. I thought they'd look like blonde goddesses. Election night was spent at the Bayh headquarters, and we were so disappointed to learn that Carter had pulled out a victory. Bayh came in third behind Mo Udall. The Iowa caucuses, which had first been scheduled before the New Hampshire primary in '72, was not covered much by the media in 1976. There seems to be a rewriting of history that Jimmy Carter got some kind of "bounce" out of Iowa that helped him win New Hampshire, but that is not the case. The only conservative, Carter was running in a field featuring four true liberals. The liberals split the progressive vote and Carter won. Jimmy Carter would use his win in the New Hampshire primary to capture the Democratic nomination, and the presidency.

Carter's four-year term was considered a debacle at the time, before his post-Presidential career burnished his reputation. One has to understand that in 1980, all the way up through October, the Establishment pundits and the people of the Northeastern states where I lived, was raised and attended university never believed Ronald Reagan could be elected president, but the incompetence of Carter domestically and in foreign policy engendered his election.

I travelled north from Boston, where I was attending university, to vote in the 1980 New Hampshire primary, but I can't remember for whom. It was during the run-up to the 1980 Republican primary that Ronald Reagan had electrified audiences when he took command of a debate after the moderator tried to cut him off, declaring "I paid for this microphone!" During the malaise that was the twin hostage and energy crises that blighted Jimmy Carter's presidency, many voters took notice, and Reagan won the primary after having come in behind George H.W. Bush in the Iowa Republican caucus. Reagan was on his way with his appointment with History.

After graduating from university in 1982, I tended to wander, and spent most of the past 25 years away from the Granite State, in the Army and out in California. I am living in New Hampshire during the 2008 primary cycle, back home, but it is not the same. Perhaps I'm older and more cynical, but it doesn't seem as fun as it did. One thing that is irrefutable is that the primary season is not as leisurely.

The New Hampshire primary has been moved up from its traditional spot in the spring to the first week of January, creating a shorter election cycle dominated by the media in an unprecedented way. As late as the 1996 primary, when California Governor Pete Wilson tried to win with a campaign almost entirely based on TV-ads, as would behoove a California campaign, the state being so populous and geographically vast, media campaigning was a distinct also-ran to actually pressing the flesh as a way of garnering votes. It is not unusual to see two commercials in the same half-hour of TV viewing run by the same candidate, and it might even be the same commercial! Mitt Romney has spent millions on campaign coverage since he launched his campaign early last year. The primary has also lost its importance, as the media increasingly focuses on the Iowa caucuses as the true inauguration of the Presidential election cycle, despite the fact that the Iowa results are a poor bellwether of who will eventually win.

Things are just not the same. Then again.... I was hoping that Evan Bayh, Birch's son would run in 2008, but he bowed out before even throwing his hat in the ring. A week ago, he was in the Grainte State, on the hustings for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps positioning himself for 2012, should the Democrat fail, or 2016, should he or she not. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Friday, January 4, 2008

Bill Richardson

I've voted for Bill Richardson in the Democratic Primary in New Hampshire via absentee ballot. He came in fourth in the Iowa caucuses and is totalling only 7% in he latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll. It is my belief that Richardson is the most qualified man to be president. He actually is what Barack Obama (and his merry band of Democratic Republicans) claims to be, as he has the background (diplomat, Cabinet member, governor) providing the most thorough preparation for the Presidency.

But what does it matter when the media wants a beauty contest to boost ratings?

Here's an interesting article on Richardson and the media: Richardson Gets the Last Laugh:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/richardson-gets.html

I have a feeling Bill Richardson is going to be the next Vice President of the United States, with either Hillary, Obama or -- most fortuitously -- John Edwards.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

The Hood Ornament Effect or, Why the U.S. Needs a Parliamentary System


Orson Bean once told Merv Griffin or Mike Douglas that he did not read the newspaper, nor follow current events.

"Reading a newspaper is like focusing on the hood ornament of your car while you're out driving in the country," Bean explained. "You miss the beauty of the world around you."

Watching the talking heads on Face the Nation and Meet the Press (John Edwards and Mike Hucakbee, though not sure which was on which), it dawned on me: American politics essentially is hood ornament-gazing.

I haven't "blogged" in almost two weeks as, frankly, following American politics and politicians disgusts me. Reading blogs one realizes that there actually is a disease called graphophilia, where someone becomes addicted to writing. Like "Thomas Wolfe" disease, that is, diarrhea of the pen, the political junkie infected with graphophilia writes on and on, day after day, until he (and its always a he) has created a mountain range of molehills, a range that in the junkie's own mind rivals the Rockies or the Andes, nay, the Himalayas. And they are still molehills.

The beauty contest that is the Presidential selection process essentially is about electing the Mole-in-Chief. Is it no wonder why the Presidency and American politics is such a tragicomedy? Tragic when seen up close, a comedy when one steps back, then a tragedy for the rest of the world that has to bear the brunt of the Mole-in-Chief's policies for four-to-eight years.

Look at the wallpaper in your room, or some object on the wall. Take your index finger and bring it very close to your thumb, and then bring it up to your eye If you are concentrating on a small detail on the wallpaper, suddenly, framed in such a way, it has assumed massive proportions. It has filled the "space" and psychologically, has become the "world" from this Point of View.

And it is false, just like the American Presidential election process is false.

We are focusing on personalities rather than issues. One can say we are focusing on the way a candidate, like Barack Obama, articulates the issues, but we would be wrong. We are focused on the way a candidate like Obama frames the issues, markets the issues, which is essentially thumping the tub for him or herself.

In a parliamentary system, the party picks the leader and the candidates who will run for a seat in Parliament. The voter focuses on the party and the issues, not on the personalities. One votes one's interest, as articulated by the party, not because John Edwards is better looking, in his WASPy button-down way, then Bill Richardson, whose face is a map of Mexico.

In a parliamentary system, a man like Richardson with his full resume (cabinet member, United Nations ambassador, governor) would be the head of a party. The press, and I mean the Boston Globe, not the National Enquirier, would not make up fantasies that Obama's world travels as a boy uniquely position himself as a diplomat (which he hasn't been -- this incidentally, is Obama's own fantasy that the Globe, seeking for a Rockefeller Republican, bought), ignoring the fact that Bill Richardson actually IS a diplomat.

This is insanity.

On the one hand, you have the real thing, an experienced man with executive and international experience, and he is ignored by a major American newspaper to tout the more marketable brand.

My father said that the essence of American life is that someone, sometime, is always trying to sell you a horse made out of horseshit, claiming its a real horse.

In the late 1960s, when the book The Selling of the Presidency came out, revealing how during the 1968 Presidential contest, the two candidates (Humphrey and Nixon) used Madison Ave. advertising firms who sold them with strategies used to flog dogfood and cigarettes, American pundits were outraged. Now, the talking heads on the boob tube hail Mitt Romneys religion speech, utterly devoid of substance, as a good "marketing move," a canny "advertisement for myself" from Mitt to evangelical Christians.

It's not the tail wagging the dog, it is a horseshit simulacrum of a horse being bridled and piss-tested and entered into the Kentucky Derby. It is baseball on steroids, which the sporting press was entirely conscious of us, and indeed, was part of the conspiracy to sell that conglomeration of horseshit to the sports fan, who is a dumb slob and could care less. Integrity is something for other people.

The United States, which has just endured seven years of a Mole-in-Chief who has utterly disgraced this country, is going to reap the rewards of the dragon's teeth it has sowed for the last generation.