| That's what retail politics in New Hampshire boils down to--sitting down with less than a dozen people at a kitchen table on a hilltop in Madbury and making that the center of your universe for an hour or two. Why would a twenty-six year veteran of the United States Senate do that? Dodd says it's because he's convinced that New Hampshire, having just turned almost entirely blue, somewhat ahead of the rest of red America, is open to being persuaded that the front runners annointed by the media aren't necessarily the kind of President America needs going into the second decade of a twenty-first Century that hasn't started off as well as we expected.
Personally speaking, although I thought Vice President Gore was best qualified to assume the Presidency in 2001, I have to admit to a minor preference for someone with executive experience and, consequently, a somewhat less negative reaction to the 2000 debacle than I would have had, had I been able to imagine in my worst nightmare the disasters yet to come.
So, I've had to conclude that I was wrong and that the experience of having given direction by formulating the law may well be a strong incentive to seeing that the law is carried out as written. Which is certainly a perspective that's sorely lacking in the current chief executive, who seems to think that the law is advisory, at best, and not to be honored, if he can get away with it.
In any case, Senator Dodd arrived with an agenda to address the war in Iraq, a major issue in New Hampshire's Congressional campaigns last fall, as well as the nation's energy policies, which are, of course, connected. And it was good to talk about how to get our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible and how to insure that the American military bases are properly dismantled, since we obviously don't want to leave all that high tech stuff behind. His position that there need to be some federal standards governing emissions and energy efficiency to level the playing field is also well taken. Certainly, the failure of our nation's industries to keep up in the areas of technology and manufacturing innovation has been detrimental to labor and education, two areas which Dodd has addressed legislatively in the past.
It seems to me that there's a lot more emphasis in this election cycle on issues of international importance. Whether that's a result of letting the grassroots provide input on matters that really concern them, as opposed to the so-called "moral" issues Republicans like to focus on, or our relations with our global neigbors are more bothersome, I don't know. It may even be that, in addition to realizing that the President is virtually autonomous when it comes to foreign relations, lots of people are finding the mess in Washington just too depressing to even talk about.
Senator Dodd does bring a certain gravitas to the table, as one of the participants observed. And, while he makes a point of citing the large number of people he's been able to work with, despite their differences, in formulating and passing legislation, it's my sense that his connections to expert and experienced individuals in many fields are wider and deeper than most of the other candidates aiming to make the transition from the legislative to the executive branch. And while Governor Richardson's experience is more varied, the Senator's seems more progressive, even liberal, in the sense of making our commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" a foundation of our nation's policies. Given the current administration's largely successful efforts to turn back the clock and re-establish government by and for the elite, an unwavering commitment to the essential equality of all our people may well be the most important characteristic to look for in our next President.
Finally, even though there were only eight or nine of us at the table, it wasn't possible the ask all the questions we brought with us. So, it seemed to me that, given the turbulence in the Middle East, perhaps the Senator's position on the Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone might be relevant. It wasn't entirely surprising that he claimed he'd not heard of it, probably because the Bush administration had been opposed to the implementing treaty at the United Nations and had no intention of bringing it to the attention of the Senate. Never mind that Russia and China endorsed this signal commitment to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Northern Hemisphere and Egypt has declared itself prepared to join. (There are, btw, four other nuclear weapons free zones in the southern hemisphere). Since the United States opposition to the zone was based on the flimsy argument that our nuclear weapons carrying planes might be prohibited from flying through the airspace of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, I'm hopeful that the Senator will inform himself and even make it an issue in the campaign. I mean, if the United States is really concerned about nuclear weapons in Iran, why not promote this initiative by its neighbors to the north? Perhaps even India and Pakistan could be persuaded to give up theirs.
One thing that's surprised me is how many people want to see how well the candidate does in the polls before they'll commit themselves. Maybe it's just an excuse to keep from having to state an opinion so early in the process. There are, after all, still eight months to find out almost everything there is to know. |
