About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors
Dean Barker
Laura Clawson
Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
Katrina Swett
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Some Further Thoughts about Hillary in Keene

by: Mike Caulfield

Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 22:32:09 PM EST


Logistics

It was an incredibly well run event. The Edwards event in Portsmouth seemed to rely heavily on OneCorps volunteers for ushering and the like. This event had just local volunteers that I recognized from all the campaigns and the Cheshire Dems. They seemed less jumpy than the OneCorps volunteers who must have been overwhelmed by Edwards' capacity crowd and were perhaps not as used to campaign work? Something to think about (then again, I'm probably just bitter a OneCorps volunteer snapped at me in Portsmouth).

Molly Kelly

I always used to wince when Molly would give an applause line. It always sounded forced.

Well, no longer. Molly was fantastic. Self-assured.  And when she gave an applause line every one applauded and no one winced. 

The guy standing next to me

Remembered when Bill came through Keene (not sure which time). And this guy said what amazed him most was despite it being part of a whirlwind tour, Bill spoke without notes, and remembered the names of City Council members and local Dem party people, and even worked in little facts about each and every one. You would have thought he was running for mayor here, given what he'd absorbed. It was apparently really stunning.

I think he was one of the people interviewed by the Sentinel, BTW.

The overall crowd

Very political, but less so than for Obama or Edwards. Free admission and the celebrity factor...

Mike Caulfield :: Some Further Thoughts about Hillary in Keene
combined to make it that way. Also: higher percentage of women than at the other events.

Hillary and community

Hillary used Keene's community as a stepping off point for talking about her past and what she inherited in values and opportunity from her own community and family. It was, I think, an attempt to humanize herself while weaving in a broader campaign theme. I think on the whole it worked, and I expect we'll see more of it in this campaign.

It did strike me that all this talk about community and the faith of our fathers is a subtle way for her to position herself as the "values" candidate. But against Obama's story I'm not sure how strong it is.

Ironically, the only person not talking about where he came from this campaign is "son-of-a-millworker" Edwards. I find that refreshing, actually. I zone out when candidates start talking about how they used to go down to the old five and dime and buy penny candy from Mr. Hooper.

Iraq

Not happy with her answer on Iraq, which skirted around the issue of how Congress could actually put teeth into a bill. If you think we shouldn't put teeth into a bill, or that we don't have the votes, talk to us about that. But don't tell us that since the president is freaking out about the non-binding resolution that it's somehow meaningful. This White House freaks out over any dissension, no matter how small. But that doesn't make small dissensions brave or meaningful.

Hillary is going to have to come to terms with Iraq soon, I think.

Health Care

Her strong point, and as Elwood noted, one that the crowd was primed for. And she worked it well. Part of her pitch is that she knows not only what you can design in theory, but knows from experience what happens when the corporations start misinformation campaigns to kill it. The pitch "Hillary the Seasoned Realist" was also pretty resonant. She admits she made mistakes in dealing only with the theory in the early 90s -- not focusing enough on what would happen when the disinformation campaign hit.

By including people in the Health Care discussion early on she hopes to involve them in a way that that will make it harder for unnamed interests to derail the political implementation.

Trade

Now people will jump on me about this. But in answering a number of questions about trade, she dodged the issue that many of these trade agreements came about under the Clinton Administration. Free Trade with the Clinton White House approached religion. It was President Clinton, for instance, that raised the H-1B cap as the tech economy was starting to tank, arguably making the crash much more difficult for out-of-work engineers.

Yet, here in 2006, she backed conspicuously away from the unbridled free trade position in her responses, and seemed to indicate that Republicans were to blame for the current mess. Trade policy is stacked against America, she admits.

But is that entirely George W. Bush's fault?

Hillary's position on trade remains one of the most unclear aspects of her campaign for me at this point. But I think a good starting point would be for her to differentiate herself not from  Republicans (who, let's face it, are nuts), but from some of the policies of the Clinton Administration.

Incrementalism

As I mentioned, one person in the audience said that she liked what she was hearing, but was a little worried about the "incrementalism". We need to be bold, this woman said.

This isn't so much about Hillary, but about this campaign cycle. Would that have been a question from a relatively unassuming Town Haller in 2004? 2000?

I suppose. But not nearly as likely.

This is going to be one of the defining themes of this primary.

Disclosure

I don't currently endorse any candidate. I would say my current order of preference for the three front-runners runs Edwards, Obama, then Hillary. But I think any of the three would make a great President.

Following our site policies, I try to be restrained in my criticisms of Hillary: which in my mind means in part asking questions for which I am willing to wait for a valid answer.

I know we're now getting into new territory here, and I hope we can do it without getting into food fight.

But as always, let us know...

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Good job (0.00 / 0)
Mike, I appreciate your thoughts on the event, most of which I thought were right on.

I thought Senator Clinton's answer to the guy's question about the loss of manufacturing jobs was the most specific and thorough of any her answers. That detailed answer was five minutes long at least and had five points to it.  I was looking at the guy while she was answering and he was shaking his head affirmatively the whole time during her answer as if to agree with what she was saying.

It will be hard to distinguish the candidates on the issue of free trade because I believe that they are basically in the same place with maybe some slight nuiances. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards voted against CAFTA.  I know that in the 2004 race Senator Edwards made a big deal about renegotiating NAFTA to better protect the worker and he has made a point of cultivating the unions for this go around.

The CATO Institute, which is a libertarian think tank, pro free trade group, rated Senators Clinton and Edwards at 17%. I could not find a rating for Senator Obama; I think because he had not been in the Senate long enough.


The five point plan was good (0.00 / 0)
But if I remember correctly, only one point was on trade policy, with the rest being mostly Democratic consensus stuff. From my notes:

1. With health care and pension costs we are starting way behind our competitors.

2. Government money to improve physical plants -- with some string attached.

3. Get high energy costs down, explore new energy. Create Energy Economy.

4. Trade Policy stacked against America. We need to get tough.

5. Send a message to US business about a culture that respects the worker, and not just the Executive Board.

====

Now all of those are fine, but the crux for me is point four, which I would have liked to see exploded.

I think it's great she got low marks from the Cato institute, and we were just going on her Senatorial career I wouldn't have enough to comment. But I can't seperate her from the Clinton administration here. I'd like her to speak to that. NAFTA had some major flaws, and not just for us. Hillary has the unenviable position of being associated with that. I think it warrants a "What whould we have done differently" approach, and not just a list point.

The rest of the list is great, but I've heard them from all 5 candidates I've seen (six if you count Warner). It's point 4 that's the contentious one. What is the right mix of protectionism and global trade? How do we make sure off-shoring is not used as leverage to dismantle worker protections here?

But I'll wait. Thanks for your response.



[ Parent ]
NAFTA (4.00 / 1)
Neither Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards were elected officials at the time NAFTA was passed.  It is unfair to say that Senator Clinton automatically and always believes exactly what her husband believed.  I have found that is not always the case in real life between husband and wife.

This excerpt from a National Review article at the time suggests she may have had other things on her mind at the time.

NAFTA is viewed by some powerful forces in the White House as competing with health care for top billing on the fall agenda. So while influential advisors such as David Gergen are arguing for a vigorous NAFTA campaign, others - chief among them George Stephanopoulos and Hillary Clinton - see it as using up scarce political capital.

What was Senator Edwards saying at the time of its passage? This Washington Post article in February 2004 tells us.

Edwards was not an elected official and no one seems to recall him participating in the debate as an activist or on any other level when NAFTA was passed in 1993. Also, there's scant evidence that he mentioned the subject in his 1998 campaign for senate. And, as the Kerry campaign pointed out yesterday, Edwards failed to even mention the topic of trade in his major economic address at Georgetown University last June.


[ Parent ]
A good open-ended question for Sen. Clinton: (4.00 / 1)
"Senator, I want to make sure that we voters don't just assume that every policy President Clinton held is your own position today. What are some areas where you take a different approach or view?"

[ Parent ]
Good Question (0.00 / 0)
That kind of question would allow her to establish that she is a candidate in her own right and also allow her to differentiate herself from President Clinton on certain issues. 

Next time she is in town, you should go, and ask her.


[ Parent ]
On Iraq she was worse, IMHO (0.00 / 0)
Saying a) we can't do anything to rein in Bush without 60 votes, and b) I'm introducing a bill to cap troop deployments at Jan 1 2007 levels, is an apparent contradiction.

Contradiction (0.00 / 0)
Not if she can get the 60 votes. 

That is what I don't understand about the debate on Iraq among the candidates. You can say you are for immediate or phased withdrawal of troops but until you have the 60 votes or become President it cannot happen (assuming President Bush remains fixed on his path).

Because we only have 51 votes at best, you have to hold the Democrats and Independents and then convince 9 Republicans to vote with you.

I can say I am for world peace, but just saying so doesn't make it a viable option.


[ Parent ]
That's nonsense. (0.00 / 0)
In an environment where Warner votes to filibuster the Warner resolution, there is no chance that Sen. Clinton will get 9 Republicans to allow a vote for a troop cap.

[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
Then why is it feasible that Senator Obama can get passage of his legislation to have phased withdrawal?

[ Parent ]
I haven't heard Obama yet n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Feasible? (0.00 / 0)
It certainly isn't pragmatic I guess, but if it's the right thing to do - I argue that you have an obligation to put your money where your mouth is, in certain situations.  I think this one merits it.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

[ Parent ]
Own Words (0.00 / 0)
I will let Senator Clinton respond to you directly:

"Obviously, I would like to cap troops; others would like to deal with the funding issue; others would like to put forth a date. But until we get some Republican support for the first step, it's very hard to imagine how we can make progress," Clinton said.

"If we can get them to support the disapproval resolution, it will be a lot easier to get to the second step."
Moving more aggressively right now could turn the Senate debate into a more partisan battle, Clinton said. This is one Democrats can't win, she said, because they lack the 60 votes on their own to force an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

"I don't want to force them back into the position of supporting the president right now," Clinton said of Senate Republicans.

"Obviously, politically there are a lot of positive responses for Democratic crowds, but if we are trying to craft a strategy to make change, I think we have to follow this course a little while longer."



[ Parent ]
Good context. Thanks. (4.00 / 1)
But I strenuously disagree with this strategy:

"If we can get them to support the disapproval resolution, it will be a lot easier to get to the second step."

Teasing Republicans away from The Cheney Administration will not work.  What will work is opposing the Cheney Administration with the strongest possible frames and rhetoric.  That will change the debate, and that will peel away support on the R side.

But I should also add that I have a very different opinion of what a political center is than many.

birch, finch, beech


[ Parent ]
Governing (0.00 / 0)
I respect your disagreement, but I believe to be able to govern you have to build coaltions. If you push Senators like Collins, Smith, and Nagel away, you don't get anything accomplished and you have girdlock.  Meanwhile, more men and women die in Iraq.

[ Parent ]
I agreed with Clinton (4.00 / 1)
I thought the non-binding resolution was a good first step.

We were both proven wrong, I suppose, by the Republican filibuster. With the GOP caucus refusing to allow the debate to proceed, 60 votes are needed for even symbolic votes.

Unless there is a parliamentary maneuver unknown to me (a very real possibility) that leaves only one option for any Senate action, non-binding or binding: attach something to a relevant must-pass bill, presumably the war funding bill.


[ Parent ]
asdf (0.00 / 0)
I guess we will see. I hope it works.

[ Parent ]
So, are we to conclude (0.00 / 0)
that Senator Clinton has fallen into the habit of making proposals that are sure to fail? 
That's how Republicans have learned to stay in power.  Every two years they can tell the voter, "wait until next year."

But why, if we are a capitalistice free-market economy is our government spending so much time and energy orchestrating trade agreements and corporate subsidies.  More and more it looks like the opposition to centralized management of the economy in the so-called communists states was simply envy.

There are two ways to interpret the military/industrial state.  One is focused on dedicating a major proportion of industrial production to military assets--i.e. having the resources extracted from the population dedicated towards producing the instruments of force.  The other is focused on relying on the military (the use or threat of force) to promote industry and commerce that can't compete on their own--i.e. the 21st Century of gunboat diplomacy.
Unfortunately, we are now seeing both versions at work.  Which suggests that we have become a society that can't produce or persuade without relying on physical force.  And that's really sad.

What would have happened if Clinton/Gore hadn't had Gore paying attention to streamlining government operations and making the core functions more efficient?  It would probably not be unfair to argue that Gore actually set the pattern of a more involved Vice President.  What differentiates him from Cheney is that Gore was a public servant and Cheney serves only Cheney and the cronies that he will need to protect him when he's dismissed.


[ Parent ]
2008 (0.00 / 0)
Democrats will be favored to add additional seats in the Senate in 2008. If there are enough gains it will then be possible to get to 60 votes. Unfortunately at this time there is no way to even get close to 60 votes.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

[ Parent ]
Yes, but (4.00 / 3)
It's possible to attach a withdrawal timetable to the war funding bill with 51 votes. (A filibuster stops funding altogether).

[ Parent ]
Republican Votes (0.00 / 0)
That legislation you describe will probably still need Republican Senator votes to get to 51 total.

Here is the vote totals for the vote to stop the filibuster just taken:

Forty-seven Democrats and 2 Republicans voted to open debate; 45 Republicans and 1 independent were opposed.

Senator Lieberman voted with the 45 Republicans.  Senator Smith and Senator Collins were the Republicans that voted with the Democrats. 

I don't know what the story was with the 5 missing votes to get you to 100 total; only two of them were Democrats. I am assuming that Senator Johnson is one of those. But if they did not have those votes on the filibuster vote, I don't think it is guaranteed to have those votes on an amendment to a withdrawal timetable to the war funding bill.  You may also lose Smith and Collins on that vote.


[ Parent ]
Agreed, it would be a close thing (0.00 / 0)
It's possible (but I wouldn't say likely) with Hagel and Brownback...

[ Parent ]
I wasn't there, (4.00 / 1)
but if this is accurate:

Saying a) we can't do anything to rein in Bush without 60 votes

then I am discouraged by this strategy.

She and all the other candidates may be good at counting to 60, but the quote above suggests throwing up our hands.  I disagree completely with that strategy.

Bush and McCain are all alone on the escalation.  Just because they know how to rein in a Sununu or call up monkey wrench Gregg to muck up the Senate bills and resolutions doesn't change that.  By admitting defeat to the number 60, we give the upper hand to a policy that is utterly in the minority of public opinion.

All of the Democratic candidates would do well to strongly articulate a counter narrative.  Instead of the frame "we can't get past 60 votes", it should be "Bush and his enablers like Gregg and Sununu are endangering the lives of our troops and are using cheap Senate tricks to trample on  the  clear will of the people.  We support the troops, and we want them home.  The only thing Bush supports is hiding his failure by making it even worse."

birch, finch, beech


[ Parent ]
Giving Up (0.00 / 0)
Nobody is saying give up on the effort, including Senator Clinton. She set forth a variation of what you suggested by encouraging the people in the room to contact Senators Gregg and Sununu and express our frustration over their lack of response to the majority feeling in NH that the troops should come home ASAP.  And that the war is Bush's mistake and he should be accountable. 

Nevertheless, it brings home the idea that having a Democratic President and a clear Democratic majority in the Congress is a very important thing. I believe she was also making the point that it is one thing to propose something as a solution and it is another thing to deliver on it.

By the way, the event and her words have been and will continue to be rerun on C-Span and Channel 8 in Keene so everyone may hear directly what she said rather than relying on second hand accounts. Not to say  that anything has been inaccurately reported on Blue Hampshire, but you get a better feel for her comments hearing them in totality.


[ Parent ]
ON channel 8 (4.00 / 2)
it seems in good rotation... I'd encourage anyone who didn't see it who have Cheshire TV to watch.

CheshireTV is going to be invaluable this time. If I dig up more info on when it plays, I'll post it.

Do other people have info on their Public Access station's coverage? We could compile a list.



[ Parent ]
Karen Hicks (4.00 / 1)
Did anyone else see that Karen Hicks of the Dean campaign of 2004, was with Senator Clinton in Keene?  I recognized her from newspaper photos and was able to speak with her briefly. She said she was impressed by the size of the Keene crowd so early in the Primary season.

I noted it somewhere early on in BH (4.00 / 1)
That's a huge catch, IMHO.  I thought Hicks was fantastic for Dean in NH, and actually was a big part in helping him (almost) recover from the Iowa disaster.

birch, finch, beech

[ Parent ]
The Hicks nab is good for Hillary (4.00 / 1)
Though I think the sizes of all the crowds have been good, compared to early 2003 -- not sure that's an indication of Clinton.

Still waiting for Edwards and Obama to drop into Cheshire County. They're nuts to ignore it much longer.

Not sure if the tour schedule was Hicks or Clinton. But the multi-city kickoff tour was genius. You know that us NHites WHINE when someone skips our region -- we're absolute babies about it. And I'm no better.

The one thing that confuses me is how "off" her original tour plan was (too big donor, not enough cities) and how brilliant this recent one was. What's the deal with that? Did they read BH and see how pissed everyone was about the 100-guest Cheshire Historical Society event?

I'm serious, the misfire of the first itinerary next to the genius of the second does not make much sense to me. Anyone know the backstory?




[ Parent ]
Timing (0.00 / 0)
1.  The first tour was going to be shorter, so they were able to add more events.
2.  They probably were getting a lot of calls from people who wanted to go to the Keene evet, so when it was rescheduled, they found a better place.
Sometimes the answers are really simple.

[ Parent ]

Connect with BH
     
Powered by: SoapBlox