Beginning at the Beginning

Paul Tsongas, Gary Hart, Edmund Muskie are all former Democratic presidential candidates. Like John McCain and Pat Buchanan on the Republican side, they all won the New Hampshire primary. Yes, it’s important, but it’s not the end of the nomination process. The press has been trying to make a story out of Hillary Clinton’s crying incident by comparing it to Edmund Muskie in 1972. Back then the largest media outlet in New Hampshire was the Manchester Union Leader which was run by a sometimes outrageous and very conservative editor, William Loeb. Loeb printed some allegations about Muskie’s wife and the candidate was seen crying in public. Supposedly, that was the beginning of the end for Muskie’s candidacy because he seemed too “soft”. Somehow no one mentions that Muskie actually won the primary. Oddly, it’s since come to light that Muskie was targeted by Nixon’s dirty tricks campaign. One of the items that led to Muskie’s crying was an alleged letter in which the Senator from Maine was made to appear to use the word “Canucks” to refer to French-Canadians who were well-represented in states like New Hampshire. It’s an interesting combination – dirty tricks, media with an agenda, and artificially-raised expectations for a candidate fed by that same media.


The story is that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is now supposedly in trouble because she didn’t do well in Iowa, a place where I wouldn’t expect her to do all that well, and that she’s probably not going to win New Hampshire, another place where her appeal might be limited. For a day, I read reports of the crying incident that ping-ponged between “Good God, do we want a President who might have PMS” and “Did she do this on purpose?” First, we’ve had a President who’s somewhere between divorced from reality and incompetent. Being momentarily emotional seems like an awfully small thing compared to that. After endless manipulation of photo opportunities, town hall meetings, and press conferences by the current administration, if she did plan it (I doubt it) shouldn’t we be saying how Presidential that makes her? My take is simple. Have we all gotten this stupid?

I think one of the great things about the modern era is that it’s so easy to get a direct look at the candidates. The days of William Loeb magnifying his role in the Presidential nomination process should be over. It’s now possible to see debates, speeches, and read position papers pretty much at your leisure. That is, unless you happen to be Ron Paul and the Fox Network refuses to invite you to be part of a televised debate. Where’s the FCC or the Federal Elections Commission on that one?

If you miss a debate or major speech live, they show it two or three more times on broadcast tv and if you miss that it’s available either through youtube or you can get the transcript from some other source.

The biggest shame of the modern political era is that we still rely so heavily on “bumper sticker” versions of our candidates. John Edwards is much more than a guy who got a haircut who has an outspoken wife. Barack isn’t just a racial symbol for the future who talks about hope. Hillary Clinton has a long history in public life and there are hundreds of hours of footage of her over some thirty years that you can look up and make up your own mind about her laughing, crying, talking, etc. If you vote based on those “bumper sticker” reductions, you’re an idiot.

They moved the California primary from June to February 5 this time so that voters in the country’s largest state, as in you can win ten New Hampshires and still not get as many electoral votes as winning one California, have some actual say in the matter. I’m looking forward to having an opportunity to choose between all the candidates on their own merits as future leaders. I’m not going to have the media tell me that New Hampshire and Iowa decided it for me yet again.

It’s encouraging that so many people are voting in the Democratic primaries. This may be one time when the nomination isn’t determined by party regulars. I do think one of the most interesting, though not always valid, tests of a candidate’s ability to handle pressure come in the ability to make it through the primary season. It’s good for everyone to let the thing go a few innings before we make any judgments. I’d happily vote for any of the remaining Democratic candidates in November. I can’t remember an election where I felt that way. So here I am thinking about something just beginning and there are all these other people blathering about “How the process or some candidate is finished”. One thing I love about sports is that you play all the innings or you keep playing until the final whistle. Primary season shouldn’t be like sex where they try to declare it over before it even gets going. Last time I checked, “primary” meant the first step not the last.

Call me crazy, but I happen to think there is some happy medium between a bunch of people in these caucus sites in Iowa and a bunch of insiders in a back room of the party convention choosing our candidate. Yes, I know other people have said all this five thousand times before, but we still have some say in all this. It drives me nuts that so many people are so anxious to say that we won’t.

chancelucky