two poorgradstudents

I did end up attending the event. Got there in time to be one of the last people who had the good-fortune of waiting in the sickly warm entrance of the impressive Exeter High School. That meant I had a seat in the bleachers of the gym; a good number of the others who had to wait outside from about 10:30-11:15 stood once they were let in, although their view of Obama was no worse for the wait. The Senator was introduced by a local, non-profit worker (or director, I can’t remember). She asked how many of us were “undeclared” voters. Something like 1/2 the people in attendance raised their hands; my guess is that included those officially registered as undeclared, NH’s equivalent of independent, and undecided Democrats. Those of who aren’t undeclared muttered, “wow.” I’m not sure if the number of undeclared voters in attendance indicates that so many undeclared voters are leaning towards voting for him. … Or, even, if Obama’s speech convinced them, produced in them the epiphany he told us that he aimed for. … Or if, in the first place, they were attending to figure out for whom to vote. My sense, so far, is that the primary in NH, especially when it involves Obama, is as much spectator sport as it is politics. But that the crowd wasn’t only converts seems important.

The woman who introduced Obama also read a list of synonyms for change. She said she was inspired by the use – maybe she said, “misuse” – of the word in the debate. The list was predictable and partial. I didn’t much care for her inclusion of “convert,” but the word that she prefers from the list – replace – drew cheers, applause, and laughter.

Then came Obama.

What I enjoy most about these appearances is that it involves standing ovations. We need more standing ovations in life. The speeches, Obama’s included, are fairly standard and standardized at this point; I doubt I’ll remember much of what I’ve heard, but the opportunity to participate in a standing ovation for our last great president and, I hope, our next great one will stay with me.

Again, Obama’s speech wasn’t very surprising. You heard most of it in the debate last night and in other speeches given lately in Iowa and New Hampshire. He did, though, spend time with Senator Clinton’s claim that words don’t mean a thing. I understand both what Clinton means and why she says that, but I appreciate Obama’s response that words do matter, that they have the capacity to inspire, elicit, if not produce, hope, and are an important part of the political process. Given our current President’s way with the English language, Obama’s message on this – though a minor part of the campaign itself – works and, I think, is entirely appropriate.

Obama is also loving and thieving from Edwards routine. Edwards has been dwelling on the need for politics to be personal. He means this not in the sense that the feminist do, that private life is also political; instead, he means that values and politics have to come from somewhere inside the individual. The politician has to be beholden to himself, his life experiences, else he’ll run (towards lobbyists, $, and the status quo) when things get bad. Thus, Edwards dwells on the labor and education of his parents and grandparents. Though Obama works hard to distinguish his method of change from Edwards’ rage, Obama says, quite clearly, that this “is personal” for him. He mentions his mother’s death from cancer and his pain at witnessing her studying health insurance forms despite the seriousness of her illness. He spoke of being only five years removed from paying off student loans. Of course, the latter fact impressed me and, I think, was all that I ever needed to hear from a politician.

The obligatory questions everywhere are, “say more about health care,” “say more about Iraq,” “say more about education,” and “say more about energy.” If I remember correctly, these were the four questions posed to Obama. Despite the predictability of them, I’m a little shocked that these are the issues this campaign year and, following that, utterly shocked that there is such a backlash against the Republican discourse of abortion, immigration, and (fewer) taxes. This urge to talk about health care seems especially surprising. It’s as if the whole country, all at once, realized that high premiums, paperwork, and uncertainty suck. I love this backlash, of course, loving hearing applause at the words, “music, art, poetry, and literature,” but I’m still just in awe that Americans are hearing of these issues even from the Republicans, responding to these issues, and, perhaps, voting into office the politicians who value these issues.

Obama used the questions to linger with the specifics of his policies. His take on health care – not what it should be, but how he’d get it done – is brilliant. He spoke of bringing in all sorts of experts, all sorts of advocates and, still, reserving seats for a representative of the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies. The inclusion of the latter representatives differentiates him from Edwards. To differentiate his plans from Clinton’s he speaks of the failure of the two Clintons to make their conversation about health care public. It went on behind closed doors, Obama said, out of view of Congress. This, he said, allowed lobbyists to preemptively walk all over the plan by mobilizing Congress. Not only would his policy talks be inclusive, aiming at the best plan through negotiation, collaboration, and debate, but it would be public – aired on CSPAN. I’m finding that the difference between the candidates is in the strangest, most idiosyncratic of details; this is one peculiar, idiosyncratic detail that I’m impressed by. If this happens, I’ll find myself a television and watch, unless, of course, CSPAN streams online.

My house is flanked by Hillary signs, but I’m voting Obama.