How do some voters decide?
"At least this time I want to vote for a candidate who will win the primary!". People like to vote for the winning horse.
"I will probably decide on the last day". Sigh. I guess this is why we have only about a third of the voters who have absolutely made up on their mind.
Post-Christmas everyone is in Iowa (Edwards is spending a couple of days in New Hampshire before heading to Iowa). After the January 3 Iowa caucus they are all going to descend on New Hampshire ....... This election there is more emphasis on Iowa than on New Hampshire, because the race is so fluid still - no clear front-runner really, so Iowa is up for grabs, and the winner of Iowa might get tremendous momentum (some people decide on the last day, and some like to vote for a winner .....)
The Edwards campaign MUST win in Iowa. As my fellow Nashua Peace group member said, "if Edwards wins Iowa, we will deliver him New Hampshire!".
The New Hampshire Edwards campaign team is focusing on New Hampshire - we are not trying to make calls in Iowa. There is so little time between the two (5 days), and every day counts.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Peace, Justice, and the Environment
My picture with the next President of the John Edwards was in
Then we volunteers got to sit on stage, which gave me a good view of the happenings behind the stage so to speak. Bonnie and Jackson sang four songs, and then Edwards came on, right on cue, shook hands with people on stage on his way to the center of the stage. His demeanor was somewhat different from when he had met volunteers in a side room – he was more ‘natural’ there. On stage it was a bit more of being part of the show. Bonnie and Jackson are very active in the anti-nuclear movement, and are part of a group “Musicians United for Safe Energy”. They summed up their support for Edwards in one phrase – they support him because his ideology fits in with theirs’ – Peace, Justice, and the Environment.
Edwards’ speech was more simple (compared to when I had heard him before) in putting its points across. The campaign has modified its stump speech and settled on a version which clearly identifies corporations as an enemy. I guess having a specific enemy makes a message very clear and enables people to easily identify with the speaker – whether it be “islamo-fascism” or corporations. The speech focused heavily on fighting against exploitative forces and also on very progressive topics such as nuclear disarmament in the world (in addition to the standard democratic topics). Edwards was passionate, forceful, and urged people to vote for him, work for him, and get their friends to their polls. The evening ended with Edwards putting his arms around Bonnie and Jackson and all three receiving applause from the audience. Good fun!
And it snowed, and snowed, and snowed ……….!
(More snow pictures are at:
 |
| Snow Photos, December 2007 |
We have been buried in the snow, and how! Its been a lot of 6-8 inch snow storms, within a couple of days of each other, and continuous sub-zero temperatures. The result - 4-5 feet high snow banks, much higher where the snow plows have piled up snow.
The snow on the ground is higher than the Edwards sign on my lawn. I cleaned the snow off the front of the sign, took this picture, and by next morning it was buried again!
The campaign offices are functioning as usual though. I went in to the Edwards campaign office for my
At the office we were discussing some polls that showed
“Please don’t simply rubber stamp a big money candidate”
I have to write at least one note on Mike Gravel, who is ideology is so close to mine! It would be nice to work for someone like him, but unfortunately he is not a viable candidate.
One ad reads:
Reduced income taxes.
American Independence from foreign oil.
Goodbye
Hello energy independence.
Mike Gravel for US Presdent.
Please don’t simply rubber stamp a big money candidate.
Another ad:
A table listing the candidates and the issues “Supports Abortion Rights”, “Opposed Invasion of Iraq”, “Supports Fairtax”, “Veteran”. Only Mike Gravel has check marks on all of them. And the ad ends with:
Please don’t simply rubber stamp a big money candidate.
Another ad:
“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare” – James Madison.
Friday, December 14, 2007
People's Opinions
After reading my blog post on people's thoughts being influenced by various means - news articles, family, friends, books, editorials - rather than by what candidates say, a friend asked me what was a good example of something that could influence people. That reminded me of a recent documentary I had seen.
I had picked up the "Voices of Iraq" from the local library, happening to see it when I walked by. "Filmed and Directed by the People of Iraq" the cover said, interesting me at once. My long years with Asha and similar organizations had exposed me to the critical importance of listening to what people had to say. Nothing can come close to what the people have to say about themselves, their lives, their travails, their goals. In the Asha's context it is the people whose children we are trying "educate", but it applies everywhere. This is the basis premise of projects like "Kids with Cameras" (www.kids-with-cameras.org) which gave cameras to children in a red-light district giving the opportunity of expressing themselves, and is also the reason why digital story-telling is rapidly catching on.
So I picked up the DVD immediately, thinking this would be a great documentary to see. Learning about the situation in Iraq from the Iraqis themselves - nothing could be closer to the truth. The producers had distributed 150 video cameras in the entire country of Iraq, to "enable everyday people - mothers, children, teachers, sheikhs, even insurgents - to document their lives and their hopes amidst the upheavel of a nation being born". I was going visit my parents that weekend, and they would enjoy it too.
We sat down to watch the video, and it started by presenting the perspective of people living in the marshes who had been persecuted under Saddam's regime, then described how the poor did not have access to education under Saddam and about how some had been very poor, it showed various injustices some had had to undergo under that regime - all described by the people themselves. It was moving. Saddam indeed had been a tyrant ......all these people had suffered so. And there was hope that came through in the film - that with Saddam out of the way, there was real hope of a truly democratic nation being born, of a better life for them and their children. The thought crossed my mind - had I realized how brutal Saddam was till I heard the Iraqi people themselves speak? I guess not. There was excellent footage about the Iraqi countryside, Iraqis celebrating their festivals, having fun, living their way of life.
Halfway into the documentary several Iraqis applauded the US government for ridding them of Saddam. I began to think that there might be some who think that way, but did they all? Weren't there some who did not like the US government's actions? Maybe not, if all 150 film makers across the country liked what the US government had done. This was a new view for me - I had not realized that so many Iraqis felt this way. Then Abu Ghraib came up. "People who were tortured and humilitated deserved it, since they were the jailors in the prisons under Saddam's rule", said one. That didn't somehow ring true. Really? I had not heard that before (keeping aside the question of whether that made torture OK). It then began to dawn on me ...... that the voices of the Iraqi people were the voices of _some_ Iraqi people. Was it really a representative sample? Didn't seem like it. Who were the cameras given to? How were they selected? Were other differing opinions edited out? As the documentary progressed, it became more and more obvious that this was convervative propaganda - that it was a documentary put together to put forth one point of view, the view that the US did the right thing in invading Iraq and "freeing" the people from the dictator Saddam. But the way it was done was diabolically clever. I would never, never, never have doubted anything that proclaimed itself as being the 'voices of Iraq'. I would have never have attributed anything but the finest of motives to something that gave video cameras to people so that they can tell their story their own way. I was stunned that even I, who was opposed to every reason the US gave for invading Iraq, could get fooled for a whole hour. It was so convincing, so well done, seemed so representative of what the man on the street felt that it was hard to believe it was propaganda, except for some obvious falsehoods in the second half of the documentary.
I was mad. I wanted to write a strong note to the public library for carrying such a documentary without saying it was propaganda. I was annoyed that propagondists would use methods which are honored by grassroots activists as means of giving people a voice.
Here is how public opinion can be influenced.
I had picked up the "Voices of Iraq" from the local library, happening to see it when I walked by. "Filmed and Directed by the People of Iraq" the cover said, interesting me at once. My long years with Asha and similar organizations had exposed me to the critical importance of listening to what people had to say. Nothing can come close to what the people have to say about themselves, their lives, their travails, their goals. In the Asha's context it is the people whose children we are trying "educate", but it applies everywhere. This is the basis premise of projects like "Kids with Cameras" (www.kids-with-cameras.org) which gave cameras to children in a red-light district giving the opportunity of expressing themselves, and is also the reason why digital story-telling is rapidly catching on.
So I picked up the DVD immediately, thinking this would be a great documentary to see. Learning about the situation in Iraq from the Iraqis themselves - nothing could be closer to the truth. The producers had distributed 150 video cameras in the entire country of Iraq, to "enable everyday people - mothers, children, teachers, sheikhs, even insurgents - to document their lives and their hopes amidst the upheavel of a nation being born". I was going visit my parents that weekend, and they would enjoy it too.
We sat down to watch the video, and it started by presenting the perspective of people living in the marshes who had been persecuted under Saddam's regime, then described how the poor did not have access to education under Saddam and about how some had been very poor, it showed various injustices some had had to undergo under that regime - all described by the people themselves. It was moving. Saddam indeed had been a tyrant ......all these people had suffered so. And there was hope that came through in the film - that with Saddam out of the way, there was real hope of a truly democratic nation being born, of a better life for them and their children. The thought crossed my mind - had I realized how brutal Saddam was till I heard the Iraqi people themselves speak? I guess not. There was excellent footage about the Iraqi countryside, Iraqis celebrating their festivals, having fun, living their way of life.
Halfway into the documentary several Iraqis applauded the US government for ridding them of Saddam. I began to think that there might be some who think that way, but did they all? Weren't there some who did not like the US government's actions? Maybe not, if all 150 film makers across the country liked what the US government had done. This was a new view for me - I had not realized that so many Iraqis felt this way. Then Abu Ghraib came up. "People who were tortured and humilitated deserved it, since they were the jailors in the prisons under Saddam's rule", said one. That didn't somehow ring true. Really? I had not heard that before (keeping aside the question of whether that made torture OK). It then began to dawn on me ...... that the voices of the Iraqi people were the voices of _some_ Iraqi people. Was it really a representative sample? Didn't seem like it. Who were the cameras given to? How were they selected? Were other differing opinions edited out? As the documentary progressed, it became more and more obvious that this was convervative propaganda - that it was a documentary put together to put forth one point of view, the view that the US did the right thing in invading Iraq and "freeing" the people from the dictator Saddam. But the way it was done was diabolically clever. I would never, never, never have doubted anything that proclaimed itself as being the 'voices of Iraq'. I would have never have attributed anything but the finest of motives to something that gave video cameras to people so that they can tell their story their own way. I was stunned that even I, who was opposed to every reason the US gave for invading Iraq, could get fooled for a whole hour. It was so convincing, so well done, seemed so representative of what the man on the street felt that it was hard to believe it was propaganda, except for some obvious falsehoods in the second half of the documentary.
I was mad. I wanted to write a strong note to the public library for carrying such a documentary without saying it was propaganda. I was annoyed that propagondists would use methods which are honored by grassroots activists as means of giving people a voice.
Here is how public opinion can be influenced.
Ron Paul
Hmmm....... Ron Paul's supporters are *really* on the move. I hear that liberatarians from all over the country have descended on New Hampshire, sensing a real opportunity for Ron Paul to cause an upset in New Hampshire. I guess these supporters are all working hard - I am getting at least one call a day, often two, with a recorded message from the Ron Paul campaign (when I was home with a cold it began to get a bit annoying). I like Ron Paul a lot, and think he says exactly what he believes in, but one message put me off - his stance on illegal immigration which included saying that children of illegal immigrants should not be citizens and a few other things (reminded me of a cartoon in my local town newspaper a while back - a native American was sending European settlers away saying they are illegal immigrants :)).
There have been tons of mailings as well - literally one every alternate day. Not to mention flyers stuck in my door, and canvassing volunteers I run into while canvassing for Edwards. Clearly his supporters are going all out. Will be interesting to see what happens in the Republican primary!
There have been tons of mailings as well - literally one every alternate day. Not to mention flyers stuck in my door, and canvassing volunteers I run into while canvassing for Edwards. Clearly his supporters are going all out. Will be interesting to see what happens in the Republican primary!
Straight Talk Express
John McCain had my deepest respect as someone who had been a POW for 5 years. I had seen him in 2000, and had been impressed with what came across as a very honest demeanor – straight talk it was. I hoped he would win the nomination rather than Bush, but politics does not always work that way.
This time around, I of course completely opposed his stance on the war. I still liked several of the values he stood for, for campaign finance reform which he attempted, for his commitment to not have torture, for his humane look at illegal immigrants. But I simply did not understand his stance on the war. When I heard his son was in the marines, I began to realize that he really, really believed in the war – having his son fighting and supporting the war made him better in my eyes than someone supporting the war from one’s cushy home, though it did alter my position against his candidacy.
He was speaking at the senior citizens center in Nashua, and I took care to park several blocks away (the anti-war stickers make my car stand out in Republican candidate events J). The atmosphere in the room had a lot of energy (a bit like an Edwards’ event actually), with people from a cross-section of society, many with a strong belief in the candidate. The woman sitting next to me was undecided, though strongly leaning towards him, and had voted for him 2000. I was lucky to get a seat in the third row, a great place to be in to ask a question. The New Hamsphire Peace Action had left a message for me to try and bird-dogging questions, and I was intending to try (though I was a bit nervous ;)).
He came in, and it struck me that he was old (I believe he is 71). He was feisty and started by saluting all the veterans in the room, who clearly adore him. A POW, who had been tortured, who spent 5 years in prison not knowing whether he would ever get back home, right there in front of me. It felt good to applaud him.
His talk came across as straight talk. Then it was time for questions. One man, who had lived in Arizona before, asked, “Senator, I like you very much, and I would really, really like to vote for you. But I need to hear some strong statements on illegal immigration. I think it is a serious problem, and all security at our front door would be useless if we left our back door open. You will have to convince me on your stand on that issue if you want my vote”. Oh my. New Hampshire town hall meetings can be tough! McCain answered outlining his stance, that a wall would work in some places, but we would never several other things, like sensors, cameras, a beefed up border patrol etc etc., and faulted the federal government for not having done much to stem it. But it was not a strong statement bashing illegal immigrants as law-breakers, and I doubt the man decided to vote for him.
Another person said that she had read that he was in favor of social security for illegal immigrants. He answered, “No”, which is all the questioner wanted to hear. He went to say that we should think of them in a humane manner, as God’s children, but he did not think we should give them amnesty. I did a double take on that – I thought there was a whole section during an early Republican debate where he talked about the definition of amnesty, and said that giving amnesty was not the same as rewarding them, which the other candidates were accusing him of. Had he changed his stance?
I pondered for a few moments on why illegal immigration is such a scary issue. It is not as though New Hampshire is burdened by a lot of people coming in and making use of public services. Why did it bother people so much? What was the fear? A fear that a way of life would be changed? After all, tons of immigrants had come in to the US, and tons from all cultures were coming in “legally”. Or was it a fear that an “open” border was not good for security? And there are not really a whole lot of illegal immigrants doing landscaping and snow-plowing and car-washing in New Hampshire. All these jobs are still done by New Hampshire folks. The whole immigration issue did not strike me as a critical question that needed to be addressed immediately from New Hampshire’s point of view, but fear is a great political tool. If people felt fear they will lean towards someone who they think will help make that fear go away. Thus it has become a campaign issue!
Several questions revolved around the Iraq war and the larger “idealogical war”, and how military intervention was necessary to put an end to this threat to the US. He clearly blurred the lines between Al Qaeda and Iraq, talking about the brutal dictator Iraq had been under and saying in the same breath that we have to win the war in Iraq to make sure that Al Qaeda was defeated. At one point he talked about the cold war, and about how it was won not by force but by “being a superior civilization”. Then I thought I should ask the question – why did he think this “idealogical war” should be won by force? And a good addition to the question would be – if it is Al Qaeda we are after, why did we go into Iraq? He also talked about nuclear energy being very useful as an alternate means of energy. Why were we objecting to Iran having a nuclear program then?
I raised by hand, but by then it was apparent that there were 3 other peace activists in the room, raising their hands with bird-dogging questions (two I recognized as being with the Nashua Peace Group and Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq). They were veterans in asking questions, and I did not want to interfere with their chances of being called on, especially because they were both sitting close to me. So they asked their questions and I did not get to ask mine.
At the end of all this, what stood out was that for all the straight talk there were inconsistencies when he talked. Did he honestly and truly believe that this was an ideological war? Did he honestly believe it was alright to have the “collateral damage” of Iraqi civilians when he talked about basic, inalienable human rights of every human being? In answer to a question he had talked so much about the basic, inalienable rights of every human being in the world - how does the reconcile the Right to Live and the “collateral damage” in Iraq? Did he honestly and truly believe thee was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda? And how come he changed his position on amnesty? Finally even McCain seemed to be giving in to positions which would help win the election. It was a bit disappointing, and my initial mild euphoria in seeing him rapidly vanished. I could not feel that McCain truly believed in the connections he was making regarding the war….. so was he just saying that to win the election?
This time around, I of course completely opposed his stance on the war. I still liked several of the values he stood for, for campaign finance reform which he attempted, for his commitment to not have torture, for his humane look at illegal immigrants. But I simply did not understand his stance on the war. When I heard his son was in the marines, I began to realize that he really, really believed in the war – having his son fighting and supporting the war made him better in my eyes than someone supporting the war from one’s cushy home, though it did alter my position against his candidacy.
He was speaking at the senior citizens center in Nashua, and I took care to park several blocks away (the anti-war stickers make my car stand out in Republican candidate events J). The atmosphere in the room had a lot of energy (a bit like an Edwards’ event actually), with people from a cross-section of society, many with a strong belief in the candidate. The woman sitting next to me was undecided, though strongly leaning towards him, and had voted for him 2000. I was lucky to get a seat in the third row, a great place to be in to ask a question. The New Hamsphire Peace Action had left a message for me to try and bird-dogging questions, and I was intending to try (though I was a bit nervous ;)).
He came in, and it struck me that he was old (I believe he is 71). He was feisty and started by saluting all the veterans in the room, who clearly adore him. A POW, who had been tortured, who spent 5 years in prison not knowing whether he would ever get back home, right there in front of me. It felt good to applaud him.
His talk came across as straight talk. Then it was time for questions. One man, who had lived in Arizona before, asked, “Senator, I like you very much, and I would really, really like to vote for you. But I need to hear some strong statements on illegal immigration. I think it is a serious problem, and all security at our front door would be useless if we left our back door open. You will have to convince me on your stand on that issue if you want my vote”. Oh my. New Hampshire town hall meetings can be tough! McCain answered outlining his stance, that a wall would work in some places, but we would never several other things, like sensors, cameras, a beefed up border patrol etc etc., and faulted the federal government for not having done much to stem it. But it was not a strong statement bashing illegal immigrants as law-breakers, and I doubt the man decided to vote for him.
Another person said that she had read that he was in favor of social security for illegal immigrants. He answered, “No”, which is all the questioner wanted to hear. He went to say that we should think of them in a humane manner, as God’s children, but he did not think we should give them amnesty. I did a double take on that – I thought there was a whole section during an early Republican debate where he talked about the definition of amnesty, and said that giving amnesty was not the same as rewarding them, which the other candidates were accusing him of. Had he changed his stance?
I pondered for a few moments on why illegal immigration is such a scary issue. It is not as though New Hampshire is burdened by a lot of people coming in and making use of public services. Why did it bother people so much? What was the fear? A fear that a way of life would be changed? After all, tons of immigrants had come in to the US, and tons from all cultures were coming in “legally”. Or was it a fear that an “open” border was not good for security? And there are not really a whole lot of illegal immigrants doing landscaping and snow-plowing and car-washing in New Hampshire. All these jobs are still done by New Hampshire folks. The whole immigration issue did not strike me as a critical question that needed to be addressed immediately from New Hampshire’s point of view, but fear is a great political tool. If people felt fear they will lean towards someone who they think will help make that fear go away. Thus it has become a campaign issue!
Several questions revolved around the Iraq war and the larger “idealogical war”, and how military intervention was necessary to put an end to this threat to the US. He clearly blurred the lines between Al Qaeda and Iraq, talking about the brutal dictator Iraq had been under and saying in the same breath that we have to win the war in Iraq to make sure that Al Qaeda was defeated. At one point he talked about the cold war, and about how it was won not by force but by “being a superior civilization”. Then I thought I should ask the question – why did he think this “idealogical war” should be won by force? And a good addition to the question would be – if it is Al Qaeda we are after, why did we go into Iraq? He also talked about nuclear energy being very useful as an alternate means of energy. Why were we objecting to Iran having a nuclear program then?
I raised by hand, but by then it was apparent that there were 3 other peace activists in the room, raising their hands with bird-dogging questions (two I recognized as being with the Nashua Peace Group and Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq). They were veterans in asking questions, and I did not want to interfere with their chances of being called on, especially because they were both sitting close to me. So they asked their questions and I did not get to ask mine.
At the end of all this, what stood out was that for all the straight talk there were inconsistencies when he talked. Did he honestly and truly believe that this was an ideological war? Did he honestly believe it was alright to have the “collateral damage” of Iraqi civilians when he talked about basic, inalienable human rights of every human being? In answer to a question he had talked so much about the basic, inalienable rights of every human being in the world - how does the reconcile the Right to Live and the “collateral damage” in Iraq? Did he honestly and truly believe thee was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda? And how come he changed his position on amnesty? Finally even McCain seemed to be giving in to positions which would help win the election. It was a bit disappointing, and my initial mild euphoria in seeing him rapidly vanished. I could not feel that McCain truly believed in the connections he was making regarding the war….. so was he just saying that to win the election?
Monday, December 3, 2007
Door-to-door again
My car showed a temperature of 24 F. And it was windy. Bitterly cold. Not an ideal day for campaigning at all, but the Edwards campaign is relentless - rain or shine or snow or cold, folks are out there.
This time there were more people for Hillary than last time, though there were still many undecideds. Sigh. Lot of work to do before we can get Edwards elected.
We did half the streets we had to do on that day, and on one street we were right behind a Ron Paul campaigner. On another street we saw Obama's campaign a couple of houses ahead of us, at which point we decided to give up and go home and come back the next day - we didn't think voters would take kindly to 3 campaigns visiting them in the space of 15 minutes. This is going to be the trend till January 8th I think, as all the campaigns become more and more aggressive.
The Edwards campaign (and all other campaigns I am sure), have grassroots campaigning down to an art. Every voter has to be visited at least twice. If they are not home, we leave a booklet by the door, and the campaign follows up in a couple of days with a call asking whether the voter has any questions on the booklet. Jack, the staff member in charge of wards 1 and 3, knows practically every Edwards voter in his wards. Edwards voters are called to see whether they would be volunteers. All the data we collect on who will vote for whom is meticulously stored in the database, and will be used on election day - when we make sure that everyone who has said they will vote for Edwards makes it to the polls. Every vote counts!
This time there were more people for Hillary than last time, though there were still many undecideds. Sigh. Lot of work to do before we can get Edwards elected.
We did half the streets we had to do on that day, and on one street we were right behind a Ron Paul campaigner. On another street we saw Obama's campaign a couple of houses ahead of us, at which point we decided to give up and go home and come back the next day - we didn't think voters would take kindly to 3 campaigns visiting them in the space of 15 minutes. This is going to be the trend till January 8th I think, as all the campaigns become more and more aggressive.
The Edwards campaign (and all other campaigns I am sure), have grassroots campaigning down to an art. Every voter has to be visited at least twice. If they are not home, we leave a booklet by the door, and the campaign follows up in a couple of days with a call asking whether the voter has any questions on the booklet. Jack, the staff member in charge of wards 1 and 3, knows practically every Edwards voter in his wards. Edwards voters are called to see whether they would be volunteers. All the data we collect on who will vote for whom is meticulously stored in the database, and will be used on election day - when we make sure that everyone who has said they will vote for Edwards makes it to the polls. Every vote counts!
Monday, November 26, 2007
January 8th it is!
So we again preserve the first-in-the-nation-primary status of the New Hampshire primaries. This drama has been going on for two years now. The Democratic party at the national level has been trying to have a more "balanced" early primary season, which more accurately reflects the demographics of the US. The logical part of me of course agrees with that. But the New Hampshire resident part of me does not - it is way too much to live in a state with the first-in-the-nation-primary! No way we are giving that up :) The local newspapers have closely followed the attempt to reduce the importance of New Hampshire, with many editorials devoted to how the New Hampshire's town hall style campaigning is critical to the political process, and how New Hampshire voters are so well-informed. All true, I think :)
The process of setting the date rests in the hands of the New Hampshire Secretary of State, Bill Gardner. New Hampshire has a law that states that we have to go before everyone else - interesting law, because it can get difficult to implement it by ourselves :) A few months ago, everyone started leap-frogging, much to our alarm. The Democratic party chose to have the Nevada caucuses on January 19th (the then tentative New Hampshire primary date was January 22nd or so), though after some thought that seemed OK. It was just a caucus after all. But then Florida moved ahead, Michigan declared a move to January 15th, and all major states (California, New York, etc.) moved their primary to February 5, after which the primaries would virtually be over. If we were too close to the day when practically every other state voted, we would lose our influence. But where could we move to? Every Tuesday seemed to be taken up. There was talking of holding the New Hampshire primary in December, and national newspapers lamented that voters might be going to the polls along with Christmas carolers. As a local newspaper cartoon put it beautifully - in a picture of leap-frogging frogs, the Iowa frog tells the New Hampshire frog - "I don't know about you, but we are holding our elections today!".
Iowa finally set its caucuses to be on January 3rd, and New Hampshire chose January 8th. It is a bit too close to Iowa's caucuses - a full week would be nice - but at least we are preserving the order which New Hampshire residents think is their birthright :) Iowa holds caucuses, while New Hampshire holds a primary, which more accurately reflects the general election. Also in New Hampshire voters registered as independents can vote in the primary, so a result in New Hampshire can reflect the mood of voters who are independents. Iowa's caucuses are always held first, followed by the first-in-the-nation-primary in New Hampshire.
The elections are beginning too close to the holidays, and are way too compressed. But as a New York Times columnist put it, yet again we have managed to keep the critical phase of electing a new president in the preserve of some very, very special people who live in very, very special places :)
The process of setting the date rests in the hands of the New Hampshire Secretary of State, Bill Gardner. New Hampshire has a law that states that we have to go before everyone else - interesting law, because it can get difficult to implement it by ourselves :) A few months ago, everyone started leap-frogging, much to our alarm. The Democratic party chose to have the Nevada caucuses on January 19th (the then tentative New Hampshire primary date was January 22nd or so), though after some thought that seemed OK. It was just a caucus after all. But then Florida moved ahead, Michigan declared a move to January 15th, and all major states (California, New York, etc.) moved their primary to February 5, after which the primaries would virtually be over. If we were too close to the day when practically every other state voted, we would lose our influence. But where could we move to? Every Tuesday seemed to be taken up. There was talking of holding the New Hampshire primary in December, and national newspapers lamented that voters might be going to the polls along with Christmas carolers. As a local newspaper cartoon put it beautifully - in a picture of leap-frogging frogs, the Iowa frog tells the New Hampshire frog - "I don't know about you, but we are holding our elections today!".
Iowa finally set its caucuses to be on January 3rd, and New Hampshire chose January 8th. It is a bit too close to Iowa's caucuses - a full week would be nice - but at least we are preserving the order which New Hampshire residents think is their birthright :) Iowa holds caucuses, while New Hampshire holds a primary, which more accurately reflects the general election. Also in New Hampshire voters registered as independents can vote in the primary, so a result in New Hampshire can reflect the mood of voters who are independents. Iowa's caucuses are always held first, followed by the first-in-the-nation-primary in New Hampshire.
The elections are beginning too close to the holidays, and are way too compressed. But as a New York Times columnist put it, yet again we have managed to keep the critical phase of electing a new president in the preserve of some very, very special people who live in very, very special places :)
Monday, November 19, 2007
Calling
Calling voters to campaign for Edwards was simpler than I expected. I had to tell people that Edwards was going in town the following week, give them the time and location, and ask them whether they had decided on a candidate. Having a specific message like that was better than just campaigning on the phone.
I rapidly realized that people really are making up their own mind. There really is nothing much one can say to convince them - they decide based on their interests and their observations, and primary voters are generally well-informed. For example, Edwards wants to raise the minimum wage. If a voter does not agree with that, there is nothing much you can do while campaigning. All you can do is explain Edwards' position, but not change their opinion on what they feel about minimum wage. Change in thought has to come at a more fundamental level - through discussions, reading articles and books, and very importantly through thoughts of family and friends around one. So a campaign essentially becomes an operation that is trying to figure out what people want and planning one's positions accordingly, instead deciding on a position and convincing people that that is the right position (for example, that the minimum wage has to be increased, or that America's foreign policy has to be changed). So campaigns "pander" to the voters.
Hmmm. I guess that is what democracy is supposed to be - leaders' positions reflect what people want. However leaders try to influence the voters in other ways ..... like managing to get people to think that the war against Iraq was necessary, all through subtly influencing people's thoughts, playing on their insecurities, presenting dreams as possibilities.
Anyway, coming back to Edwards. One gentleman felt he was liberal, and wanted his positions in writing before he made up his mind. We gladly sent him a policy booklet (a thick booklet which contains his detailed positions in writing - another reason I like Edwards). Next to me at the phones a campaign staff member was having a funny conversation with a voter over the phone. The voter said he did not like Edwards because he was a millionaire. "But so is Hillary" said the campaign staff member. And then went on to add that Edwards is working against the interests of powerful millionaires, unlike other millionaires who are working in cahoots with powerful millionaires. I don't think the voter changed his mind :)
I rapidly realized that people really are making up their own mind. There really is nothing much one can say to convince them - they decide based on their interests and their observations, and primary voters are generally well-informed. For example, Edwards wants to raise the minimum wage. If a voter does not agree with that, there is nothing much you can do while campaigning. All you can do is explain Edwards' position, but not change their opinion on what they feel about minimum wage. Change in thought has to come at a more fundamental level - through discussions, reading articles and books, and very importantly through thoughts of family and friends around one. So a campaign essentially becomes an operation that is trying to figure out what people want and planning one's positions accordingly, instead deciding on a position and convincing people that that is the right position (for example, that the minimum wage has to be increased, or that America's foreign policy has to be changed). So campaigns "pander" to the voters.
Hmmm. I guess that is what democracy is supposed to be - leaders' positions reflect what people want. However leaders try to influence the voters in other ways ..... like managing to get people to think that the war against Iraq was necessary, all through subtly influencing people's thoughts, playing on their insecurities, presenting dreams as possibilities.
Anyway, coming back to Edwards. One gentleman felt he was liberal, and wanted his positions in writing before he made up his mind. We gladly sent him a policy booklet (a thick booklet which contains his detailed positions in writing - another reason I like Edwards). Next to me at the phones a campaign staff member was having a funny conversation with a voter over the phone. The voter said he did not like Edwards because he was a millionaire. "But so is Hillary" said the campaign staff member. And then went on to add that Edwards is working against the interests of powerful millionaires, unlike other millionaires who are working in cahoots with powerful millionaires. I don't think the voter changed his mind :)
Friday, November 2, 2007
Door-to-Door
I finally gave in and agreed to do some door-to-door campaigning for the Edwards campaign. Volunteers do this in pairs, and since I was new a staff member was going to do it with me. I met up with Paul at the campaign office on a Saturday afternoon and we got started in Ward 1, the ward where I live.
50-60% were either not at home or did not answer the door (we left literature for them). In the remaining 40-50% three quarters of them had not decided. In the remaining small number of people, a good number had decided on Edwards or were leaning towards him. One said she had decided on Hillary, and one said she did not like Edwards, and that was it. Everyone was either undecided or liked Edwards so far. I decided I was not going to listen to a single poll from now on! Poll results did not seem to reflect what I observed at all (granted this was only in one ward).
Towards the end of the afternoon we decided to go to
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
A Terrific Woman
I was lucky to hear about an Elizabeth Edwards house meeting at the last minute. It was pouring with rain, but that did not stop me or any of the other 60-70 people who turned up on a Saturday afternoon to hear her speak.
She spoke very briefly and opened the floor for questions. One first question was how would Edwards handle Iran. She gave a beautiful answer which went into a great amount of detail and into great depth on the issue. Of course she talked about diplomacy, but she went into details on what the issue was and how it should be addressed. She pointed out that Iran spends around $3b on conventional weapons, whereas the US was arming the countries surrounding Iran with conventional weapons to a tune of $20b. "If you were Iran what would you do?", she asked. "Rachet up your nuclear program to defend yourself!". Agreed that as my friend says even ordinary sentences sound great after right-wing "we are the good guys, they are bad" rhetoric, but still the point "put yourself in their shoes" really resonated with me.
There was a question on existing college loans which she truthfully acknowedged as difficult. Then she went on to make an interesting point. She pointed out that so many consumer goods have approval levels that they have to pass before they can be sold to a consumer. A lamp for instance has to be tested by an inspector that it is safe for use in a home. Cars have to be tested for safety. But financial documents that go with loans that very rapidly become burdensome (loans for college from unscrupulous loan outfits that essentially fool a student and lay the burden of a bad loan on the student) are not tested in any form. Why not have inspection for these like inspection for other consumer goods? Shouldn't a financial document that a student will sign be approved under some guideline that ensures "safety"and fairness? She also alluded to the inherent problems with leaving things like college loans to the market, and said the government should play a role so that the college students are not exploited.
Usually the candidate's spouse is used in a campaign to show a candidate's "softer" side. But she campaigns as an equal and knows a great amount about the various issues. The baby in the house was making gurgling noises when she was speaking, and when the parents tried to quiet the baby she said she loves that noise and didn't mind that at all as background. This could be just a scripted thing, but somehow it did not feel like it, and she also talked very fondly of her own children. She portrays a personality that is both the "softer" side _and_ has a mind that is as knowledgeable as any man's. She brings out the feeling that one can be a woman (with all the connotations that brings) and be completely intellectually compatible with men. That one need not be like a man in everything to succeed in a man's world.
All the women in the room (and it was 90% women) really seemed to like her. Much to my suprise I ran into my music teacher there, who has not been visiting other candidates yet, but came to see her. Fighting cancer and campaigning so vigorously for her husband she comes across as a very strong woman. When she finished she asked for people to volunteer for the campaign, and asked potential volunteers to sign cards. The cards have options, "I will volunteer", or "I will host a house party", and she said "you don't have to say I will spend the first of my life making John Edwards president", but "you can check one of the other boxes". She knows that her time is going to be defined by cancer and is devoting that time to making her husband president.
She is a terrific woman.
She spoke very briefly and opened the floor for questions. One first question was how would Edwards handle Iran. She gave a beautiful answer which went into a great amount of detail and into great depth on the issue. Of course she talked about diplomacy, but she went into details on what the issue was and how it should be addressed. She pointed out that Iran spends around $3b on conventional weapons, whereas the US was arming the countries surrounding Iran with conventional weapons to a tune of $20b. "If you were Iran what would you do?", she asked. "Rachet up your nuclear program to defend yourself!". Agreed that as my friend says even ordinary sentences sound great after right-wing "we are the good guys, they are bad" rhetoric, but still the point "put yourself in their shoes" really resonated with me.
There was a question on existing college loans which she truthfully acknowedged as difficult. Then she went on to make an interesting point. She pointed out that so many consumer goods have approval levels that they have to pass before they can be sold to a consumer. A lamp for instance has to be tested by an inspector that it is safe for use in a home. Cars have to be tested for safety. But financial documents that go with loans that very rapidly become burdensome (loans for college from unscrupulous loan outfits that essentially fool a student and lay the burden of a bad loan on the student) are not tested in any form. Why not have inspection for these like inspection for other consumer goods? Shouldn't a financial document that a student will sign be approved under some guideline that ensures "safety"and fairness? She also alluded to the inherent problems with leaving things like college loans to the market, and said the government should play a role so that the college students are not exploited.
Usually the candidate's spouse is used in a campaign to show a candidate's "softer" side. But she campaigns as an equal and knows a great amount about the various issues. The baby in the house was making gurgling noises when she was speaking, and when the parents tried to quiet the baby she said she loves that noise and didn't mind that at all as background. This could be just a scripted thing, but somehow it did not feel like it, and she also talked very fondly of her own children. She portrays a personality that is both the "softer" side _and_ has a mind that is as knowledgeable as any man's. She brings out the feeling that one can be a woman (with all the connotations that brings) and be completely intellectually compatible with men. That one need not be like a man in everything to succeed in a man's world.
All the women in the room (and it was 90% women) really seemed to like her. Much to my suprise I ran into my music teacher there, who has not been visiting other candidates yet, but came to see her. Fighting cancer and campaigning so vigorously for her husband she comes across as a very strong woman. When she finished she asked for people to volunteer for the campaign, and asked potential volunteers to sign cards. The cards have options, "I will volunteer", or "I will host a house party", and she said "you don't have to say I will spend the first of my life making John Edwards president", but "you can check one of the other boxes". She knows that her time is going to be defined by cancer and is devoting that time to making her husband president.
She is a terrific woman.
Bill Richardson
A message on my answering machine invited me to come to a house party for Bill Richardson, at a home less than a mile from my home. I was eager to go, as the Nashua Peace Group had liked him very much. He had, I believe, a very aggressive schedule for bringing the troops home.
The party was at the beautiful home of two physicians, who had been in a residency program many years ago with Bill Richardson's sister. They were standing on the driveway welcoming everyone in, and both the living room and the dining area became full, with 100+ people. He was on time, and stood in the doorway between the two rooms to address everyone.
He talked about the various issues - the war, health insurance, global warming, education. As he spoke I could not help feeling that all democratic candidates were beginning to sound rather similar. It is almost as though all the campaigns have figured out what the voters care about, and the messages have been honed to address those issues, to say what voters want to hear. Earlier they did not all sound that similar, but now the messages on the various issues seem to have coalesced around similar stances. They all want to stop the war, with various timelines on how they will do it. They all want univeral healthcare, with minor differences on how it will be done. They all talk about the environment. I suppose this is democracy, in that the voters' concerns are getting reflected in the campaigns. And it makes me as a voter look at their track record, at them as a person, instead of just listening to what they say on issues that have become important in the presidential campaign.
One thing was interesting in what Bill Richardson said - he said under his leadership as governer New Mexico chose to follow the Kyoto protocol. But overall, I was not fired up, and my support for Edwards did not come close to wavering.
Richardson had come across as a very liberal democrat from what I had heard, but I have read a part of his book "Between Worlds' and there he comes across as a centrist democrat, and calls himself that as well. Maybe as I finish the book I will see him become more liberal.
The party was at the beautiful home of two physicians, who had been in a residency program many years ago with Bill Richardson's sister. They were standing on the driveway welcoming everyone in, and both the living room and the dining area became full, with 100+ people. He was on time, and stood in the doorway between the two rooms to address everyone.
He talked about the various issues - the war, health insurance, global warming, education. As he spoke I could not help feeling that all democratic candidates were beginning to sound rather similar. It is almost as though all the campaigns have figured out what the voters care about, and the messages have been honed to address those issues, to say what voters want to hear. Earlier they did not all sound that similar, but now the messages on the various issues seem to have coalesced around similar stances. They all want to stop the war, with various timelines on how they will do it. They all want univeral healthcare, with minor differences on how it will be done. They all talk about the environment. I suppose this is democracy, in that the voters' concerns are getting reflected in the campaigns. And it makes me as a voter look at their track record, at them as a person, instead of just listening to what they say on issues that have become important in the presidential campaign.
One thing was interesting in what Bill Richardson said - he said under his leadership as governer New Mexico chose to follow the Kyoto protocol. But overall, I was not fired up, and my support for Edwards did not come close to wavering.
Richardson had come across as a very liberal democrat from what I had heard, but I have read a part of his book "Between Worlds' and there he comes across as a centrist democrat, and calls himself that as well. Maybe as I finish the book I will see him become more liberal.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Religious America
My European friends have often said that America is a religious country. It always sounded like an odd statement to me, and not quite accurate. For one thing, I associated a religious country with some amount of religious intolerance, and the America I experienced in my early years in this country appeared anything but intolerant. Other religions were highly respected, and there seemed a true separation of Church and State as enshrined in the constitution. Secondly, there were hardly any signs of overt expressions of religious fervor, at least compared to India.
This election season, I think I am beginning to understand what my friends mean. Following the Republican primary I am taken aback by how important Jesus Christ is. It appears as though a candidate can only win if he/she declares that he/she believes in God and believes in Jesus Christ (I doubt now that a candidate who is an atheist can win even the democratic primary). The Republican candidates are all falling over themselves to appear to be the most sincere follower of the Christian faith. Fred Thompson says people get their rights from God, not from the government. (One only needs to think for a few moments to realize how dangerous that statement is - a government can be changed, argued with, discussed. What God says cannot be changed - so if God says someone is inferior then it must be so!) And Mitt Romey says in New Hampshire, "The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background. They are American values if you will". American values ??!! I thought American values were equality, freedom, democracy and had nothing do with religion.
People's stances on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. seem to be because the Bible says so. It is not as though many of them had a real discussion and arrived at their opinions - they are just following their religious text. India, for all its external trappings of religion, is so much more flexible - people's thoughts are influenced by so much more than religion. Even if we assumed that these thoughts are limited to Republican primary voters, that is a significant part of the population - Republican voters in New Hampshire are 30+%.
Yes, indeed, the US is a religious country!
This election season, I think I am beginning to understand what my friends mean. Following the Republican primary I am taken aback by how important Jesus Christ is. It appears as though a candidate can only win if he/she declares that he/she believes in God and believes in Jesus Christ (I doubt now that a candidate who is an atheist can win even the democratic primary). The Republican candidates are all falling over themselves to appear to be the most sincere follower of the Christian faith. Fred Thompson says people get their rights from God, not from the government. (One only needs to think for a few moments to realize how dangerous that statement is - a government can be changed, argued with, discussed. What God says cannot be changed - so if God says someone is inferior then it must be so!) And Mitt Romey says in New Hampshire, "The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background. They are American values if you will". American values ??!! I thought American values were equality, freedom, democracy and had nothing do with religion.
People's stances on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. seem to be because the Bible says so. It is not as though many of them had a real discussion and arrived at their opinions - they are just following their religious text. India, for all its external trappings of religion, is so much more flexible - people's thoughts are influenced by so much more than religion. Even if we assumed that these thoughts are limited to Republican primary voters, that is a significant part of the population - Republican voters in New Hampshire are 30+%.
Yes, indeed, the US is a religious country!
Obama supporters vs. Edwards supporters
My father was telling me that the Yale university student group supporting Obama was the most active, and Obama seemed to be the candidate most students liked. I think it is the same thing that I observed in New Hampshire - the well-to-do youngsters get attracted to Obama. Students at an elite university like Yale naturally fall in that category. The message of 'we shall work together' appeals to them. It is a message they find hopeful, and it is very different from Edwards' message point that there are two Americas, with an implication that one is benefitting from the other.
The support for Obama seems similar in some ways to how youngsters from the upper castes in India would like to address the caste system. They find dalits' anger pointless, and feel that that energy should be 'channelized constructively'. They feel there is no point in blaming the upper castes or anyone else, what is past is past, but that we - the upper and the lower castes - should all work together now for a better tomorrow. The anger sometimes bewilders them -they feel they have the best intentions, so why don't the dalits work with them instead of wasting energy being angry?
I think well-to-do youngsters supporting Obama is a something similar phenomenon. His message appears to be conflict-free, a message which says, "we will caste acrimony aside and all work together for a better tomorrow". It appears to be conflict-free, a nice safe way of bringing about change without changing their own lives much. Problem is, real change is not conflict-free. Real change requires the recognition that there are two Americas, and that one is indeed benefitting at the expense of the other. Real change would likely affect the advantages that one America enjoys.
The support for Obama seems similar in some ways to how youngsters from the upper castes in India would like to address the caste system. They find dalits' anger pointless, and feel that that energy should be 'channelized constructively'. They feel there is no point in blaming the upper castes or anyone else, what is past is past, but that we - the upper and the lower castes - should all work together now for a better tomorrow. The anger sometimes bewilders them -they feel they have the best intentions, so why don't the dalits work with them instead of wasting energy being angry?
I think well-to-do youngsters supporting Obama is a something similar phenomenon. His message appears to be conflict-free, a message which says, "we will caste acrimony aside and all work together for a better tomorrow". It appears to be conflict-free, a nice safe way of bringing about change without changing their own lives much. Problem is, real change is not conflict-free. Real change requires the recognition that there are two Americas, and that one is indeed benefitting at the expense of the other. Real change would likely affect the advantages that one America enjoys.
Lawn Signs
The lawn signs are rather interesting. The only ones I see now are for Ron Paul. I have seen a couple of houses that have Mitt Romney signs, and one that has Mike Gravel signs (yay! :)). But Ron Paul signs are the ones that seem to be more in number. Interesting - I would have thought other candidates' signs would be up by now. Maybe my town is more focused on the Mayoral and Alderman elections to be held in November (the presidential primary is expected to be in January). The lawn signs certainly bear that out - there are tons of signs supporting Mayoral candidates and candidates for Alderman positions compared to presidential candidate signs.
It is interesting though, that the Ron Paul supporters are the ones that put their signs up first. Reminds me of the 2004 elections - There were so many Howard Dean signs in my ward compared to John Kerry signs. But John Kerry won the ward 2-1. It had seemed to me then that the number of votes Howard Dean got and the number of houses with Howard Dean lawn signs were the same. Meaning his supporters were really keen - though Kerry won in the end (because of the scream, electability, whatever).
In any case I guess one should not predict anything based on lawn signs :)
It is interesting though, that the Ron Paul supporters are the ones that put their signs up first. Reminds me of the 2004 elections - There were so many Howard Dean signs in my ward compared to John Kerry signs. But John Kerry won the ward 2-1. It had seemed to me then that the number of votes Howard Dean got and the number of houses with Howard Dean lawn signs were the same. Meaning his supporters were really keen - though Kerry won in the end (because of the scream, electability, whatever).
In any case I guess one should not predict anything based on lawn signs :)
Monday, October 8, 2007
Healthcare
Healthcare is a huge issue this election. People ask me what the different candidates say about it. I think it is hard to distinguish between candidates within each party. For instance, the plans of the democrats in the top-tier are essentially the same, the only real difference is how they would pay for it.
The entire country seems to agree on the fact that every one needs access to good healthcare. What they don't agree on is how it should be paid for. The democrats think some kind of a public system should supplement currently available private insurers. (Note that noone other than Kucinich talks about a single payer system - a single payer system would be a system where everyone buys health insurance from one source, everyone will essentially have access to the same kind of healthcare). Edwards will pay for his plan by repealing the tax cuts on those making over $200,000, Clinton will pay for her plan some other way, and I think Obama might not yet have talked about how it will be paid for.
The Republicans on the other hand are very wary of governmental involvement and believe free market is the only thing that works, and are wary of even the addition of a governmental plan to private plans. They say even the addition of a governmental plan is a "step towards socialized medicine", so we cannot even begin to talk about the single-payer system (which of course exists in differnet parts of the world). Free market will bring down insurance costs so that everybody can buy health insurance, they say. As some columnists point out, this logic is not applied to education, so why to healthcare? Public education is considered the duty of the government. But not public healthcare?
In the middle of all this is the issue of whether it should be mandatory for everyone to get health insurance, through private insurers or otherwise (like the state of Massachusetts mandated last year). Most of the country seems to feel that people without insurance burden emergency rooms and contribute to the increase of healthcare costs. That seems to point to mandating that everyone should have insurance. But what about groups like the Christian Scientists? They do not believe in intefering with God's will, and do not believe in going to doctors. Given freedom of religion, should they be forced to get health insurance?
I think it is fairly clear what the people want - healthcare for all, at an affordable price, with choices. Depending on their party the candidate picks a plan to put into action. Problem is I think the issue is not coming up with a plan. I think the issue is actually implementing it. Several people have tried and failed to reform the healthcare system, to address the basic issue of high costs. A complex set of issues seem to affect the system, vested interests being one of them. Can this be fixed? Like with say the goal of "making everyone literate" there are lots of plans. Successfully making them work is an entirely different ballgame.
The entire country seems to agree on the fact that every one needs access to good healthcare. What they don't agree on is how it should be paid for. The democrats think some kind of a public system should supplement currently available private insurers. (Note that noone other than Kucinich talks about a single payer system - a single payer system would be a system where everyone buys health insurance from one source, everyone will essentially have access to the same kind of healthcare). Edwards will pay for his plan by repealing the tax cuts on those making over $200,000, Clinton will pay for her plan some other way, and I think Obama might not yet have talked about how it will be paid for.
The Republicans on the other hand are very wary of governmental involvement and believe free market is the only thing that works, and are wary of even the addition of a governmental plan to private plans. They say even the addition of a governmental plan is a "step towards socialized medicine", so we cannot even begin to talk about the single-payer system (which of course exists in differnet parts of the world). Free market will bring down insurance costs so that everybody can buy health insurance, they say. As some columnists point out, this logic is not applied to education, so why to healthcare? Public education is considered the duty of the government. But not public healthcare?
In the middle of all this is the issue of whether it should be mandatory for everyone to get health insurance, through private insurers or otherwise (like the state of Massachusetts mandated last year). Most of the country seems to feel that people without insurance burden emergency rooms and contribute to the increase of healthcare costs. That seems to point to mandating that everyone should have insurance. But what about groups like the Christian Scientists? They do not believe in intefering with God's will, and do not believe in going to doctors. Given freedom of religion, should they be forced to get health insurance?
I think it is fairly clear what the people want - healthcare for all, at an affordable price, with choices. Depending on their party the candidate picks a plan to put into action. Problem is I think the issue is not coming up with a plan. I think the issue is actually implementing it. Several people have tried and failed to reform the healthcare system, to address the basic issue of high costs. A complex set of issues seem to affect the system, vested interests being one of them. Can this be fixed? Like with say the goal of "making everyone literate" there are lots of plans. Successfully making them work is an entirely different ballgame.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Ask Mitt Anything
Milford is a quintessential New England town. Winding roads going by small streams and lakes, village stores, families celebrating the pumpkin festival with friends and family, hills in the background all come together to form the pretty little town. Fall has begun in earnest, adding to the beauty of the town.
The “Ask Mitt Anything” forum was at the Milford middle school. I was late, and the meeting was in full swing when I arrived – I think Romney was on time. (Rare on the presidential campaign trail!). This was the first event where there were a couple of police officers. Inside the room was well-organized, including lights to shine on Romney as he stood in front of the crowd and took questions.
This was the first Republican event I attended which had a serious discussion. Thompson’s event was poorly attended and there was barely any discussion while Tancredo’s event was too much on the fringe. This event had about 200 people, and the discussion was lively. A number of hands shot up every time. The questions gave me some insight into the Republican way of thinking.
One thing that came through was the belief in taking personal responsibility. One person asked, “How could you as governor of Massachusetts sign a bill that forced health insurance on people?”, referring to what was considered a landmark bill in healthcare. Everyone in Massachusetts had to buy insurance or pay a fine. Romney replied, “My goal was to ensure that people would either buy health insurance, or if they chose not to do so, pay for services when they needed health care. I wanted a change in the system that allowed people without health insurance to use emergency room services for free, which is paid for by your taxes. People could choose between paying or health insurance, but should not be allowed to make use of services for free”. The room spontaneously broke into applause. The idea of taking personal responsibility resonated with the crowd here.
Another similar discussion was on the notion of ‘fair tax’. Fair tax is a flat tax on consumption – like a sales tax. The idea is that when people bought things they would pay tax, so their consumption dictated their taxes, and that it is unfair to tax someone’s income, an income they had worked hard for. Again the idea is that people should pay for things they do, rather than pay an income tax even though they might not use much of the government’s services.
Security and illegal immigration, more so the latter, came up repeatedly in questions. Illegal immigrants were seen as people who “broke the law” and used up resources in the US that they were not entitled to because they broke the law. “We believe in the rule of law”, said Romney. (Never mind the laws the US government breaks when it invades other countries.)
Social issues of course came up for discussion. One man asked, “I am honored to be in the same room with you. But two days ago in Boston I heard a rumor that you supported Planned Parenthood. It was perhaps just a rumor, what is your comment?” Romney responded that indeed a few years ago there was a check in his wife’s name for $150 for Planned Parenthood. They had found it recently, and were not sure how it had come about – perhaps they had done something for a friend or something. (!! I guess this check was public knowledge now, and he was ready with an explanation). He went on to say, “Look at my record. Whenever there was legislation related to this issue I have always come on the side of life”, and went on to give some examples. Interesting way to present some prior actions.
He essentially presents himself as a businessman. In response to a question on how much he would allocate in the budget for an issue, he responded that he could not give a clear number until he saw all the figures and could use hard facts to come up with a plan. He projects that a businessman is a better problem-solver than a politician. Hmmm...... that sounds similar to saying a non-profit can be run like a company.
Another popular question was, “How do we stop the Clinton juggernaut?” :-) They seem to be as worried about it in the Republican camp as democrats are in the primaries :-) He responded that he would fight hard in the ‘purple’ states.
All in all, it was an interesting insight into how Republicans look at issues. I may not agree with them, but I can see their point of view when its not rooted in idealogy.
The “Ask Mitt Anything” forum was at the Milford middle school. I was late, and the meeting was in full swing when I arrived – I think Romney was on time. (Rare on the presidential campaign trail!). This was the first event where there were a couple of police officers. Inside the room was well-organized, including lights to shine on Romney as he stood in front of the crowd and took questions.
This was the first Republican event I attended which had a serious discussion. Thompson’s event was poorly attended and there was barely any discussion while Tancredo’s event was too much on the fringe. This event had about 200 people, and the discussion was lively. A number of hands shot up every time. The questions gave me some insight into the Republican way of thinking.
One thing that came through was the belief in taking personal responsibility. One person asked, “How could you as governor of Massachusetts sign a bill that forced health insurance on people?”, referring to what was considered a landmark bill in healthcare. Everyone in Massachusetts had to buy insurance or pay a fine. Romney replied, “My goal was to ensure that people would either buy health insurance, or if they chose not to do so, pay for services when they needed health care. I wanted a change in the system that allowed people without health insurance to use emergency room services for free, which is paid for by your taxes. People could choose between paying or health insurance, but should not be allowed to make use of services for free”. The room spontaneously broke into applause. The idea of taking personal responsibility resonated with the crowd here.
Another similar discussion was on the notion of ‘fair tax’. Fair tax is a flat tax on consumption – like a sales tax. The idea is that when people bought things they would pay tax, so their consumption dictated their taxes, and that it is unfair to tax someone’s income, an income they had worked hard for. Again the idea is that people should pay for things they do, rather than pay an income tax even though they might not use much of the government’s services.
Security and illegal immigration, more so the latter, came up repeatedly in questions. Illegal immigrants were seen as people who “broke the law” and used up resources in the US that they were not entitled to because they broke the law. “We believe in the rule of law”, said Romney. (Never mind the laws the US government breaks when it invades other countries.)
Social issues of course came up for discussion. One man asked, “I am honored to be in the same room with you. But two days ago in Boston I heard a rumor that you supported Planned Parenthood. It was perhaps just a rumor, what is your comment?” Romney responded that indeed a few years ago there was a check in his wife’s name for $150 for Planned Parenthood. They had found it recently, and were not sure how it had come about – perhaps they had done something for a friend or something. (!! I guess this check was public knowledge now, and he was ready with an explanation). He went on to say, “Look at my record. Whenever there was legislation related to this issue I have always come on the side of life”, and went on to give some examples. Interesting way to present some prior actions.
He essentially presents himself as a businessman. In response to a question on how much he would allocate in the budget for an issue, he responded that he could not give a clear number until he saw all the figures and could use hard facts to come up with a plan. He projects that a businessman is a better problem-solver than a politician. Hmmm...... that sounds similar to saying a non-profit can be run like a company.
Another popular question was, “How do we stop the Clinton juggernaut?” :-) They seem to be as worried about it in the Republican camp as democrats are in the primaries :-) He responded that he would fight hard in the ‘purple’ states.
All in all, it was an interesting insight into how Republicans look at issues. I may not agree with them, but I can see their point of view when its not rooted in idealogy.
A Politician's Handshake
Sam Brownback has the best handshake and really looks you right in the eye :-) When I met him at my workplace a few months ago that was what struck me most – it really is a very nice handshake accompanied by an open look and I wondered whether all politicians had that honest kind of look. But not really. I think Sam Brownback’s open look and handshake beats most of them :-) I read in the news that a California legislator did not endorse Mitt Romney because “he did not look at him in the eye”, and there was a similar comment about Rudolph Giuliani in New Hampshire – that he does not look people in the eye long enough :-)
He has very republican views that I do not agree with – privatizing social security, leaving health insurance to the market etc. But when he was at my workplace we had an interesting discussion on one topic – on bringing businesses and jobs to rural communities. Just then Google had set up a data center in rural North Carolina, generating a number of jobs. We discussed whether that was a good approach – taking IT companies to rural areas in America, instead of outsourcing them all. He took out a piece of cloth from his pocket, made apparently as an agricultural byproduct. I am not sure how economically viable that is – but his thoughts on that topic are interesting. Rural communities are hurting because of jobs that are leaving.
He has very republican views that I do not agree with – privatizing social security, leaving health insurance to the market etc. But when he was at my workplace we had an interesting discussion on one topic – on bringing businesses and jobs to rural communities. Just then Google had set up a data center in rural North Carolina, generating a number of jobs. We discussed whether that was a good approach – taking IT companies to rural areas in America, instead of outsourcing them all. He took out a piece of cloth from his pocket, made apparently as an agricultural byproduct. I am not sure how economically viable that is – but his thoughts on that topic are interesting. Rural communities are hurting because of jobs that are leaving.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Edwards Again
I had seen notices that Edwards was going to be at a house party, and decided to go at the last minute, as I had never been to a house party before and this was only a couple of miles from my home. And was I glad I went! I liked him even more this time.
The meeting was in the backyard of a supporter’s home, with a couple of hundred people attending. Children were sitting on the swing set in the backyard and listening (engaging in the political process at an early age I am sure helps them be active participants in the democratic process as they grow older). A postman doing his rounds stopped and looked over the hedge a bit. Some passersby stopped on the sidewalk and listened over the hedge.
Edwards spoke with more details this time. He talked at some length about his plan for universal health care, and again pledged not to accept money from lobby groups. He said three things that won me over – one, that America has 4% of the population but is the world’s worst polluter (how many candidates are critical of the US?), two, buying local helps fight global warming because when goods are transported we are contributing to global warming (gosh, I thought only extreme environmentalists said that), and three, we need to make progress politically in Iraq. And oh, he also said in response to a question (on how to restore checks and balances in the government) that transparency was essential in every bit of the government and the governing process. For the immigration issue he said we should do what makes sense and what is moral and just. And he speaks with energy, with a touch of something that makes him look very credible.
I guess I still believe (!) that the world can really change, which is why I get fired up! I signed a supporter card this time.
The meeting was in the backyard of a supporter’s home, with a couple of hundred people attending. Children were sitting on the swing set in the backyard and listening (engaging in the political process at an early age I am sure helps them be active participants in the democratic process as they grow older). A postman doing his rounds stopped and looked over the hedge a bit. Some passersby stopped on the sidewalk and listened over the hedge.
Edwards spoke with more details this time. He talked at some length about his plan for universal health care, and again pledged not to accept money from lobby groups. He said three things that won me over – one, that America has 4% of the population but is the world’s worst polluter (how many candidates are critical of the US?), two, buying local helps fight global warming because when goods are transported we are contributing to global warming (gosh, I thought only extreme environmentalists said that), and three, we need to make progress politically in Iraq. And oh, he also said in response to a question (on how to restore checks and balances in the government) that transparency was essential in every bit of the government and the governing process. For the immigration issue he said we should do what makes sense and what is moral and just. And he speaks with energy, with a touch of something that makes him look very credible.
I guess I still believe (!) that the world can really change, which is why I get fired up! I signed a supporter card this time.
Fred enters the Race
Fred Thompson’s candidacy had excited considerable attention, with a lot of speculation and discussion in the weeks leading up to his formal announcement. He came to New Hampshire the day after he announced and after visiting Iowa, and the Nashua Peace group decided to go and stand there with our peace signs. I was also very curious to see and hear him, being a huge Law and Order fan, and because he seemed like a likely winner of the Republican nomination at that point.
His meeting was in front of the Nashua City Hall, and I was surprised by the small size of the crowd. There were about 50 press people, but only 25 or so attendees. It was a very rainy day, and we got pretty wet waiting for him to come - the event was scheduled to being at 4.00pm and he arrived almost an hour late, straight away failing my mother’s test (as she says – isn’t my time important too?). Maybe the rain contributed to lower attendance. But the people who did come seemed to ardently believe in him. It was the first time I was with the Nashua Peace Group at a Republican event – and our reception was very different. At Democratic events people usually come up and thank us for doing this. Here people either ignored us or came up and argued. One veteran, now an elected New Hampshire state representative, in particular began to argue with us, said we disgusted him, but also said that we had a right to be there because of the freedom of speech.
I had thought of Thompson as someone who believed in certain principles (based on his history as a lawyer during watergate where he seemed to stand by what he believed was right). That might be true, but the ideology he believes in is rather alarming – because he seems to really believe it. He talked complete privatization of healthcare, saying free market was the solution. He talked about security, which everyone talks about, he talked about military solutions and using might, which every Republican candidate talks about – but then he said this was a “war of civilizations” with the western civilization on one side! Jeez!! And what’s more, he actually seemed to believe it.
Anyway, it appears as though both his Iowa and New Hampshire events created barely any ripples. Apparently his South Carolina events were very different, with standing room only at some of them!
His meeting was in front of the Nashua City Hall, and I was surprised by the small size of the crowd. There were about 50 press people, but only 25 or so attendees. It was a very rainy day, and we got pretty wet waiting for him to come - the event was scheduled to being at 4.00pm and he arrived almost an hour late, straight away failing my mother’s test (as she says – isn’t my time important too?). Maybe the rain contributed to lower attendance. But the people who did come seemed to ardently believe in him. It was the first time I was with the Nashua Peace Group at a Republican event – and our reception was very different. At Democratic events people usually come up and thank us for doing this. Here people either ignored us or came up and argued. One veteran, now an elected New Hampshire state representative, in particular began to argue with us, said we disgusted him, but also said that we had a right to be there because of the freedom of speech.
I had thought of Thompson as someone who believed in certain principles (based on his history as a lawyer during watergate where he seemed to stand by what he believed was right). That might be true, but the ideology he believes in is rather alarming – because he seems to really believe it. He talked complete privatization of healthcare, saying free market was the solution. He talked about security, which everyone talks about, he talked about military solutions and using might, which every Republican candidate talks about – but then he said this was a “war of civilizations” with the western civilization on one side! Jeez!! And what’s more, he actually seemed to believe it.
Anyway, it appears as though both his Iowa and New Hampshire events created barely any ripples. Apparently his South Carolina events were very different, with standing room only at some of them!
Illegal Immigration is "illegal"
I am driving home, I am tired, and it has been a bit of a difficult day. What does a political junkie like me do? Drive to a presidential candidate town hall meeting for some potentially interesting entertainment :-)
Tom Tancredo was speaking at a town hall meeting in Merrimack. He is a fringe republican candidate, who has said he is running because of the illegal immigration issue. I had been intending to go listen to some republican candidates as well, and here was a good chance. (One of the things that makes the New Hampshire primary interesting is the fact that independents can vote. Generally only registered democrats vote in the democratic primary and only registered republicans vote in the republican primary, but in New Hampshire independents can vote in either one. Which is also why candidates like to focus on New Hampshire because it can somewhat reflect how the independents will vote, and that group is critical in the general election).
There were about 25-30 people in Merrimack town hall, making it a chatty living room type atmosphere. Tancredo started speaking, said he was a second-tier candidate, but stood a chance in New Hampshire because grassroots campaigning cost much less than TV campaigning (and a win or a good place in New Hampshire can give a candidate tremendous momentum in later primary states). He talked about his children and grand-children. So far, so good.
Then he began to speak about illegal immigration. I generally try to understand the other person’s point of view, but as time progressed, it got a bit scary (well, I was not really scared, but you get the idea, I did begin to feel that I was the only non-white in the room….hmmm…. maybe I was OK since I was born in the US ;-)). During the first part of his talk he focused on how illegal immigrants were involved in crime, and gave a couple of anecdotal incidents. Anecdotal incidents do not make up statistics, but I desisted from asking that question as I really did not want to take up time on a question, when I was not going to vote for him. Anyway, he continued, and began to come out strongly against sanctuary cities (which have decided to help illegal immigrants by giving then an identity card, making them feel welcome, helping them, and so on), at which point there was applause. He said that the illegal immigrants had broken the law, and so were the sanctuary cities by helping them. Well, I did not agree with him, but I have heard a sort of similar viewpoint from very sensible American friends - that illegal immigrants were “breaking the law”, and this is something Americans do not like at all, as they set a huge store on living according to the rule of law. He applauded the town of Merrimack for voting against bilingual language boards, and a local police chief for arresting an illegal immigrant (and I think in the process turning him over to the immigration authorities). Again I did not agree with these points of view, but I know they exist. What he then talked about was what made the whole thing become weird. He talked about being a nation-state, about the importance of the identify of a nation. He talked about clear political boundaries, and how they should be respected. He that Mexicans coming in was an “act of aggression” since they would soon come and make the US more like Mexico. He talked about how the President of Mexico was fully aware of this but would not do anything to change it, rather implied to Bush that Mexico had rights north of the Mexican border. He said Bush is an internationalist, who cares more about trade than a nation’s borders – that is, in Bush’s mind regions are demarcated by trade (which is probably true).
The audience agreed with him (I guess that is why they had come to listen to this candidate), and there were lots of nods as Tancredo touched upon various points. One person in the audience said “these people don’t care about our laws but just come into our country, they don’t care about us”, implying that because they “broke the law” by entering the country, they are all law-breakers, and do not respect the US laws and will continue to break the laws.…..Hmmm…..!! Tancredo himself seemed to connect “violent crime” by illegal immigrants to the fact that they were “law-breakers”.
At the end, I must say it was a bit unsettling to hear this point of view and to see that some people agreed with it. In contrast, when I got lost trying to get to the event, a Merrimack town official left his desk where he was in the middle of doing something and so courteously showed me the right way – I have almost never been made to feel that I do not belong in the US.
Being my first Republican event, I felt it was good that I could see the other side – instead of just going to Obama and Edwards events. We need to know what the other side is thinking! :-) And it is good that people have to a forum to share their thoughts, however much I might disagree with them.
All in all, it was interesting, and as recreational as a movie, without costing a dime!
Tom Tancredo was speaking at a town hall meeting in Merrimack. He is a fringe republican candidate, who has said he is running because of the illegal immigration issue. I had been intending to go listen to some republican candidates as well, and here was a good chance. (One of the things that makes the New Hampshire primary interesting is the fact that independents can vote. Generally only registered democrats vote in the democratic primary and only registered republicans vote in the republican primary, but in New Hampshire independents can vote in either one. Which is also why candidates like to focus on New Hampshire because it can somewhat reflect how the independents will vote, and that group is critical in the general election).
There were about 25-30 people in Merrimack town hall, making it a chatty living room type atmosphere. Tancredo started speaking, said he was a second-tier candidate, but stood a chance in New Hampshire because grassroots campaigning cost much less than TV campaigning (and a win or a good place in New Hampshire can give a candidate tremendous momentum in later primary states). He talked about his children and grand-children. So far, so good.
Then he began to speak about illegal immigration. I generally try to understand the other person’s point of view, but as time progressed, it got a bit scary (well, I was not really scared, but you get the idea, I did begin to feel that I was the only non-white in the room….hmmm…. maybe I was OK since I was born in the US ;-)). During the first part of his talk he focused on how illegal immigrants were involved in crime, and gave a couple of anecdotal incidents. Anecdotal incidents do not make up statistics, but I desisted from asking that question as I really did not want to take up time on a question, when I was not going to vote for him. Anyway, he continued, and began to come out strongly against sanctuary cities (which have decided to help illegal immigrants by giving then an identity card, making them feel welcome, helping them, and so on), at which point there was applause. He said that the illegal immigrants had broken the law, and so were the sanctuary cities by helping them. Well, I did not agree with him, but I have heard a sort of similar viewpoint from very sensible American friends - that illegal immigrants were “breaking the law”, and this is something Americans do not like at all, as they set a huge store on living according to the rule of law. He applauded the town of Merrimack for voting against bilingual language boards, and a local police chief for arresting an illegal immigrant (and I think in the process turning him over to the immigration authorities). Again I did not agree with these points of view, but I know they exist. What he then talked about was what made the whole thing become weird. He talked about being a nation-state, about the importance of the identify of a nation. He talked about clear political boundaries, and how they should be respected. He that Mexicans coming in was an “act of aggression” since they would soon come and make the US more like Mexico. He talked about how the President of Mexico was fully aware of this but would not do anything to change it, rather implied to Bush that Mexico had rights north of the Mexican border. He said Bush is an internationalist, who cares more about trade than a nation’s borders – that is, in Bush’s mind regions are demarcated by trade (which is probably true).
The audience agreed with him (I guess that is why they had come to listen to this candidate), and there were lots of nods as Tancredo touched upon various points. One person in the audience said “these people don’t care about our laws but just come into our country, they don’t care about us”, implying that because they “broke the law” by entering the country, they are all law-breakers, and do not respect the US laws and will continue to break the laws.…..Hmmm…..!! Tancredo himself seemed to connect “violent crime” by illegal immigrants to the fact that they were “law-breakers”.
At the end, I must say it was a bit unsettling to hear this point of view and to see that some people agreed with it. In contrast, when I got lost trying to get to the event, a Merrimack town official left his desk where he was in the middle of doing something and so courteously showed me the right way – I have almost never been made to feel that I do not belong in the US.
Being my first Republican event, I felt it was good that I could see the other side – instead of just going to Obama and Edwards events. We need to know what the other side is thinking! :-) And it is good that people have to a forum to share their thoughts, however much I might disagree with them.
All in all, it was interesting, and as recreational as a movie, without costing a dime!
Saturday, September 8, 2007
One America
Gosh. This was different.
The atmosphere was electric. People were expecting something, and feeling they would get it. We were led to some seats, all well organized (as it was outside – clear signs from off the highway). Volunteers and staff with sign up sheets were polite but not intrusive. The elderly couple sitting next to us was very friendly – the man introduced himself and shook my hand. I sat down and looked around – gosh, this was probably double the crowd at Obama’s events.
Edwards walked in shaking hands along the way. With him was Elizabeth Edwards, I had just shaken hands with both of them before they walked in (and thanked Edwards for saying his vote on the Iraq war was a mistake). And they were no more than 15 minutes late.
Edwards stood in the middle of a circle (as was the practice in 2004 as well), and began to speak. His speech was short, and to the point. He made the standard democratic points on universal health insurance, about getting the troops out of Iraq, and closing Guantanamo Bay – but with an intensity that made a difference. And he also said other things – about poverty in the world, about poverty in America, about telling the truth and not being afraid to do so. About the fact that just the troops pullout was not sufficient, steps towards a political solution were needed. As the people applauded, I felt my skin tingle. Oh my gosh. This really was different. It was so unexpected compared to the other meetings I had been at.
Then it was time for questions. It was also time for me to take a good look at the audience – I saw that people were from all walks of life, and all age groups, and the clear presence of the working class. Which was very similar to Dean’s audiences in 2004. And different from Obama’s audiences – they appeared to be more well off, and the staff and volunteers of that campaign are young and wealthy for the most part. Not so in Edwards’ staff and volunteer group.
The questions were more personal – rather than “what is your health insurance plan”, it was “I just came out of the hospital, I am on social security and I cannot afford this. What do I do?” Or “politician after politician comes here and says the same thing. Will you really be different? Who cares about the poor in the country?” At which point Elizabeth Edwards got up and described Edwards’ upbringing as the son of a mill worker, the first in his family to go to college. True, that was probably a scripted note they like to highlight at every meeting, but what came across was that the Edwardses campaigned as a team. She was not just someone who came out to show the candidate’s softer side – she was campaigning with her husband and they were a team. It was touching to see.
My mother – my one-should-never-adulate-anyone-mother got pumped up enough to go get his autograph after the event. As she said, “what he says seems to come from the heart”. As my friend from the Nashua Peace Group said the next day “Edwards seems to care about the poor”. He is the only one on the campaign trail so far who has some semblance of Dean. If I volunteer for a campaign this election season, it will be for him I think. And looking at the crowd at the event, and the applause, I simply do not understand why he is third in the polls!
The atmosphere was electric. People were expecting something, and feeling they would get it. We were led to some seats, all well organized (as it was outside – clear signs from off the highway). Volunteers and staff with sign up sheets were polite but not intrusive. The elderly couple sitting next to us was very friendly – the man introduced himself and shook my hand. I sat down and looked around – gosh, this was probably double the crowd at Obama’s events.
Edwards walked in shaking hands along the way. With him was Elizabeth Edwards, I had just shaken hands with both of them before they walked in (and thanked Edwards for saying his vote on the Iraq war was a mistake). And they were no more than 15 minutes late.
Edwards stood in the middle of a circle (as was the practice in 2004 as well), and began to speak. His speech was short, and to the point. He made the standard democratic points on universal health insurance, about getting the troops out of Iraq, and closing Guantanamo Bay – but with an intensity that made a difference. And he also said other things – about poverty in the world, about poverty in America, about telling the truth and not being afraid to do so. About the fact that just the troops pullout was not sufficient, steps towards a political solution were needed. As the people applauded, I felt my skin tingle. Oh my gosh. This really was different. It was so unexpected compared to the other meetings I had been at.
Then it was time for questions. It was also time for me to take a good look at the audience – I saw that people were from all walks of life, and all age groups, and the clear presence of the working class. Which was very similar to Dean’s audiences in 2004. And different from Obama’s audiences – they appeared to be more well off, and the staff and volunteers of that campaign are young and wealthy for the most part. Not so in Edwards’ staff and volunteer group.
The questions were more personal – rather than “what is your health insurance plan”, it was “I just came out of the hospital, I am on social security and I cannot afford this. What do I do?” Or “politician after politician comes here and says the same thing. Will you really be different? Who cares about the poor in the country?” At which point Elizabeth Edwards got up and described Edwards’ upbringing as the son of a mill worker, the first in his family to go to college. True, that was probably a scripted note they like to highlight at every meeting, but what came across was that the Edwardses campaigned as a team. She was not just someone who came out to show the candidate’s softer side – she was campaigning with her husband and they were a team. It was touching to see.
My mother – my one-should-never-adulate-anyone-mother got pumped up enough to go get his autograph after the event. As she said, “what he says seems to come from the heart”. As my friend from the Nashua Peace Group said the next day “Edwards seems to care about the poor”. He is the only one on the campaign trail so far who has some semblance of Dean. If I volunteer for a campaign this election season, it will be for him I think. And looking at the crowd at the event, and the applause, I simply do not understand why he is third in the polls!
A Peek at Hillary
Hillary Clinton has not been much in New Hampshire, probably because she is currently leading in the polls and is concentrating on the general elections (and hence is more focused nationally). The primary process is particularly helpful for lesser known candidates where they can have conversations with voters and really explain their stances. If a candidate does well in an early primary state he or she can be catapulted to a front runner position as the primary progresses. Clearly Hillary doesn’t feel she needs that catapult. The other candidates seem to be practically living here, but Hillary has not been here that much in recent weeks.
She has visited the state a few times over the last few months, and the local peace groups bird-dogged her in full force. Bird-dogging refers to asking a candidate questions on a specific issue, repeatedly and at multiple events, so that the candidate feels the issue is significant. Also the media is likely to pick up on it when a question is asked repeatedly. New Hampshire peace groups have been planning to fully exploit the fact that we get access to presidential candidates and have been training people in bird-dogging for months. The first bird-dogging of Hillary was hugely successful. The same question (on her vote for the war in Iraq) was asked in three different places, in Nashua by Dave from the Nashua Peace Group. The press picked it up and it was all over the national media!
She was here for a kick-off rally over the labor day weekend, along with Bill Clinton. I couldn’t go in person but saw it on C-SPAN. As my mother succintly put it, her campaign speech can be summarized as: “things were really bad for 12 years from 1980 to 1992, then they were great from 1992 to 2000, and now they are really bad for the last 8 years from 2000 to 2008. Elect me and things will be right again.”
She has visited the state a few times over the last few months, and the local peace groups bird-dogged her in full force. Bird-dogging refers to asking a candidate questions on a specific issue, repeatedly and at multiple events, so that the candidate feels the issue is significant. Also the media is likely to pick up on it when a question is asked repeatedly. New Hampshire peace groups have been planning to fully exploit the fact that we get access to presidential candidates and have been training people in bird-dogging for months. The first bird-dogging of Hillary was hugely successful. The same question (on her vote for the war in Iraq) was asked in three different places, in Nashua by Dave from the Nashua Peace Group. The press picked it up and it was all over the national media!
She was here for a kick-off rally over the labor day weekend, along with Bill Clinton. I couldn’t go in person but saw it on C-SPAN. As my mother succintly put it, her campaign speech can be summarized as: “things were really bad for 12 years from 1980 to 1992, then they were great from 1992 to 2000, and now they are really bad for the last 8 years from 2000 to 2008. Elect me and things will be right again.”
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Stop Sununu. Stop the War.
In coordination with several events across the country, New Hampshire peace and justice groups organized a “TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ” by focusing on telling Sen. Sununu to stop supporting President Bush and to start supporting the troop. Sen. Sununu is up for re-election next year and has been identified as vulnerable, so progressive groups around the country and are focusing on him. The event on Tuesday was to assemble in front of Sen. Sununu’s office in Manchester, NH, and then march down to the Veterans Memorial Park on Elm St. for a rally from 5.00pm to 7.00pm.
I had decided to go along with the Nashua Peace Group contingent. I fully expected it to be like the Washington DC rally I had participated in on Jan 27th (some pictures are at http://www.flickr.com/gp/26012104@N00/f25503).
We arrived at the park at 4.45pm, to find it pretty much empty. We then joined in with the marchers coming down from Sen. Sununu’s office, all of 60 people. Atleast they were shouting slogans which was nice. After the march reached the park the crowd swelled a little – to a grand total of about 220 people. I was really disappointed and felt almost let-down. This was nothing – where were the people? Why weren’t all the people opposing the war out here? Out here were the usual suspects – people from nhpriorities.org, from nhpeaceaction.org, from code pink, Americans against Escalation of the War, folks we see at other similar events a handful of folks from each group. Where was the outrage from others ????
The only interesting event was the prescense of some presidential candidate campaign staff/volunteers. A girl on Obama’s staff (she has visited us at a Nashua Peace Group meeting) participated in the march and then worked on collecting signatures at the rally. Bill Richardson had several folks there, all of them clearly believing in peace, and also drumming up support for the Governer. Kucinich’s folks were there, no surprise there. And some Biden folks were there. At this stage of the campaign the less well-known candidates are trying to get as many people sign up on their lists as possible, so that they can be contacted and invited when the candidate is in the area. The goal is to get the voters to come to meet the candidate.
I had decided to go along with the Nashua Peace Group contingent. I fully expected it to be like the Washington DC rally I had participated in on Jan 27th (some pictures are at http://www.flickr.com/gp/26012104@N00/f25503).
We arrived at the park at 4.45pm, to find it pretty much empty. We then joined in with the marchers coming down from Sen. Sununu’s office, all of 60 people. Atleast they were shouting slogans which was nice. After the march reached the park the crowd swelled a little – to a grand total of about 220 people. I was really disappointed and felt almost let-down. This was nothing – where were the people? Why weren’t all the people opposing the war out here? Out here were the usual suspects – people from nhpriorities.org, from nhpeaceaction.org, from code pink, Americans against Escalation of the War, folks we see at other similar events a handful of folks from each group. Where was the outrage from others ????
The only interesting event was the prescense of some presidential candidate campaign staff/volunteers. A girl on Obama’s staff (she has visited us at a Nashua Peace Group meeting) participated in the march and then worked on collecting signatures at the rally. Bill Richardson had several folks there, all of them clearly believing in peace, and also drumming up support for the Governer. Kucinich’s folks were there, no surprise there. And some Biden folks were there. At this stage of the campaign the less well-known candidates are trying to get as many people sign up on their lists as possible, so that they can be contacted and invited when the candidate is in the area. The goal is to get the voters to come to meet the candidate.
Obama!
There has been a lot of hype about Obama, and I was really curious to see him. So when I heard he was going to have a town hall style meeting outside his Nashua office I was quite excited.
I was just back from India, so the significance of what these events mean in a democratic nation hit me with full force when I got there. In pictureque rural New Hampshire, with a day care center and a pizza place in the background, cars going by on the country road on one side of the green field, here we were, a couple of hundred people, listening to a potential US president. My third election season in New Hampshire and it still amazes me.
Obama came and spoke. It was a speech which talked about positive things, about optimism that change is possible, and about how we can and should come together to solve the nation’s problems. He made all the right comments about various issues that concern democratic primary voters – the war in Iraq, shutting down Guantanemo Bay (which brought applause), global warming, universal health insurance, etc. Questions from the audience covered pretty much similar topics, and as usual showed knowledgable voters – one person asked, “can you give us specifics of your healthcare plan”, and another asked him to comment on the palestinian situation. What struck me was the people, especially the staff and volunteers – they all seemed to be young and wealthy. Quite different from Howard Dean’s campaign (that I volunteered with in 2004). But they all clearly believe in Obama, and are quite keen on getting you to sign the “I am committed to Obama” card. I came away thinking that if it came down to Clinton vs. Obama, as seemed likely, I could vote for him.
My friend Nicole and I went to the next event in Dover, NH. Driving there on rural back roads, I was again struck – here voters don’t have to go somewhere to see the candidates, the candidates come to them. This is how it should be! The event in Dover was an ice-cream social and his wife and daughters were also there. The speech was very similar to the one in Nashua, and then he worked the crowd. Nicole shook hands with him and his wife and got pictures shaking hands with them both.
People in NH take their duty of vetting the presidential candidates very seriously. A mother brought her teenage sons and asked them what they thought and discussed some of the points with them. Two friends walking away discussed their impressions. An older woman volunteer said the last time she volunteered for a compaign was for John F. Kennedy’s campaign, and now Obama gave her hope.
I went to the third Obama event in Derry, NH and that was when it struck me why I was not getting that enthused. Obama was OK, but I was not enthused. It was because he was not self-critical of America at all. He talked only of the glorious values of America (I do believe America has some glorious values), and that the current regime was the bad one, and with change we can restore everything that is good. It is not a negative speech at all which is perhaps the goal, but it also meant that it had nothing of looking inward to see what was wrong. That bothered me, and that was different from Dean’s speeches. While talking about energy conservation Obama said we should all play a part, and as one example described energy saving bulbs. Later I asked him whether he had energy saving bulbs throughout his house. He chuckled and said, yes, except for the lamps on the roof that they had not been able to reach yet. He then patted my shoulder said he had a hybrid car.
I ran into Fern at the event. Fern and her husband Tim had been very active in the Howard Dean campaign. Fern had been bowled over by Obama, but now said she was having second thoughts. She said, “he doesn’t fire me up like Edwards does”. Obama talked to her son and asked him how many tests he took each year and when Noah (a fifth grader) said, “five”, Obama shook his head and said, “too many” (of course no democrat likes “No Child Left Behind”). Walking af
ter our group picture with Obama Fern and I talked about how we love living in New Hampshire in the primary season :-). Here we are, discussing which candidate interested us, with one of them standing not 10 feet from us :-). I could understand Fern’s comment about not getting fired up – it was odd, because his books are extremely well-written and do fire one up. And it was his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that led to his fame at the national level. But his speech now on the campaign trail somehow comes across as tame. Was he dumbing it down deliberately, as a strategy to appeal to the maximum number of people?
I was just back from India, so the significance of what these events mean in a democratic nation hit me with full force when I got there. In pictureque rural New Hampshire, with a day care center and a pizza place in the background, cars going by on the country road on one side of the green field, here we were, a couple of hundred people, listening to a potential US president. My third election season in New Hampshire and it still amazes me.
Obama came and spoke. It was a speech which talked about positive things, about optimism that change is possible, and about how we can and should come together to solve the nation’s problems. He made all the right comments about various issues that concern democratic primary voters – the war in Iraq, shutting down Guantanemo Bay (which brought applause), global warming, universal health insurance, etc. Questions from the audience covered pretty much similar topics, and as usual showed knowledgable voters – one person asked, “can you give us specifics of your healthcare plan”, and another asked him to comment on the palestinian situation. What struck me was the people, especially the staff and volunteers – they all seemed to be young and wealthy. Quite different from Howard Dean’s campaign (that I volunteered with in 2004). But they all clearly believe in Obama, and are quite keen on getting you to sign the “I am committed to Obama” card. I came away thinking that if it came down to Clinton vs. Obama, as seemed likely, I could vote for him.
My friend Nicole and I went to the next event in Dover, NH. Driving there on rural back roads, I was again struck – here voters don’t have to go somewhere to see the candidates, the candidates come to them. This is how it should be! The event in Dover was an ice-cream social and his wife and daughters were also there. The speech was very similar to the one in Nashua, and then he worked the crowd. Nicole shook hands with him and his wife and got pictures shaking hands with them both.
People in NH take their duty of vetting the presidential candidates very seriously. A mother brought her teenage sons and asked them what they thought and discussed some of the points with them. Two friends walking away discussed their impressions. An older woman volunteer said the last time she volunteered for a compaign was for John F. Kennedy’s campaign, and now Obama gave her hope.
I went to the third Obama event in Derry, NH and that was when it struck me why I was not getting that enthused. Obama was OK, but I was not enthused. It was because he was not self-critical of America at all. He talked only of the glorious values of America (I do believe America has some glorious values), and that the current regime was the bad one, and with change we can restore everything that is good. It is not a negative speech at all which is perhaps the goal, but it also meant that it had nothing of looking inward to see what was wrong. That bothered me, and that was different from Dean’s speeches. While talking about energy conservation Obama said we should all play a part, and as one example described energy saving bulbs. Later I asked him whether he had energy saving bulbs throughout his house. He chuckled and said, yes, except for the lamps on the roof that they had not been able to reach yet. He then patted my shoulder said he had a hybrid car.
I ran into Fern at the event. Fern and her husband Tim had been very active in the Howard Dean campaign. Fern had been bowled over by Obama, but now said she was having second thoughts. She said, “he doesn’t fire me up like Edwards does”. Obama talked to her son and asked him how many tests he took each year and when Noah (a fifth grader) said, “five”, Obama shook his head and said, “too many” (of course no democrat likes “No Child Left Behind”). Walking af
ter our group picture with Obama Fern and I talked about how we love living in New Hampshire in the primary season :-). Here we are, discussing which candidate interested us, with one of them standing not 10 feet from us :-). I could understand Fern’s comment about not getting fired up – it was odd, because his books are extremely well-written and do fire one up. And it was his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that led to his fame at the national level. But his speech now on the campaign trail somehow comes across as tame. Was he dumbing it down deliberately, as a strategy to appeal to the maximum number of people?Garnering Votes in New Hampshire
Today I was with my group (NashuaPeace.org) at Christopher Dodd's outdoor campaign stop on the steps of Nashua City Hall (town I live in). Dodd is polling in insignificant digits in NH so the crowd was not too large - about 50 people. But it reminded me of the flavor of the real NH presidential primary politics. Aides were literally begging people who came sort of the close to the venue to come and sit down and see Dodd "up close" which they told them "was the real way to see and hear Dodd". And NH voters being NH voters they politely declined, and from where they were seriously listened to and evaluated the candidate. NH voters really take the job of whetting the candidates seriously. On the busy main streets cars and trucks whizzed by, life went on as usual, and Dodd spoke, sometimes raising his voice to be heard above the traffic. It is humbling and exhilarating to see a candidate really beholden to the voters. Which is typically the case during the primaries in NH, its just that during this election the star value of Clinton and Obama (not to mention the secret service armour around the former) sometimes make one think times of changed. Generally at this stage of the primary season people get 50-100 people at most at campaign stops, giving the real feel of trying to win every vote. And boy, do candidates appear different compared to how they come across on TV! Voting without personally interacting with the candidates seems almost meaningless :-) Dodd apparently is focusing his campaign on the notion of "National Service", where everyone, especially youngsters, take time to volunteer - in everything ranging from the peace corp to spending time at the local hospice. He talked about making it a mandatory part of high school, like it apparently is in Maryland. He presented it as the way to unite America, etc. etc. Interestingly, it is the "Asha view", though personally I think it is naive to think that volunteering will change the world's or a nation's problems. The whole event revolved around this theme - he was presented to the audience by a local youth who had started a non-profit to give access to Arts education for disadvantaged children, and in general there were lots of youngsters amongst his aides.After his talk he worked his way through the crowd, and we (the Nashua Peace group) wondered whether he would come up to us. It appeared as though he would skip us, so I and another member decided to walk up to him. I asked him, "if elected President would you look at peaceful solutions or be hawkish", to which he answered, "always peaceful solutions first", and then I said "I vote for peace", and he assured me he did too. :-) He then decided to walk over to the Nashua Peace group and of course the media followed him which was nice, because it gave us exposure.
First in the Nation
Every four years it gets exciting in New Hampshire. New Hampshire holds the “first-in-the-nation” presidential primary, which means that it is the first state to hold the primary elections for selecting a presidential candidate from the democratic and republican parties. Being the “first” gives New Hampshire an extraordinary significance – winning or losing here can make an impact on the candidate’s chances. History is replete with instances of a win or even a second place propelling a candidate towards victory. New Hampshire’s small number of delegates does not really have numerical significance in the final conventions which choose the candidates; it is its status as “first-in-the-nation” that gives it so much importance in the primaries. And it is a status which New Hampshire guards zealously.
Campaigning starts early in the state; candidates make themselves known, visit homes, diners, and schools, they participate in local parades, town hall meetings, and host socials with free pizza, ice-cream, hot dogs. It is a very grassroots style of campaigning, where the candidate does not have the protection of a large staff and is not speaking to a television or screen. He or she is shaking people’s hands and literally working for each vote. And it is a mode of operation where the sheer strength of funds for expensive ad campaigns and spin campaigns will be no use. A less well-known candidate has a good chance if he or she can convince voters. It is democracy at its best.
New Hampshire residents are very aware of the critical role they play in selecting a presidential candidate. And they take their role very seriously. They “shop” for candidates, listen carefully to what they say, ask informed questions, and pride themselves on making utmost use of the fact that the candidates are right here in front of them, talking to them. And I agree with them when they feel that they are experienced in the process and can vet a candidate much better than one can through TV advertisements and sound bites and news articles. And best of all we enjoy doing it, and being in New Hampshire season can be tremendously exciting.
So I thought I would write down my experiences of meeting with candidates and attending town hall meetings during the primary season.
Campaigning starts early in the state; candidates make themselves known, visit homes, diners, and schools, they participate in local parades, town hall meetings, and host socials with free pizza, ice-cream, hot dogs. It is a very grassroots style of campaigning, where the candidate does not have the protection of a large staff and is not speaking to a television or screen. He or she is shaking people’s hands and literally working for each vote. And it is a mode of operation where the sheer strength of funds for expensive ad campaigns and spin campaigns will be no use. A less well-known candidate has a good chance if he or she can convince voters. It is democracy at its best.
New Hampshire residents are very aware of the critical role they play in selecting a presidential candidate. And they take their role very seriously. They “shop” for candidates, listen carefully to what they say, ask informed questions, and pride themselves on making utmost use of the fact that the candidates are right here in front of them, talking to them. And I agree with them when they feel that they are experienced in the process and can vet a candidate much better than one can through TV advertisements and sound bites and news articles. And best of all we enjoy doing it, and being in New Hampshire season can be tremendously exciting.
So I thought I would write down my experiences of meeting with candidates and attending town hall meetings during the primary season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)