Good onto Hills!

Hillary had more faith in Hillary than the rest of us. Fie upon us.
Look at these uplifting wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island today. Let's hope Pennsylvania is on its way.
This will make it pretty even as it goes off to the convention. A cliffhanger to the end.

I am so happy about Hillary's wins today.

Annoyingly, I have to watch coverage of it on Fox news. The Fox election coverage has been nauseating me for some time. Well, ever since I have had to watch it.
It is a disservice that Rupert Murdoch does to the USA, allowing Australia only to see 24-hour US news from Fox. CNN is shown on cable but it is a special Pacific version which is tediously dominated by business and finance. Sky is dominated by sport.
So, if one is interested in general US news, Fox is it.

Hence, we have those ugly, smug Fox anchors unctuously faking objectivity in Democratic coverage.

Beggars can't be choosers. So I watch avidly deep into the Australian night.
It is stressful.


But at least there are signs that not all of the USA is brainwashed by Fox.
The people are recognising that Hillary has the goods that the country really needs.

YouTube marries CNN - debate update

My brush with CNN in the context of its media facilities New Hampshire Democratic debate has turned me into something of a CNN fan. Hence I was not surprised to see the news station recognising the Internet not only as a resource but as a media partner and creating the bright new phenomenon of a co-hosting arrangement with YouTube. In many ways, this was more significant than the South Carolina Democratic debate it embraced. It was media history.

Of course, a lot of secrecy and fuss surrounded the questions submitted to the Debate via you Tube. No one wanted to blow the pioneer partnership before the event - so the teasers told us of the quantities of questions submitted and the fact that they would be screened.
One has to note that YouTube now is a vibrant political playground. All the presidential candidates have posted video in YouTube and there is a mass of political satire and commentary available amid the piano-playing cats, pratfalls and teen showoffs on the video-sharing empire which, I may add, is only two years old and already is a household name which was sold to Google for something like $1.6 billion.

It is realistic to see YouTube as a player in the political progress - and a brilliant idea to encompass its global participating in the American political process.

It also made for a livelier and more interesting debate with video questions from all sorts of people all over the place.

So, the big and usual question: Who won the South Carolina Democratic debate?

Of course I am going to say Hillary did.
There in her vivid magenta in the line-up of besuited men, she was as much as visual stand-out as she was a political one.


The more of these debates they do, the more the New York Senator shines.
She never has to try. She is simply serene and authoritative, confident and ready.
One reads the ongoing polls and observes the public reticence which holds her back - the old baggage being carted around by those who are stuck in a time-warp of media negativity from the old Whitehouse days when she was cutting her teeth, so to speak. One by one, they come around as they have any direct contact with Hillary. That is all it takes. That is the transformative moment.

The other Democratic candidates realise this and are working hard to compete. It is a bit sad in some ways. They are an impressive lineup, exceptional politicians each and every one.

Barack Obama continues to breathe down Hillary's neck - and his media performance improves steadily.
He fronted well in the debate.
He did, however, look alarmingly thin. If he was lean and hungry before, he is a bit gaunt in front of the camera now. Not good. The stress showing? Perhaps he should have kept on smoking. I am disappointed that he caved in on the smoking thing.



John Edwards, as a Southerner, was in home territory in this debate and he was just as shiny and gorgeous as ever. A very telegenic man. He is handsome and comfortable in the medium and he fared well.

Very tellingly, both Edwards and Obama showed the face of their fear of Hillary by sniping at her and her policies. She sniped at no one.

Joe Biden always presents well in debate and he did so again in this one.


Bill Richardson, a particularly classy and worthy candidate, never seems to come over as well on the electronic media. He may be a better candidate than Biden, but he is always pipped on the television.
Chris Dodd seemed a bit stodgy - despite the airing of his own YouTube advertisement which is all about the qualifications of his thick head of white hair.

Mike Gavel might have been on the end of the line but he was in the forefront of the camera when it panned from the YouTube screen to the candidates - and he got a lot of visual prominence, if not so much in spoken word.
One of the reasons for the latter was the fairly peremptory way in which he answered the questions. He has taken gruff to the extreme. He is pouting and snarling like a rather jealous loser - which is a pity.

Dennis Kucinich is a regular loser in the presidential candidate stakes and he does the whole thing with panache and good spirit. He will never admit defeat - and he knows he has a lot of important egalitarian messages to convey and he will use the platform to keep the true left alive.

The more of these debates they do, the more obvious it becomes that there are really just the three runners - Clinton, Obama and Edwards, in that order.

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.

On being a small fish...

So much for depending on my own kind to get things done here.
As requested by its editor, I made application through the Union Leader for tickets to the June 3 Democratic Debate up the road in Manchester. They asked for some personal details to which end I had to use my husband's name since they seemed to wish for legitimate NH voter credentials.
No tickets were forthcoming.
Indeed, no word was forthcoming. Nada. Silence.

Perturbed, nay, gobsmacked, I contacted the Hillary campaign who directed me to the New Hampshire Democrats' office, the helpful press officer of which directed me to the Debate's co-host, the NH television station, WMUR. What a friendly and charming response - but no tickets. Their quota all went yesterday. Yesterday!

How frustrating is this!
I realise with a jolt what a spoiled media person I am. I am used to people knowing who I am. I am accustomed to people actually wanting me to be at events or to picking up a phone and having doors open. I am used to a diary bulging with in invitations.
But, as much as I feel at home here, I am not on home turf. I have no strings to pull.

At least I am carrying my media union card.
So, I followed the WMUR advice and have appealed to the Debate's other co-host, CNN - this time asking for the only access left, media accreditation.
My regret in this context is that being among my own kind will distance me from the special people of NH, the discerning voters, who are, to a large extent, what this blog is all about. Then again, being with my own kind in another country would be an interesting study in its own right.
And, of course, it would give one a yet closer look at the candidates - which can't be bad.
My fate, however, rests upon the kindness hands of strangers.
They don't owe me a thing.
I can only wait and see.

Meanwhile, there has been good news.
Hillary will be back in NH next week and she is scheduled to do a town walk in Nashua!
I will be there with bells on.

Songs of praise and mutters of dissent

The hunt is on for a Hillary song.
I've noticed the prominence of music at all the candidates' major events - not always liking what I heard. In the Hillary case, it would seem to be because the campaign theme song has yet to be chosen.
Now, as the action revs up, the time has come.
It's tricker than one may think. One needs something that falls between familiar popular song and an anthem. Something that creates the right mood and delivers the right message. And, bloody hell, it turns out to be a can of worms - or so I am thinking now I have listened to the selection thus far chosen for the Hillary Clinton campaign. The campaign has asked us all to vote and, if we don't like the choices, to suggest something else.
One by one, I eliminated the nine proposed songs - one was too dirge-like, one sounded like a lesbian love song, one did not sound positive enough, one sounded too girlie...
So, if I don't like them, I have to think of something else. OK. So I have surfed around and listened to things I thought would be good options and, guess what, none of my ideas is perfect either!
I'll just have to wait and see what other supporters come up with.

Meanwhile, we await the forthcoming Democrat Debate in New Hampshire. It is being hosted by CNN and the Union Leader newspaper in Manchester - rather a good paper, I have noted, with a terrific web presence. Getting hold of tickets to the debate is not easy. They are very strictly rationed and one has to apply by email, giving personal details which include date of birth. Then one has to wait to see if one is accepted. This makes me very tense indeed.

Methinks New Hampshire also is getting a bit tense. The other US states are doing their best to close in and undermine its first primary status. We've had the date changes from the other states with Florida pushing hard to turn the presidential candidate campaign into a rush, to squeeze up those dates and force New Hampshire back into 2007. Now we have Associated Press (the Australian version of which I once worked for) and its analysis of the America census statistics to show that NH is not the perfect archetypal American state. It does not have a "national average" demographic. AP says that Illinois is the average state. It also is a huge state. Too intensely populated for the sort of hands-on intensity of the NH political activity.
The criticism of NH is that it does not have the diversity of population, the percentage of blacks. But what it does have is a political tradition and a population geared to undertake the responsibility of scrutinising each and every candidate as a state mission and a national obligation. Of course this is not average!