Get Hillary - its the only choice.

It is all getting rather silly - and very worrying.
I watched what we were able to see on TV of the ABC Hillary/Barack debate, topping up content with online clips. Unless one is there, it is very hard these days to get any report which is not skewed with opinion.
The big loser of the debate according to all and sundry was the ABC for its pussyfooting and puny questioning.

Now, some of the commentators are saying that the ABC's biggest fault was that it was anti-Obama and therefore pro Clinton.

We have reached a stage of this nightmarish primary in which almost anything at all is deemed anti-Obama. While Hillary is a prime target for all the bile of the right with its entrenched Clinton hate agenda, Obama is protected by that exquisite American prerequisite for political correctness.

Since all criticism of Obama can be seen as racist, there can be no criticism. It backfoots Hillary badly - and puts a compromise on the open blather of the political pundits. So, if one is going to snipe and carp and criticise and keep that old media ball rolling with beat-up controversy, the middle class white woman with her sinful husband is the only way to go.

Oh, what a Catch 22.

Hillary's roadies

Sometimes the grass roots are positively verdant.
They line the roads.

Today Hillary's grass roots supporters, along with those of the other candidates, are converging simply to stand on the verges. They are driving and taking buses to Hanover to make an impressive rain or shine showing, waving placards, smiling and chanting her motto on the route to the latest debate.
This is not just part of the colour and theatre of the presidential primary process - but it is a demonstration of the enthusiastic commitment of the supporter base.
It is a surprisingly effective gesture, especially so far as the international media is concerned. The power of the people reflects the power of the candidate's position.


Hanover is a wonderful town - the Dartmouth university town in the north of New Hampshire. It is the place that Bill Bryson finally chose and settled in after his quest to find the perfect America town.

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.

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!

And the debate verdict is...

There they stood behind their oddly tapering lecterns under the kitsch, over-arty red, white and blue MSNBC debate set - Hillary Clinton, the tiny one, Barack Obama, the tall one, and then John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden - and who the hell is that other fellow?

I'd never heard of Mike Gravel, the former senator from Alaska.
Well, we all know him now. The man who said he felt like a potplant perched at the edge of the lineup turned out to be the star of the debate. Talk about fresh blood and fresh perspective. He is an old-fashioned sage. A no-bull man! A realist.
Terrorism, he asserted, "has been with civilization from the beginning, and it will be there till the end. We're going to be as successful fighting terrorism as we are fighting drugs with the war. It doesn't work. What you have to do is to begin to change the whole foreign policy."
On Iran and nuclear threats, he noted that the US was the greatest violator of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. "We signed a pledge that we would begin to disarm, and we're not doing it. We're expanding our nukes. Who the hell are we going to nuke?" he blustered.
He also said this:
"We have no important enemies, We've got to deal with the rest of the world as equals. Who are we afraid of? We spend more on defence than any other country...the military controls not only the budget, it also controls our culture." Wow!

Straw polls following the debate have given Gravel a surprising surge.
On Daily Kos, he has zoomed to a 10 per cent vote, ahead of Kucinich, Biden, Richardson and Dodd - but behind Hillary, Obama and Edwards.

I was pleased with Hillary Clinton, however. She was my winner. She has a confident clarity. Her voice has a headmistress timbre, so we pay attention. She is emotionally controlled - calm and rational. She also is comprehensively informed on any topic you throw her. She can think on her feet. She is diplomatic, always knowing what not to say as well as what to say. She has been criticised for this, but, hell, that is what politics is all about.
She also has been endlessly criticised for insufficient mea culpa about voting for the War on Iraq. How many times does she have to regret it? How many times does she have to say that, if she knew then what she knew now, she would never have done so? Anyway, she said it all again - and was criticised all over again by the likes of Edwards and Kucinich.
It was a rather delicious irony to note that she was the most generous-spirited among the candidates, ready to give credit to others.
Oh, yes, she stood right out.

John Edwards lost ground for me in the debate. He says his $400 haircut was "a mistake which has been remedied now". How? He paid the campaign fund back? That is really not a remedy to the primping vanity of $400 haircuts. Edwards went on to defend his "privileged" millionaire lifestyle by claiming not to have forgotten his roots and went into a Southern boy, Down Home childhood tale of how the family left a restaurant when his millworker father realised he could not afford to pay its prices. I think we have had enough of these cornball anecdotes from Edwards. I, for one, have heard them all before. Furthermore, he was the only candidate to suggest that he felt a need to consult his "Lord" .

Dennis Kucinich also lost ground. I had respected his uncompromising leftist views - but in the debate, he showed a bitchy streak I did not like, sniping at his peers, glancing at Hillary and saying "apologies aren't enough". What the hell? Apologies are enough - and forgiveness is all. Kucinich also admitted to being a gun-owner. Hillary was one of the few who indicated never having owned a weapon, at the same time reiterating careful placations to the mighty gun lobby. Everyone seems to do this.

Bill Richardson is known as the darling of the gun lobby. He is a Westerner and he owns guns - but thinks the screening processes for gun purchase are lacking, as evidenced by Cho and the Virginia Tech shooting.
I found Richards a bit bombastic, something of a hothead and too fond of speaking in lists. From this quaint pressure-cooker appearance, I wouldn't put him in the White House.

Joe Biden is charming and he looks the way a president should look. When asked about his greatest mistake, he said it was in "overestimating the competence of this administration" and "stupid enough to believe that I could influence George W Bush's thinking". He brought the house down when, accused of "uncontrolled verbosity" and being a "gaffe machine" and asked if he would have the self-control for the role of president, he said simply "yes" - and not another word. Silence.

Chris Dodd pointed out his considerable qualifications for the job of president but was underwhelming in debate, especially when he spoke on civil unions versus same-sex marriage. He is for the former and against the latter. I liked his idea of diplomacy rather than war, and his quote: "This administration treats diplomacy as if it were a gift to our opponent; a sign of weakness, not a sign of strength".

Barack Obama was my biggest loser. He seemed extremely nervous, which is forgivable. But he also seemed arrogant. He never makes a speech that does not mention his wife and children, which is beginning to grate - and, gratuitously, he mentioned them again. His big mistake in my book was when he went to town on Iran, showing that he has swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the current media campaign to turn Iran into an immediate threat. It is rather reminiscent of the Iraq and "weapons of mass destruction" campaign. Obama said that he believed that Iran was a nuclear threat as well as the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas and therefore was a threat to the security of the USA.
My conclusion is that Obama is, indeed, the young and inexperienced candidate - and it showed. He is simply not ready for the presidency.

Hillary is.

NH house partying

It seems something of an anathema, if not downright risky, to invite strangers, sight unseen, to one's home to break bread and sit down in front of the telly.
But such is the culture of New Hampshire in Primary mode. House parties are held to meet the candidates or, as was the case last night, to watch the candidates on television.
I accepted the online invitation of NH Executive Councilor Debora Pignatelli and her husband, Mike, to come over and watch the Democrat Primary Debate on television. Debora is a former State Senator now in the powerful but esoteric role as one of an elite council which advises the Governor, approving budgetary matters and nominations. She has been active in supporting Hillary's campaign, so much so that she has already held a house party for the NY Senator - evidence of which one noticed in the form of a large Hillary Rodham Clinton autograph on the wall.

The Pignatelli home was a salubrious contemporary spread in one of those uber-bourgeois gated estates in which the homes line the fairways of a golf course. The windows look out onto lush lake-view green - and golfers tramping past with their bags of clubs.


Inside the front door we were greeted by a personable young Hillary-for-President staffer called Alex and the usual form-filling registration complete with campaign buttons and stickers. Alex is one of that impressive breed of young American political campaign professionals who move their worlds to the key places where campaign focus is required. Originally a journalism graduate from Maryland, he has come from California and places diverse to spend the best part of a year in NH on the Hillary-for-President mission. He has just settled into an apartment in Manchester where the NH Hillary campaign headquarters has been set up. We saw his ilk on West Wing - young, bright, single-minded and earnest.

Debora materialised to issue a warm welcome and lead us to her vast spread of food. We had not expected such hospitality so had quickly eaten beforehand. There were about 20 people, most of whom seemed to know each other. They were indifferent to our arrival. We chatted with our hosts and, as time came for the telecast, we pulled up chairs and formed a group around the telly in the high-ceilinged living room.
A convivial spirit ensued in the sharing of the experience - 90 intense minutes interspersed with the odd comment or eruption of mirth.
After the debate, Debora had liaised a conference call with Hillary's campaign strategist - but the phone was playing dire hold muzac for so long that, finally, we made our departure because I was getting edgy about making my nightly call too my mother in hospital in Australia.

And, of course, one wanted quietly to digest the contents of the debate. It had made a number of changes in my thinking.