|
One major stumbling block is that they have made a tactical decision, at odds with every other major Democratic candidate and officeholder in New Hampshire, of avoidance of us and other lefty blogs. And when we ask for supporters to write about their support, we get nothing.
But we know they are constantly watching, because the second we say anything critical, the Swett Defense Team comes out of nowhere with the volume on ten, using the space we openly provide to trash the messenger.
This is a reactive campaign interested in tightly controlling the narrative among a few gatekeepers like DiStaso and Landrigan. It is disrespectful of the new digital grassroots and the positive manner in which one can build open, open-source support.
Compare that approach to the major NH Republican candidates, who, to their credit, have finally figured out that they need to make themselves accessible to potential voters who are online. They are writing diaries and posting videos all over the various right wing sites.
So basically we are left to interpret media accounts of Swett, and places we manage to see her in person.
Like when I caught on that they were going negative early by tossing around the L word. I was a Bad Blogger for suggesting it, until I was proven right when the strategy became obvious in a subsequent article.
In a campaign with a tightly controlled message, words matter. The Swett campaign claims that they were misquoted or something in the infamous Telegraph caption on marriage, so instead take a look at the statement they themselves provided to WMUR on the question "Same-Sex Marriage":
It is important that the legal protections and benefits that the federal government offers be available to all families no matter where they live. I will work for the passage of federal civil unions legislation which will guarantee these rights for everyone.
What's missing from that question?
Right. The word "marriage."
Here's what I think. I think words matter, and that cautious politicians and candidates choose them extremely carefully, so that they won't get caught later on in the event the winds shift.
There is no denying that simply stating, as Ann Kuster did, "I support marriage equality" comes with some risk (and leadership). In fact the same-sex marriage law has moved the ball so much in this state that civil unions is now a position endorsed by candidates of both parties.
And when the dustup from the Telegraph caption forced them to a clarification, they put this out:
As it often does, NH led the country by being the first in the nation to proactively enact marriage equality through the legislative process. In so doing, NH stood up for the proposition that all members of our community should be treated with respect and deserve an equal place at the table. I support federal civil union legislation that will extend the full range of federal benefits and legal protections to all families in our country, especially those who live in states that don't yet provide marriage equality.
Do I think Katrina Swett supports gay marriage? I'd say it's likely. But if you really want to get into the weeds of her statement, and the clarification on her statement, she nowhere explicitly says that. And I don't believe that's by accident.
Similarly, I don't believe NH Freedom to Marry's endorsement of Ann Kuster today was an acident either. One candidate was clearer than the other, issuing an open-ended commitment to marriage that had the word "I" in front of it.
Here is their release:
New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition Endorses Ann McLane Kuster for Congress
CONCORD, NH - Pointing to Kuster's crystal-clear support for equality for all citizens, New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition's board of directors voted unanimously last night to endorse Ann McLane Kuster in her race for New Hampshire's Second Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"Ann McLane Kuster's uncompromising support for marriage equality and her commitment to working families of all kinds made this an easy decision," said Mo Baxley, Executive of Director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry. "Annie is exactly the kind of leader we need in Washington"
The New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition includes tens of thousands of active supporters in New Hampshire.
"I was proud to be a vocal supporter for passing marriage equality here in New Hampshire and I'll continue to support marriage equality in Washington," said Ann McLane Kuster. "We should have less government interference in our personal lives, at both the state and federal levels."
Born and raised in Concord, Ann McLane Kuster has a long history as a community activist, author, public policy advocate, and attorney with deep roots in the Granite State. She worked with New Hampshire colleges to create the UNIQUE 529 College Savings Program to help families save for their children to attend college, and worked with a coalition of health care providers to create the Medication Bridge Program that distributes free medication to New Hampshire families and seniors who cannot afford the high cost of prescription drugs. She has served as a board member or advisor to the NH Charitable Foundation, the Trust for Public Lands, Child and Family Services of New Hampshire, the United Way, and many other community groups. She and her husband Brad live in Hopkinton and have two sons who attend college in New Hampshire.
I'm still going to vote for Katrina Swett in the general election if she becomes the nominee. I like her as person, even if I am at a new low with the way I view her campaign.
But I really hope sometime between now and then they rethink, fundamentally, how they view open communication and plain talk. Because the fallout from this dustup will be nothing compared a like one in the general election against Charlie Bass if they behave similarly.
(Of course, this will be immediately discounted by some because we endorsed Annie, bloggers are mean, pajama wearing losers, etc, etc., blah, blah, blah. So take it or leave it.)
UPDATE (Saturday): Looks like the Swett campaign finally decided the parsing was backfiring on them and issued yet another clarifying statement. It's a start. Better would be for them to secure a correction or clarification to the Telegraph caption and its voter-rich Nashua audience. As of this update, it has not changed.
|
