The New Hampshire Primary: On The Front Lines

I realize I've been noticably silent about my opinions on this year's political race for the party nominations. Perhaps a surprise, given not only my strong convictions about this election, but my close proximity to the eye of the storm: New Hampshire. I must admit, my privileged location has allowed me, for the first time, to involve myself in the electoral process much more closely than in the past. With all the major candidates personally courting my vote (many of whom have actually called me on the phone), I've also realized how lopsided this makes the preliminary electoral process; that my vote supposedly
counts more than if it was cast in Massachusetts (where, given my absentee voter registration status, it will actually be counted) or wherever else, and therefore I somehow deserve more attention than my fellow citizens. Even worse, that my fellow NH residents, along with Iowans, are given the right, by some random decision made a hundred years before we were born, to have more of a say in who becomes the presidential candidate than everybody else.

My elite status as a Dartmouth College student has given me an even more unique (though also egregiously lopsided) opportunity to sit in on stump speeches and town meetings with all the presidential candidates, as well as a nationally televised Democratic Presidential debate which brought the entire discussion, quite literally, to my feet as Obama, Clinton, and Edwards mounted a stage I'm usually rehearsing dance routines on. But the experience has been more than just bearing witness to someone who could very possibly become our next Commander-In-Chief; during the last six months I've had the ability to interact with them, talking with both John Kerry and Barack Obama, asking John Edwards questions and hanging out at Hillary Clinton's campaign offices.

So, with all that's been going on, one would think I would be bursting at the seams with witty and insightful commentary about the entire thing. But perhaps I've just been too busy to comment, or maybe I've just been so overwhelmed by all of my conflicting opinions, I haven't been able to come up with a comprehensive entry which would encompass them all. Or maybe, in an uncharacteristic display of indecision, I haven't yet made up my mind on who I want to wholeheartedly throw my support behind. All three excuses would be partially true, but at the same time a cop-out on my part. Given that, I am prepared, on this, the morning of the New Hampshire Primary, before knowing the outcome (although I do predict Obama's projected victory on the Democratic side will become a reality, and that McCain will edge out our slimeball of a former Massachusetts govenor, Mitt Romney, for the Republicans) to lay it all out, so to speak, and break my previous silence with the follwing decisve statements which sum up my opinions on the election thus far:

1. I'm voting for Hillary, but it's not because she's a girl.
2. I like Obama (and I love listening to him), but I think he'll spend half his first term trying to find the bathroom.
3. Edwards is an egotistical dick.
4. The Republican canidates seem to still think that the American public is as stupid and easily manipulated as Jay Leno's Jaywalking segments on the Tonight Show would lead us to believe. I just hope they're wrong.

Now that I've pissed off at least somebody, allow me to elaborate.

1. "GIVE 'EM HELL" HILLARY CLINTON

I realize that there are a lot of Hillary haters out there, and if any of them are reading this, they are probably thinking one of two things; either it's "How can you like someone like Hillary?" or it's "Of course you like her - you're a girl."


I'd like to address the latter statement first, as it's completely inane, but at the same time I've been accused of it several times. I admit that there are plenty of irresponsible Americans out there who are too lazy to actually concern themselves with public policy, how it affects them, and what each candidate stands for, and simply vote for whomever looks most like them. I hold no illusions that many people voted for Bush just because he was from Texas, and that many will vote for Obama just because he's black or Clinton just because she happens to have a vagina. However, I am not one of those people, and the underlying sexism of that statement is insulting. I mean, would I ask an Edwards supporter if he was voting for John because he was a man? Of course not. It may be a given that the first female U.S. President would be a significant event, but most women would want that person to be someone who would be a worthy representative of the fairer sex, not just anybody. Think about it: why would women back a female candidate if they didn't honestly believe they would make a great President? It's critical the first female president do a good job; if they don't, Americans everywhere might question ever letting women out of the kitchen again. So I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton because she is a girl, I'm voting for her because I think she'd make an excellent President. Condeleeza Rice is a girl, and there is no way in Hell I would ever vote for her for anything, because she is an intelligent woman who prefers to ass-kiss her way to personal gain over putting her smarts to good use and standing up for what's right.

But I digress.

So if I'm not voting for Hillary for sisterhood reasons, what do I like about her?

First, I have always had a lot of respect for her as a person; she's intelligent, competative, a hard worker, and knows how to get things done. In addition, her beliefs and positions on major issues closely align themselves with my own. More importantly, I think her stance on policy are what is best for the United States at this point in time. Although a lot of people tend to write her off as some kind of liberal radical, in fact, her policies have always been that of a moderate - something which makes sense considering her Midwestern Republican upbringing. This country has had enough of hard right-wing extremism, and really could use a middle-of-the-road, steadfast leader who will knit together its party divisions organically by moderating their differences, rather than trying to force them into agreement using political strong-arming.

Second, Hillary is uniquely well-suited for the Presidency. Obviously, her history as a political leader - from her time as a campaign volunteer as a young woman and her work as a lawyer, to her experiences as a governor's wife, her eight years in the White House as a Presidential spouse, and her eight years as a U.S. Senator - make her more qualified, in terms of prior experience, to be President than any previous individual who has sought the job. In addition, the most pressing concerns facing the United States at the moment are right up the Clintons' alley. The national Health Care crisis is a problem she's been working to solve for over two decades, and her revised plan has the potential to be a real fix. Having long been advocates of social responsibility, the Clintons will go far towards working to improve failing social institutions such as Social Security. As a woman, Hillary is in a unique position to help halt the rather frightening backslide womens' rights has taken in the last eight years. Both Bill and Hillary's close relationship with the Gore family will give environmental advocates a direct line of communication with a President who will actually listen to the dangers facing our planet, while Bill Clinton - the man who successfully balanced the United States' budget and, for the first time EVER, gave Americans a yearly SURPLUS, is in a perfect position to advise Hillary on how to combat the staggering deficit the Bush administration has managed to accrue.

Speaking of Bill, he's the third reason Hillary appeals to me. I love Bill Clinton, and, despite his personal shortcomings, he was a fantastic President who left office with the highest job approval rating in United States' history. When Bill was first elected in 1992, he famously said America was getting "two for the price of one," meaning Bill and HIllary would both be working to fix the countries problems; as First Lady Hillary was more involved in policy and the President's day-to-day decisions than any before her - or since. Were Hillary to win the Presidency, we Americans would get two for the price of one once more, only this time, one of those two has already BEEN President. No Commander-In-Chief has ever had an advisor that knowledgeable on their team before, and that can not be a bad thing. However, there's more to it than that. I, along with many other Americans, may love Bill Clinton, but, more importantly, most of the WORLD loves Bill Clinton. He is one of the most respected Americans on the planet; if anyone can held fix our horrendously tarnished image in the global community, it's Bill. With Hillary Clinton as President, the first First Man would be able to put his diplomatic skills to good use touring internationally and rebuilding goodwill. That alone will make America safer than any airline security gate ever will.

Finally, I think she can win. Although I realize some voters fear that she's too controversial to get elected, or that a campaign season with her on the ballot will be heavy on the mudslinging, I believe that is just not accurate. No matter who the nominees are, things will get ugly; however, Hillary has a lot of experience dealing with attack dog and coming away unscathed. In all her years in the public eye, the woman has had everything thrown at her but the kitchen sink, and has managed to remain so popular among the general public that she stands today as a strong Presidential candidate. Why? Because she doesn't roll over when things get tough, and despite what people may say, she is good at what she does. When she first ran for New York Senator in 2000, she was widely criticized as a carpet-bagger, and rightly so. She had no other tie to the state at that time. However, she did such a good job that those criticisms died swiftly away, and she won reelection by a landslide - with much of her support coming from conservative upstate NY. Believe it or not, she can appeal to the general populace, across party lines.

You go, girl!

2. BARACK "TRAINEE" OBAMA

About ten months ago, just as Barack Obama announced his intentions to run for President, I wrote a blog entry (see "Outrunning the Obama Train") which summed up my general opinion of the Illinois junior senator: that he had amazing potential, but not enough experience or substance to follow through on his golden promises. I wanted to wait and see if, over the course of his campaign, the glimmer which was Obama would solidify into a strong candidate I would be interested in supporting. A year later, however, after watching his interviews, attending his rallies, and speaking with him, my fears have not been allyed, and, if anything, my doubts have grown.


My main concern with Obama is that despite his honesty, optimism, and promises, he's an inarguably young, inexperienced, and idealistic figure talking in generalized terms about changes which he has no real idea how to successfully enact. However, bouyed on a wave of popularity, he will ride confidently into the White House only to have his bubble burst as it rams straight into the reality of Washington politics, where (as Hillary discovered in the early '90s when she tried to single-handedly restructure Health Care) insiders rule and knowing the the labyrinth-like paths to getting things done is critical - a truth of any bureaucracy which we must accept.

I understand Obama's appeal, especially to a nation disenchanted with its government; he is a refreshing, almost fairytale-like figure who has a captivating speaking voice and a glowing smile. When I attended his rally and met with him (and yes, ladies, he is even more drop-dead handsome in person) I had a REALLY difficult time maintaining my emotional neutrality and really listen to what he was saying with any kind of annalytical eye. He ability to harnass the emotions of a crowd and string them along to hang on his every word is an experience I can only allude to and not fully describe. However, every so often I would shake my head, clear my mind from the mob-induced stupor, and realize that many times he wasn't really saying anything. Although Obama has a way with his voice and his words, his campaign speeches sound a lot like his book, Audacity of Hope - a photograph of what America should be like, without any real plan on how to get it there. Obama likes to say exactly what people want to hear - promises of leadership change, dignity, wealth, hope, happiness - and he makes them in broad, sweeping, generalized statements which cause a hurting audience to choke up with emotion, but which don't explain how we can make these things occur in any kind of realistic way.

In addition, although Obama sounds fantastic in front of a crowd of supporters, his golden voice fails on more important occasions. For example, one would think his ability to speak would allow his voice to dominate the Democratic debates, when in reality, he tends to fade into the background, saying little and impressing no one, and certainly not differentiating himself and his policies from the other candidates. Even more surprisingly, when Obama was finally brought out talk-show diva Oprah to stump for him, her speech (which also marked her first attempt at politicial endorsement) completely outshined his, making him look like second bannana at his own rally.

We have to face reality - the man just isn't ready. We have too many problems right now to waste time "training" a green President during his first year on the job.

My reservations have increased exponetially since Obama's win in the Iowa cacus last week; although I had originally believed I would be happy with either Hillary or Obama as the Democratic nominee, Obama's actions since Iowa have unearthed a problem with him more worrisome than his inexperience: his squeaky-clean exterior is starting to crack. After winning, Iowa, Obama's demenor has begun to change; in interviews and speeches, I've noticed he has been displaying an unattractive smugness, even cockiness, that we have not seen in him before. Suffice to say, he does not wear it well. When interviewed on the New Hampshire campaign trail a few days ago by NBC's Brian Williams, Obama seemed aloof and rather condesecending - completely unnecessary since the tone of the interview was a pleasant "How's it going?" chat rather than a grilling on the issues. Also, in the final debate before the New Hampshire primary, he was downright nasty, throwing unprovoked, high-school worthy sarcastic comments at the other candidates, especially Hillary. Perhaps he was trying to be strong, but he only ended up looking like a complete ass.

Perhaps the pressure and exhaustion of the campaign trail is getting to him, but this ride is nothing compared to the grueling rigor which is actually being President. If this is what Obama's really like, well, I don't think I really like him all that much after all.

3. JOHN "CHECK OUT MY $400 HAIRCUT" EDWARDS:

Before I begin, I must admit I went in to the campaign season not liking John Edwards for completely non-academic reasons akin to the excuses which many Hillary detractors have: he just rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe it was his full-of-himself smile, or the used-car-salesman slickness with which he seems to grease all of his campaign promises. However, the reality of the situation was I just had a gut feeling, and it wasn't a good one.


Not wanting to be hypocritical, however, I refused to write him for something so insubstancial. In fact, when he came to speak at Dartmouth, he was a surprisingly good orator, although his policy ideas were unremarkable. Although I appreciated his support of issues such as his environmental concerns, I disagreed with others, including his idea that all employers should be required to provide their employees with health care. Not only will that kill small business, but I think one of the biggest problems with health care in the United States is that it IS connected to jobs AT ALL. This unfortunate arrangement holds workers virtually hostage with the fear that they may lose their benefits should they lose their jobs or seek other employment, and it bars many older workers and those with chronic illness (ie. diabetes, high blood pressure, etc) from being hired on the basis that the company in question fears higher insurance premiums. I also had a problem with his lifestyle a bit, as he seems to talk a nice line, but seems a bit out-of-touch with the common individual in lifestyle choices. For example, someone preaching to return to fiscal responsibility probably shouldn't be blowing $400 on that famously overpriced haircut (that will NOT go over well in Puritan New England).

What did if for me, however (and I'm sure plenty of people will jump all over me for this) was the fact that Edwards decided to continue his run after learning his wife was terminally ill. Hear me out - I have no doubt his wife honestly and whole-heartedly wants her husband to continue his campaign; I met her, and she is not the type of person to bend her will to anyone. I also don't think that her entire family should put a halt to their lives and stand around waiting for her to die - I would imagine dwelling on the inevitiable is the last thing any terminally ill person or their loved ones should do. However, it is one thing to continue to live normally and enjoying what time is left, and another thing entirely to choose to pursue one of the most physically demanding, time consuming, emotionally draining and personally isolating things possible - a presidential campaign. And, were he to win the nomination, or ultimately the presidency, it would almost certainly require that he be absent from his family a large amount of the time, and that organizing his schedule to accommodate for an unexpected emergency - such as a downturn in his wife's health - would be inordinately difficult, if not at certain times, impossible.

Perhaps seeing her husband in the Big Chair is something which would make Elizabeth go out proud, and speaks for her character. However, regardless of her selfless intentions, I don't think I could live with myself if my spouse spent her final days on earth trying to get me a pretigious job, and I missed out on spending much time with her, because I was out also working on getting that job. Given the fact that the Edwards family is more than financially secure, Edwards' policies are not particularly revolutionary, and the Democratic party has plenty of other candidates which they are more likely to select for the nomination, the only reason I can really see for him to run is that he just really, really, really wants to be President, no matter
what. That's very telling as to the type of person he is, and it is not the kind of person I have any significant amount of respect for.

4. REPUBLICANS: "SCREWING AMERICA, ONE SUCKER AT A TIME"

Before anyone starts on me, I don't, on principle, hate all Republicans, or anything like that. Being a person who is consistantly irritated by people who make sweeping generalizations about people based on party affliations, it would be horribly hypocritical of me to say all Republicans are wrong, or have stupid ideas about running the country. Well, as mad as their leadership has made me at times, they're not all stupid and not all of their ideas are bad. Their are plenty of Democrats who don't know their head from their ass either.

However, although not all Republicans should be written off, their major Presidential candidates leave much to be desired. Not only are their ideas on policy completely out of touch with the country's current situation, but I think the general public is tired of them. However, what angers me the most about the current crop of candidates is the little-to-no respect they are showing the American voter. These Presidential hopefuls continue to mislead their audiences, misrepresent the facts, and completely insult the intelligence of America. This slimeball attitude has been clearly shown in the way each of the three major candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, have advertized themselves in New Hampshire.

* Rudy Giuliani:
First, former New York mayor Rudy Gulliani released a campaign ad in which gives the viewer a "history" lesson about famous event in 1979 in which 66 workers at the American embassy in Tehran were taken hostage by Iranian militants. Then-Democratic President Jimmy Carter could not get them released through negotiation, but the day Republican Ronald Reagan was inaugurated President, the hostages were let go. Giuliani ends this little tale by promising Americans that he will follow Reagan's example and not strike deals with terrorists.

WHAT?! How stupid does Giuliani think Americans are? I wasn't even born in 1979, but even I know there are enough holes in this story to sink the Titanic.

First of all, the hostages were released not, as Giuliani leads us to believe, because the very idea of Reagan in power (remember, at this point he was little more than a famous Hollywood actor-turned governor, similar to Arnold Swarchenegger) scared the terrorists so much they were shaking in their turbans, but because the Islamic nation of Algeria intervened, and brokered an agreement between the United States and Iran called the Algiers Accords. Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with it, as he was not even President at the time and thus had no authority to participate in the process.

More disturbing, however, is Giuliani's idea that Reagan didn't deal with terrorists, and that Giuliani would like to follow his lead. Although it is true that Carter conducted negotiations with the Iranians, that does NOT mean Regan didn't deal with terroists. . . he just did it in secret and very, very illegally. In the most famous case, the Iran-Contra Affair, Reagan and his administration "negotiated" the release of American hostages held captive by a terrorist cell of Hezbollah in Lebanon by illegally selling them American weaponry and pledging to financially back and arm the Contras - a powerful group of drug traffickers fighting the communist government in Nicaragua. It created quite a scandal when it became public knowledge later in Reagan's presidency, especially since Reagan vehemenently denied his involvement in the Affair, attempting to place the blame upon others in his own administration until the evidence gathered to the contrary became too numerous to be surmounted.

Does Guliani really think Americans are stupid enough not to remember (or in the case of people my age, know about) Iran-Contra? It was only in my high school history textbook, for crying out loud. Clearly, Rudy is working under the assumption we're either uneducated or idiots, because if we know the whole story, then it would be clear that Giuliani's campaign promise is, in actuality, to buy off extreamists threatening the United States with any weapons - nuclear or otherwise - we happen to have lying around, then lie to the public about it.

What a great guy.

* Mitt Romney
Romney is no better. Okay, being from Massachusetts, it goes without saying - I don't like Mitt. He's always been slimey and underhanded, and a pretty crappy governor to boot. The fact he thinks he can be President is almost laughable to a Masshole such as myself; as I like to tell people, "Romney thinks he can handle Iraq? He couldn't even handle The Big Dig!" A perfect example of the way he likes to twist facts to play into his agenda takes place in his most recent NH campaign ad, which centers on the horrors which the federal "Death Tax" levies on the middle class.

First of all, let's clarify: it's called the ESTATE TAX, not the DEATH tax. And second, Romney makes it sound as if this tax on inheritances effects your average citizen, when in reality, to even QUALIFY for the estate tax, the estate in question has to be worth at least TWO MILLION OR MORE dollars - a situation your average working stiff is not going to find himself in. The Estate Tax was created so that when a Hilton or a Trump dies, the government gets to lop off a chunk of the inheritance money before it falls into the hands of little rich prissies like Paris or Donald Jr. Believe me, they can afford it, and the cash which the IRS makes off of them is money that they don't have to take from normal people like you and me. So if that shit, Romney, gets his way and repeals the tax, he's not looking out for you, middle class American - he's only looking out for himself and his wealthy peers. By repealing the tax, Romney saves himself and his rich buddies from being taxed on their inheritances. However, the IRS is going to have to make up for that lost revenue somewhere. . . and you can bet your last paycheck it's going to come from the pockets of the middle class.

Obviously, Romney is literally banking on the fact that NH (famous for their hatred of taxes in any form) will only hear the part about the repealing of a tax, and not bother to think too hard about its implications.

* John McCain
Although arguably the most respectable of all the Republican candidates, McCain's platform is nevertheless passé and completely out of tune with what America needs in the 21st century. I vehemently disagree with most of his policies, including his desire to OVERTURN ROE VS. WADE (I don't ever want to have to make the horrendous decision to have an abortion, but in the end it is MY body, and the government has NO right to FORCE me to unwillingly have a baby), opposition to stem cell research on embryos which would otherwise simply be destroyed, his support of all levels of gun ownership, his lack of acknowledgment that illegal immigration problems stem not from the nation's borders but from the nation's corporations who employ them, his flawed idea that nuclear energy proliferation is somehow good for the environment (try living next door to a plant like I do, dumbass), and that Americans should be responsible for their own health care (ever try living without that nice government insurance, buddy?).

However, despite his rather backwards-thinking agenda which is more akin to the current administration's policies than the change Americans have demanded that they want, it is McCain's condescending attitude in his campaign ads which is most nauseating; he treats voters almost as if we were children and he a scolding parent, as if to say, "you might not like what I want to do, but Daddy knows best, so just lay back and take it, America." For example, one of his ads focuses on the center of his policy - that all problems can virtually be solved just by cutting taxes. Oh, it's that simple, huh? Democrats don't believe cutting taxes works, but it does, he says. It's good for you, America!

Sounds good, John - but just where is that tax cut money going to come from, pray tell, when our country is so indebted that we're practically owned by China and our dollar has become so worthless even poor nations won't except it as currency? With bridges collapsing and schools losing accreditdation and governmental programs going belly-up and national infrastructure failing, a few extra bucks in my pocket aren't going to mean much when I can't buy a home or send my kid to school or pay for health insurance or even dare to drive over the Charles River.

Thanks, but no thanks, John. In case you didn't notice, Father Knows Best went off the air several millennia ago.

So those are my stances on the major contenders. . . now that I've formed my opinions, presented my case, and, most importantly, filled out my primary poll ballot, the only thing to do is watch the primary season unfold upon our nation, and hope for the best.

Oh, and push for my candidate whenever possible.

I'm sorry, did I run out your answering machine tape again? I'll call back.