When Nashua Met Harry and Nancy

In order to escape the expected Obama wave that may sweep over New Hampshire tomorrow I fled this morning to the safety of higher ground to reflect on what I had seen in the Granite State over the past two days, but not before attending several Democratic campaign rallies in Nashua, Manchester and Concord. I also went canvassing voters door-to-door, and talked to some locals yesterday morning over eggs at the historic Merrimack Restaurant in downtown Manchester.

What message kept coming back to me from a good number of these encounters is how angry and disappointed local Democrats are with their national Congressional leadership. I repeatedly heard that Granite-staters are fed up with anything that constitutes politics-as-normal inside the Beltway and that includes anyone who is perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- associated with it. "The Democrats were voted back in to bring change and they didn't!" said one middle-aged Democratic woman to me. Another elderly Democratic voter actually said it was time for a coup d'etat against Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for their failure to convincingly stand up to Bush on Iraq, Gonzales, Cheney, Gitmo, surveillance, health care, scandals... what have you. She was running out of breath rattling off a passion-laden laundry list of Democratic shortcomings.

This bottled up resentment against the national Democratic establishment is, in my judgment, a terrible drag on Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire. It has subliminally fostered a desire among Democrats to have Obama "change" trump Hillary "experience" because when Democrats voted for change in 2006, they got little more than business as usual out of DC Dems. Obama has clearly benefited from that tide of Democratic disappointment with their national Congressional leadership, of which he has apparently developed a Teflon coat.

What also comes across loud and clear is that Democrats have pushed aside concerns over the war in Iraq to focus almost exclusively on domestic social and economic issues. Case in point: at the Clinton Nashua North High School campaign town hall yesterday afternoon, Mrs. Clinton (with daughter Chelsea at her side) thoughtfully fielded over twenty questions over a period of two hours from a variety of potential. Evidencing her superior grasp of issues, Clinton expertly segued from one arcane topic to another. And nary a question about Iraq or Al Qaeda came up. However, she did talk about the need to restore America's battered image in the world. And Clinton did weave into one answer a standard stump speech line about how she would end the war as quickly and securely as possible.

But what got the audience's greatest applause was her vow to help our returning Iraq vets get the best possible mental health care.

Throughout her event, Clinton was in her best teaching mode, while down the road at his own rally, as I later watched on TV, Obama was in his best preaching mode.

After Clinton's rally, I buttonholed a few attendees to ask them what they had thought of Hillary. Two young non-committed independent voters told me they were still "candidate" shopping and were hurrying over to an Obama event in Salem, NH.

A couple with two young kids in tow decided to take a few minutes and vent. Each told me that while they had originally planned to vote for Hillary, they were concerned she would not shake the pot up enough in Washington, get new Democratic leaders with more backbone, and were now leaning toward Obama or Edwards. They were afraid she was tied too much to the "business as usual" DC crowd.

Then the husband really unloaded. He indicated he was a ward chairman in Nashua and was "furious" with Nancy Pelosi for not stopping the war. He felt betrayed by Congressional Democrats of which he claimed Hillary was one of. When I reminded him that Obama had been in the Senate for three years and certainly was no outsider, he said that Obama had come to change Washington and had the courage to change Washington as President, but that Hillary had not come to change Washington as Senator and probably would not try hard enough to force change on Washington as President.

If Clinton loses big to Obama tomorrow, it may very well be because Nashua met Nancy and Harry before meeting Hillary and Barak.

Comments

[texanna]

So, you found that there is a great deal of anger at what Harry and Nancy have done - or haven't done as the case may be - and that this anger might have something to do with the great unwashed refusing to go along with the presumptive candidacy of the Clinton campaign. First, how can we get Harry and Nancy to come to this conclusion so that maybe, just maybe we could get them to do something differently and get some stuff done in the next several months. Second, how can we get the rest of the media types to calm down and start asking some reasoned questions? Questions such as, how can obama be the outsider when he's been on the inside since 2004 and hasn't done anything in that timeframe to distinguish himself as an agent of change (his votes are almost exactly the same as those of Clinton)? Also, how honest is Obama being with his presentation of that bipartisan/let's-all-play-nice-and-get-along manta when he's been there for the last 3 years and has seen firsthand what goes on in government? Either he's naive beyond words and competence to believe that the NeoNuts are going to work with him, or he's not completely honest. You tell me.

[thatvisionthing]

There were other candidates in New Hampshire, including some who were and are antiwar. I saw Dan Abrams use his MSNBC platform tonight to make fun of my candidate, Mike Gravel. Why? Because Gravel told his audience of New Hampshire students that alcohol was worse than marijuana, and that marijuana should be legalized. Wow, what a loser (clearly labeled in Abrams' segment called Losers). Prohibition worked so well with alcohol.

Abrams is just the latest in the corporate media to decide that Gravel is not to be taken seriously. Before a single caucus or primary vote was cast, the media used their public-broadcast licenses to exclude candidates who have qualified for the ballot from participating in debates. And so we are stuck with hearing only views from candidates the media has decided we can. When I think of the best ideas I heard coming from the earlier debates, I think of Gravel and Dodd and Paul and Kucinich -- the so-called second-tier candidates. Gravel proposes a National Initiative to empower citizens. Dodd wants to restore the Constitution. Paul warns against American Empire and the rotten foundation we have put our monetary system on. And Kucinich speaks of giving peace a cabinet seat. They all challenge the other candidates and expand the debate in a way the moderators can't. Say, can we hear more?

MSM: Nope.

It's a corporate crime.

[ElkoJohn]

`
I don't know if BO is an insider or not,
but i do know that HRC is an insider.
Where are the ethics?
When Kucinich & Gravel were banned from
the debates, by the establishment,
which candidates raised HELL
with the establishment? -- NONE.
(Same thing happened to Ron Paul)
So I hope BO will raise some hell, and
take back the gov't. from the corporate oligarchy,
but I doubt it.
FOR NOW, my only criteria to vote for a candidate
is if he has been banned from a debate:
Gravel, Kucinich & Paul are my political Heroes.

The DLC, Nancy P & Harry R are traitors to the dem party,
the constitution,
and political ethics.
Maybe you don't agree with Gravel, Kucinich & Paul,
but how can you allow legitimate candidates to be
banned from the debates without so much as a whimper ??
What the Sam Hillary is going on here ??
-- RAGE AGAINST THE CORPORATE OLIGARCHY AND THEIR CRONIES --
vote for Gravel, Kucinich or Paul
thank you
.

[Scarabus]

Serious question: Why is the conversation limited to Clinton and Obama? Where's Edwards?

After all, Edwards did best Clinton in Iowa; and, apart from one dubious contribution, he has not funded his campaign via the usual (lobbyist) suspects. Obama as a poster child for *change*? Are you serious?

Why are Huff-Po and its bloggers treating this as a two-person contest? Clinton is the darling of the DLC, and Obama is receiving serious cash from K-street. Both are deeply "embedded" in "inside the beltway" business as usual.

Follow the money! You might not be able to see Edwards as a viable candidate. That's cool. But if your focus is on the insider/outsider thing, it's just wrong to ignore him.

(Yeah, I know. His name did appear once in this post.)

[sky2evan]

Great, informative article. It's nice to know that a bloc of voters still care about Iraq.

Personally, Iraq is my biggest issue, and I am still trying to understand why Iraq has taken the back seat to everything else during this campaign.

I feel only Mr. Obama has the potential to end the occupation ASAP, since he was the only one of the Big Three Dems to oppose it from the beginning.

Ms. Clinton would drag her feet the longest, since she can't even bring herself to apologize for supporting it.

Personally, I also believe that none of the 3 should have voted for continued funding for the troops.

[mommadona]

"I repeatedly heard that Granite-staters are fed up with anything that constitutes politics-as-normal inside the Beltway and that includes anyone who is perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- associated with it."

THREE WORDS:

THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

Republican-lite passive aggressive multi-national corporate whores.

Hillary is their candidate.

And THAT, my dear, is the big old elephant in that Democratic Party livingroom.

FIRE THEM, AND THE PEOPLE WILL BE BACK.

It's the Democratic NATIONAL Party, not the Democratic LEADERSHIP Party.

"Mater/Pater Knows Bestest" just doesn't cut it any longer. "We", the people are NOT amused.

PS:
Old adage:
"If the people lead, the leaders will follow."

I rest my case.