Words and more words

Signs of renewed action in New Hampshire primary - at last. Several candidates are coming up to participate in July 4 street parades, Mitt Romney is attending a lunch for the local Republican committee members, Barack Obama is making an appearance in Laconia and Fred Thompson is holding fundraisers at $500 a ticket - which may sound a bit stiff but, oh goodygoody, includes the opportunity for a photo taken with the former senator.

I am not revved up about any of these events. I certainly don't need a $500 photo taken with Fred Thompson. Heavens, Rudi Giuliani did not charge a cent when he stood there shaking my hand in front of the cameras.

Rudi is not doing so well in the GOP polls. Mitt Romney, the Mormon, is pushing ahead, with much thanks to the Boston Globe which has been running a week-long uber profile of the former Massachusetts governor.
I have never seen such a magnanimous dedication of space to a political candidate in a metro daily paper. Front page leads are followed by double-page spreads inside the paper day after day with chapters so extensive that they may as well be a book. The writing is entirely uncritical. It is possibly the biggest puff piece in journalistic history. In terms of advertising space in a metro daily, I imagine it is worth close to $1million.

My interest in this massive Romney promotion faded after the first three days. I am still reading Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary Clinton and thriving on the revelations therein. I was a little shocked to discover that she is not much of a newspaper reader but prefers to get news from public radio. Well, it beats the garbled bites on television.

Meanwhile, there is much uncertainty in the air with contemplations of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg entering the primary as an Independent. Could he be the Ralph Nader of 2008?

Hillary ain't no actor

Celine Dion's You and I was not my choice as Hillary's campaign song. It's a bit, well, Celine Dion, albeit that the sentiment is good. Now I am wondering if one would define that strident voice as "soprano", thus giving a double entendre to zany little home video with Bill and Hillary doing a Sopranos final episode spoof. What a stroke of genius that little video. It shows that Hillary is ready to have a bit of fun. More importantly, it shows that she is a lousy actor - which is a good thing in a politician.
Let's hope she gets and keeps the day job.

With the campaign trail still in quiet mode, I am engrossed in Carl Bernstein's A Woman in Charge which I am finding to be a fastidious, well-written and illuminating biography - so far. Certainly I am learning a lot about what influences have formed the Hillary Clinton character - a "mind conservative and a heart liberal".
I was intrigued about her young experiences as a Republican and now see that she moved steadily so far to the left of the GOP that she clear fell out the side.
I also feel much clearer about her religion now I know of her Methodist upbringing. She is no holy roller, just a straight-laced and self-disciplined Metho.
Her "ambitiousness" is constantly flagged in the media as such a wicked, evil, unfeminine quality like some form of rampant hubris. In the book it emerges as a steady wish to play a role in social reform, equality and fairplay. She believes she can do it!
But I have more to read...

Meanwhile, while the New Hampshire political action is in the doldrums, the e-campaigning is going strong. Every day I get hammered by emails from the candidates, each and every one of them asking for campaign donations.
I am finding the begging mail very tiresome. I wish they would stop asking me and let me decided if, where and when I would like to contribute.
This fundraising preoccupation, I think, is highly alienating and the campaigns should cool it and, at least once in a while, impart some information which does not come with a money ask.

Political baggage check

Poll-watching is the sport of the moment. It is not unpleasant since it is Hillary Clinton's name which is up there on top. She continues to work the country - as they all do. Campaigning for the nomination is an exhausting business - and after a full year of that, the winning candidates will face another ten months of campaigning to win the presidency. This game is not for the weak or lazy.

Which is why I think it is probably a good idea that the actor/Republican Fred Thompson stays out there in undecided land. One gathers from the biographical details that laziness has been a lifelong characteristic. This explains why he has still not declared his candidacy - despite displacing Romney, McCain and others in the polls.

The Republican race is honing down to Giuliani versus Romney. They both have a lot of baggage so it will be interesting to see how the media weighs it up and penalises them both. In an odd way, it is the same baggage. Wives. Giuliani is much maligned for the fact that he is on his third wife. Romney derives from not only a religion but a family which represents polygamy. Of course Romney regularly reiterates the official line that the Mormons discontinued polygamy in 1890. But it is not so. Right when Romney needs it least, HBO has come up with Big Love, a brilliant television drama series which portrays the various worlds of Mormon polygamy and everyone is riveted and learning about Mormonism. Big Love is a "now" series about a "now" issue.
Sooner or later, Romney will have to stop sidestepping this and come clean on his religion.
And while he is at it, some of us would like to know about how he made the millions which set him up as the richest presidential candidate, worth a quarter of a billion dollars? It is my impression that much of this wealth was creamed off from that business management business by which companies are bought, scaled right back and then sold off. People and their jobs are the casualties of this ugly business game. And while workers are laid off, management consultants responsible for the ruthless toecutting are fleecing away immense fees. Perhaps some of those displaced workers will hold up their hands as the campaign evolves. Surely they are Romney baggage we have yet to see. Where are you mainstream media? Get digging.


Whichever of the front runners America chooses, it will have to be over the barrel of at least one major cultural hurdle....
An Italian who does not keep his wedding vows.
A millionaire Morman.
A black man.
A woman.

Great Scott, it's about faith

Another hiatus in the candidate visit business, but unsurprising following the debate.
Hillary is the first to be making a return trip to New Hampshire - heading up north to Hanover to "host a conversation about expanding stem cell research and moving our nation forward on important scientific research and medical issues".
I am invited to attend, but I simply can't get up there, as much as I would enjoy this issue and crowd. Hanover is the town where Dartmouth College is located. It is also the town in which satirical travel writer Bill Bryson chose to settle following his Lost Continent travels seeking the perfect American town. It is a very pretty college town.
However, I won't be there on Friday.

Hillary is clearly a force for medical progress and the advancement of science - unlike the Republicans with their rash of creationists and pro-lifers.
But even she has been dragged into the faith game which has become an unhealthy aspect of this presidential race. It seems that placating the Bible-thumpers is de rigeur. This is a scarily religious country.

I can understand why Hillary chose to join the very religious Barack Obama, who belongs to a rather powerful black church, in doing the old religious tell-all on television recently. I didn't watch. Couldn't bear to. I just understood that, with the obsessive Christianity of contemporary America, Hillary had to show her religious side. She has always been something of a church-goer. Nonetheless, it saddened me that waving the faith flag is necessary at all.

I was grateful to Boston Globe columnist, Scott Lehigh, who summed it up thus in Piety on Parade, a magnificent opinion piece which really merits reading in full:

I'd prefer a candidate inclined to keep quiet about his faith, rather than wear it on his sleeve. Or even one who held with the philosopher Herbert Spencer: Whether God exists is intellectually unknowable.

I'd rather hear about a hopeful's earthly justifications for his policy positions, about the real world values that guide her. When a candidate says, "My religion teaches me . . . " what he or she is really saying is: I'm about to base my answer in a realm that helps me barricade it against rational argument.

Do we really want a president who relies on faith more than facts in making his decisions? Or who thinks he has the imprimatur of God as he moves forward?

Hillary facelift? I don't think so.

Over there in California they have decided that Hillary Clinton has had "work". She has been looking so good on television that she simply must have had cosmetic surgery, they say.
They should know better, those sculpted narcissists of the west coast.
Instead of face lifts, they should go get glasses.
They are so wrong it is just plain silly.
And it is quite clear they have not been reading this blog - which has observed the heavy make up Senator Clinton has been wearing. She had the full pancake on for the Democratic Debate on Sunday night. She looked younger than springtime. But it was all the artistry of television makeup.
Hillary is aging along with the rest of us.
She has not wasted working time on turning herself into a fake spring chicken.
Let's face it, a shot of Botox had the media savaging John Kerry in the last primary. Old craggy-face smoothed the worry lines and caused an image crisis really worth worrying about.
Doubtless this was not lost on Hillary Clinton.
She turns 60 on October 26 - and she looks just that.
As the gurus of looking young were telling Oprah the other day, there is really one and only one secret which our grandmothers could not apply in looking younger than their years and it is the good hair colourings of today. Hillary's hair is well coloured.
This photo was taken just over a week ago. It does not show the face of a woman who has been nipped and tucked by the cosmetic surgeon. It shows a woman comfortably living in her own skin. Click on it to get a really close look!
So shut up California. You are out of line.

But -
While the surgical knives have not been on Hillary, the media knives are all out for her and being well and truly sharpened by the abrasion of books that are hitting the shelves.
No one has a good word to say for the former First Lady.
In many people, men especially, ambition is seen as a strength. In Hillary, it is treated as the ultimate evil. This would seem to be the heaviest piece of baggage she carries, and almost no one to whom I have spoken about Hillary's presidential chances fails to snipe about this dreadful trait.
There are six months of campaign ahead before the New Hampshire primary and this means six months of increasingly voluminous white-anting of Hillary.

At the moment she is just riding above it. I have not heard her defend herself - but only move doggedly forward with policy and politic. The time has to come when she confronts it all - and stands up not only for America but for herself.


Note: "White-anting" is an Australian term which means to eat away and undermine. "White ant" is an Australian name for termites.

Republicans' turn to debate

Once again, this time at the CNN Republican Debate in Manchester, New Hampsire, Ron Paul seemed to rise from the Republican ranks as the most balanced and sensible of them all.
I was not at this event, choosing to stay home on this wild and stormy night and watch comfortably on the TV. Wonderful CNN, however, kept the transcripts popping into my email. What a class act.

Ron Paul is a back-runner who comes to the front every time the Repubs get to open their collective mouths. He's not the popular modern model of the conservative, but an old-fashioned Libertarian - and a straight-talker. He's forceful and vehemently against unilateral aggression, and for general equality of human beings. He spoke up against the Republican obsession with God - saying that prayers in schools and the makings of laws about religion was not the business of Federal Government. Of course, Paul was perched at the very end of the lineup, again, the outsider. But here's my five-cent bet that the viewers and voters were really impressed with him yet again. Despite the fact that he was given so few opportunities to speak.

Rudy Giuliani has the presence and acquits himself most eloquently. But as the creationist Sam Brownback so ferociously stated, there is no way a pro-choicer is going to make it.


Mitt Romney believes in himself as much as in Mormonism. He played the cameras and the people - sidestepping direct questions, reiterating what we have already heard, practised and overly confident. He played the hawk.

John McCain has lifted his act and was really quite impressive, despite a tendency to keep addressing the audience as "my friends". The more debates he does, the more fluent and articulate he becomes, the more authoritative. He is making no secret of his contempt for the Bush administration's handling of the War of Iraq.


And as for the army wife who asked a question about EYErac - stubborn ignorance or cultural insult?


Of course these events are not really debates. They are question and answer sessions, television happenings. And, like almost everything in the American news media, they are always so rushed. The clock is constantly running out on everything. So the candidats are expected to express themselves in 15 second bursts, to speak really, really quickly. This, of course, ensures that everything is comfortably superficial.

The other candidates? I am not sure they are worth the time of day. Well, not my day, anyway. Mike Huckabee on Creationism? There is an unhealthy preoccupation with God and faith and creation. This is not politics. It is religion. It is frightening.

And wasn't it sweet to see Tom Tancredo and Rudy Giulinani wearing identical ties?
And, ooh, wasn't it spooky when lightning strikes zapped static into the sound system just when Giuliani was responding to criticisms by a Catholic bishop. It was a moment of much-needed levity, although the funniest moment was when Tom Thompson said that, in giving George W. Bush a job under his administration, "I would not send him to the UN". It did not raise a laugh among the Republicans - but some of us got the joke.

But here, just for the record, are some quotes from Ron Paul on Iraq:

"If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment. So we're not making progress there and we should come home.

The weapons weren't there and we went in under U.N. resolutions. And our national security was not threatened. We're more threatened now by staying."

"...our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests.

The profits, that's not the problem. It's the problem that we succumb to the temptation to protect oil interests by literally going out and fighting wars over oil."

"...you can't enforce our goodness, like the necons preach, with an armed force. It doesn't work".

Come in Spinners

When the debate ends, the spin begins. And there is a special room for it.
Fortunately, on the drizzling, cold New Hampshire night, the Spin Room was in the building right beside the media's giant File Room. We just had to scuttle past a couple of rain-protected State Troopers and into the bright lights of spin. It was another vast, high-ceilinged Saint Anselm indoor sporting arena of some sort. But the sport was spin - with keen volunteers gathered around towers bearing the names of the candidates, all of tem holding signs aloft. These identified the candidates' spin doctors. Yes. True story. The media was invited to get the spin. Now, we all know that spin is PR - so this struck me as a bizarre ritual for journalists - go interview the PR people? Isn't that what we want to avoid? To be fair, these good news-bearers were campaign strategists, pollsters and, well, important people had endorsed a candidate.

Of course it was hoped that the candidates themselves would appear in the Spin Room before the night was over - but for some time they would be engaged in post-mortem interviews back in the debate hall which was some distance away. So the media swarmed around the Spin Room earnestly interviewing the spinsters.

They gathered in tight clutches, notepads and tape recorders to the fore, hanging on every word. Every grouping attracted curious rivals - anxious not to miss a scoop. I simply couldn't see this as scoop territory, but I played along.

Bruce recognised the very powerful political advisor and Hillary confidant Mandy Grunwald so I zeroed in. I liked the look of her, as it happens - but I was not about to make her like me. I'd decided to go for the nitty-gritty, the thing which is worrying us most of all in the Hillary Clinton candidacy - the "baggage".
Thus did I enumerate the Bill baggage, the 2002 vote for the War on Iraq baggage, the fact that American voters think she is too ambitious baggage and the fact that she is a woman baggage, asking Grunwald if America could ever let go of this, since every time I mentioned my preference for Hillary, people responded with a baggage agenda.
Grunwald gave me something of a withering look and said: "In case you hadn't noticed, she is ahead."

Yes, I had noticed, but there was a long way to go and media corrosion applied to baggage in American politics presented a need for constant defence. Could Hillary surmount the baggage over the distance? How hard was it?
Grunwald, her eyes raking the room for someone or something, told me that Hillary is definitely the most able candidate for the job, the most experienced and best and that, despite baggage, the polls were going strongly her way.
But what of the national sexism, what about America voting for a woman?
Here her spin ended.
"We shall just have to wait and see," she sighed.
I left it at that.
There really is nothing left to say. Indeed, there is a long way to go before the NH primary vote in January. Hillary has been working very hard in the state and I do believe she has won many hearts and minds. But there could so easily be a slipup. John Edwards lost ground with his $400 haircut. As the Washington blogger told me when we swapped notes, Edwards is now irreparably handicapped by that extravagance. He is a joke. Just as John Kerry in 2004 was doomed from the moment the media labelled him "Flip Flop". It only takes one little thing in this game.
The up side is that all the Democratic candidates are good - a quality of politician of which we could only dream in Australia.
And, unlike in Australia, they are accountable to the voters - not picked for leadership in some backroom, faction-driven party in-deal.


Clearly the Spin Room media was in for the long haul, waiting for candidates to turn up. They milled and jostled, killed time with interviews and photographs that will never see the light of day and jealously watched the CNN post debate interviews on a giant TV screen.


Bruce and I figured we could watch them more comfortably at home - and set off into the night drizzle, past the rows of trucks topped by satellite dishes, giant high-tech OB vans, damp outdoor reportage tents and the big, shiny CNN Express bus, parked in a dazzle of floodlights on one of the campus lawns.

Indeed, we were able to catch up on the television coverage at home and, heavens above, who was that looking earnest in the midst of the Spin Room throng? 'Twas me.

Blitzer blitzes in CNN Dem debate

And there was Hillary with her back to the wall again about her vote for the War on Iraq. The NY Times today devoted most of its Sunday magazine to a dissection of her moves on the subject, did or did she not read the full briefings on Iraq, and one could have been sure that CNN"s Wolf Blitzer would take it a step further and see if a yet more decisive backdown could be elicited. As, of course, he did.
And thus did Hillary Clinton explain again:

Wolf, I was thoroughly briefed. I knew all the
arguments. I knew all of what the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department were all saying. And I sought dissenting opinions, as well as talking to people in previous administrations and outside experts.

You know, that was a sincere vote based on my assessment that sending inspectors back into Iraq to determine once and for all whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and using coercive diplomacy was not an unreasonable act.

What I did not count on, and what none of us did who voted to give the president authority, is that he had no intention to allow the inspectors to finish their job.

CLINTON: Now, we can argue about the past, or we can answer the question you asked about the National Guard. Our troops did the job they were asked to do. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They conducted the search for weapons of mass destruction. They gave the Iraqi people a chance for elections and to have a government. It is
the Iraqis who have failed to take advantage of that opportunity.

BLITZER: So let me just be precise, because the question was:
Do you regret not reading the national intelligence estimate?

CLINTON: I feel like I was totally briefed. I knew all of the arguments that were being made by everyone from all directions. National intelligence estimates have a consensus position and then they have argumentation as to those people who don't agree with it. I thought the best way to find out who was right in the intelligence
community was to send in the inspectors.
If George Bush had allowed the inspectors to finish the job they started, we would have known that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD andwe would not have gone and invaded Iraq.


These peerless, perfect quotes do not come of my lightning note-taking skills. They come from CNN's svelt services to the media. Debate transcripts ping into our email as the debate is going along. We are here in the Press Room with our laptops, connected through CNN's whizzy wireless network, and CNN is doing the transcriptions for us - which is just as well since, despite all the technological brilliance of this set-up, the sound quality in the hall is absymal and we have had trouble understanding what the candidates were saying.
Not only do the transcripts arrive by email but also they are delivered as printouts to our desks - literally hot off the printer.
One can't say we are not well looked after.

But, back to the debate.
And a very lively debate it has been - and is. I write as it goes on.

Blitzer sought to establish in what ways the Democrats were divided over assorted issues - hence a lively exchange on Iraq and an even livelier one on whether English should be the official language of the USA.
Blitzer asked for a show of hands on this.
Only Mike Gravel, the delightful renegade former senator from Alaska, raised his hand.
It was an odd moment.
Obama leapt in asserting this was the kind of question that was designed
precisely to divide the candidates.

Quoth he: You know, you're right. Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. The issue is
not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is: How can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy? And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.


Turns out he was off the mark. Hillary leapt in like a wise school ma'am to explain what it was all about. She had encountered the issue in the Senate.
I, for one, needed her elucidation:

The problem is that if it becomes official instead of recognized
as national -- which indeed it is, it is our national language -- if it becomes official, that means in a place like New York City you can't print ballots in any other language. That means you can't have government pay for translators in hospitals so when somebody comes in with some sort of emergency there's nobody there to help translate what their problem is for the doctor.
So many of us -- I did, at least -- voted to say that English was our national language, but not the official language because of the legal consequences of that.


It will be interesting to see what angles the assorted reporters take on the debate. For the proletariat, there is the happy agreement that Bill Clinton should be employed by a Democrat president, including Hillary, to be a roaming global envoy, bringing back good spirit towards the USA.

Then there is the who-was-righter-than-right about Iraq....which Obama seems to think he won, turning on poor old John Edwards, who had just apologised yet again for voting for the war, and telling Edwards he was "four and a half years behind in leadership". Obama had better watch that self-righteousness.
But Iraq issue is far from dead but it is descending into nit-picking. When one thinks of how long the campaign has yet to run, one imagines the public will be utterly fatigued by the time it comes to vote.

It was hard to tell in the busy context of that giant media room with its fuzzy acoustics just who it was who came out on top on the night. My bias would give the night to Hillary because she always presents so very well. She was the only one who managed to laugh - and she remained absolutely unruffled by anything, albeit that she was, at times, forceful.
Thus, methinks, the race positions remain unchanged.


More anon....


Bruce was officially accredited photographer on this adventure into political media and was taken off in a bus with other still photographers to get snaps from within the debate hall. Hence, the candidate snaps here are his.

CNN puts on the Debate ritz

No need to consult the map or ask for directions to Saint Anselm College where the big Democratic Debate takes place tonight. It was more like following a colourful breadcrumb trail - campaign posters and groups of chanting supporters raising the profile for their chosen presidential candidates marked the route through the back streets of Manchester, NH. If the roadside turnout reflects voter popularity, John Edwards is leagues ahead with his bunches of banner-waving people. Then again, if spread of lawn placards is the indicator, Bill Richardson had won the front yards of Manchester, prongs down. On the other hand, if size is the winning quality, Hillary just stood right out. Her signs were few, but absolutely huge.

As we swung into the College campus drive, just past the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, the supporter crowds chanted raucous welcome.

The media parking area was a bit of a suprise. It was as big as an oval and already crammed with cars. We were directed down and in, a long way, ending up parked beside a shock of pink rhododendron at the far end. Of course it was raining - so we donned the old rain gear and shuffled off through the long wet grass. Blech. My smart sneakers are not waterproof.

It was quite a walk to the Press Centre where, despite the door being right there, we were told to walk the perimeter of the building and approach the credentialling room from the other side. More rain. More shuffling through long, wet lawn. Then the queue to get in. Security is tight. We went through the full airport routine - emptying pockets into plastic trays, having bag contents scrutinsed, walking through screener arches, getting the wand once-over...

And then it was the credentials. No problem at all, and a cheery welcome from CNN's delightful Mara Gassmann, with whom I had been liaising for access to this event.


"Seats are allocated," we were told. "You just have to find them."

Oh, dear. Who could have imagined the scale of this thing! Where to begin looking when faced with row upon row upon row of tables and chairs laid out in the Carr Center - a room so caverous and vast it felt like like Centennial Hall on steriods.

And there, laid out on the trestle tables, were the names of America's top journalists..the NY Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post... Bruce swooned.

We figured that, as antipodean ring-ins, would not be in their midst. I headed for the back of the hall, and sure enough, in the back row, there were Bruce's and my name between Le Monde and, how nice, NewsLtd Australia! CNN has very thoughtfully placed our terrific NY correspondent, Stefanie Balogh, beside us! Camaraderie, no less! Beside us is Le Figaro and De Spiegel along with the London Telegraph. In front of us are Japan, Sweden, China and Switzerland. The world media, in other words.
Thus do we sit with the vista before us, beautifully placed to see the ebb and flow of almost 800 journalists - along with scores of TV monitors all showing CNN's coverage of the event.

An hour and a half before showtime, dinner was served. CNN has spared no expense - hot Atlantic salmon and Chicken kievs, masses of veggies and rice, cakes, bread, fruit... The head caterer assures me there are no trans fats, either. Yippee.
It is all presented with classy, china-thin disposable plates and even very upmarket disposable silverware. CNN has done this all before and does it with style.


Journos are meandering all over the place, looking for their seat allocations. Just chatted to a Washington blogger - he wanted to ask me the same things I wanted to ask him. In the end, we agreed that Bill Richardson may be the candidate to back if one was looking dispassionately at the big picture.

And this is what we are here to do.