Senator Clinton in Dover, NH

Written by: Monica Smith on Feb 21, 2007 10:57 AM EST

Linked to groups: Rockingham/Strafford DFA

It was a bright, sunshiny day last Saturday, still below freezing but with little wind.  That may account for why, even though the start time was shifted back five hours (to accommodate the Senator's need to return to Washington for a vote on Iraq) the atrium at the Dover High School filled up nicely.  The event was billed as a "Town Hall," which seems to mean that the candidate for public office is provided with an elevated platform, surrounded by the audience, on which he or she can circulate and address the public via electronic enhancement.  It makes it easy for the media to cover since they can be sequestered on their own elevated platform, either to one side or in back.

Indeed, one might suspect that the venue is set up primarily for media access.  Not only is the press provided with a separate entrance, but at the Clinton event, the public was given notice at the main entrance and at other strategic locations that the event was to be video recorded, as if having one's picture taken was the price of admission. 

Admission to the Hillary Clinton for President event was actually free, although the public was expected to make a reservation by contacting the campaign (other candidates have relied on the sponsoring Democratic committee to handle that function) and providing the usual personal information, after which one was welcomed to "Team Hillary."   Since, on the morning of the event, the public was herded into a long line that snaked down one hall, through an auditorium and then into the actual venue and made to fill out yet another sheet with personal information, including what services one was willing to contribute to the campaign, the information collection process, for which dozens of young aides had been recruited, seemed much the major concern of this visit to Dover, a city that Bill Clinton had once pledged not to forget "until the last dog dies"--fondly remembered by Hillary Clinton.  She hadn't forgotten us, but she needed our current address.

To be fair, this intensive data mining is not unique to the Clinton campaign.  Barack Obama's "draft contingent" tried to sign up petitioners when he was invited to speak at the Democratic celebration in Manchester and his ticket-takers at the Univesity of New Hampshire were more intent on passing out and collecting volunteer commitments than on checking the very fancy tickets one had to collect from the student union building in order to gain admission.  In fact, there was no effort to insure that people with tickets (which had supposedly "sold out" in a few hours) actually got in and seated. What was wanted was the list of interested Democrats so they could be bombarded with mailings and phone calls, whether they indicated a desire to be supporters, or not.

This is not how pre-primary presidential campaigns are typically run in New Hampshire and one can only hope that, like the ABC reporter, who'd already covered four Clinton mega-events (where she "already" gave the same stump speech), we soon tire of the circus atmosphere and the media hoopla.  Senator Clinton, after being introduced to us by the popular Congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter, did say that she was looking forward to smaller gatherings at which she could listen to our concerns more directly.  And, because time was limited on this particular day, she cut short her prepared remarks and took several questions from the audience. 

One question that's been widely reported was a repetition, posed this time by a university professor, about her vote in support of the Iraq invasion.  No doubt, the reason it was widely reported was because, instead of simply repeating the explanation that she was misled, she went on to challenge the voters for whom this vote is a major concern to vote for someone who didn't take part in making the decision to invade Iraq.  And she tried to direct our attention to the future by pledging to end the war, if it's still on-going when she assumes the Presidency.

I personally think that's the wrong tack to take since the real question is how it came about that she, who'd been at President Clinton's side all the time he continued to pressure Saddam Hussein by periodically bombing Iraq's military defenses (even as he resisted calls by the neo-cons to launch a full-blown invasion), failed to recognize the neo-con roots of the Bush/Cheney agenda as it was pushed into gear. How did it happen  that, despite her privileged position and her acquaintance with the world's leaders, she remained ignorant, even after she took her seat in the Senate, of the fact that the Pentagon had been plotting the invasion, and had plans to set up fourteen permanent bases, long before the assault on Iraq was authorized?  The people who ask this question aren't looking for an apology; they want an explanation.  And, at long last, they want the truth.

But, the truth does not seem to be forth-coming.  You'd think that, at least, on the issue of health care for all Americans, Hillary Clinton would be able to explain what went wrong with the proposals for universal coverage she ostensibly prepared over a decade ago.  But, instead of admitting that the piecemeal implementation of managed health care we've witnessed since the whole program was deep-sixed by the concerted resistance of the insurance industry, has demonstrated conclusively that multiple layers of private bureaucracy are much less efficient and effective than a publicly administered  single payer system such as medicare, the Senator would like us to believe that the public just hasn't been insistent enough.  America, we are to believe, still lags behind the rest of the industrialized world when it comes to taking care of people's health because WE haven't managed to drown out the clamor of the insurance industry?

No doubt, New Hampshire's State Senator, Iris Estabrook, was entirely sincere in her introduction in lauding Senator Clinton's long-standing and well-known support for the nation's children, but, on the day when the United Nations issues a report which assigns us twentieth place, behind countries like Poland, only recently emerged from behind the Iron Curtain,  when it comes to the well-being of children, one is left asking what that support has really been worth.  When it comes to specific criteria, where are the measurable benefits?  If the First Lady and now United States Senator had not been supportive of the children, would the United States now be in thirtieth place?

All the Democratic presidential aspirants, not just Hillary Rodham Clinton, are going to have to address some hard questions, while Republican candidates are given a pass.  That's because Republicans aren't expected to DO anything but shove responsibility off on someone else.  If that someone is usually Democrats, that just because Democrats actually claim to be able to fix things.  And now that we are in this unholy mess, it's way past time to actually take the reins and do what we've pledged. 

Turning around and asking for more public input, as candidate Clinton does on her platform when the topic of Medicare and the cost of prescriptions comes up, is not taking charge.  Though it is consistent with the recent DLC suggestion that "consumer driven health care"--i.e.throw the problem back into the lap of the patient--might be worth a try.  Leadership that relies on giving directions, rather than on getting anything done, is obviously attractive.  But, in my book, those kinds of leaders should announce themselves as Republicans.

For the record, I am still convinced that sitting officials ought not to be campaigning for political office, other than their own re-election.  It's entirely possible that this conviction is coloring my perception of people from New York and Illinois and Ohio and Connecticut and Delaware and Arizona and New Mexico flitting about New Hampshire looking for votes and supporters. 

Tags:
Location: NH