two poorgradstudents

Some highlights from media coverage of the events that I’ve attended.

(1) Of President Bill Clinton’s visit to the University of New Hampshire, The NY Times’ writes

Former President Bill Clinton has been drawing sleepy and sometimes smallish crowds at big venues in the state that revived his presidential campaign in 1992. He entered to polite applause and rows of empty seats at the University of New Hampshire on Friday. Several people filed out midspeech, and the room was largely quiet as he spoke, with few interruptions for laughter or applause. He talked about his administration, his foundation work and some about his wife.

“Hillary’s got good plans,” Mr. Clinton kept saying as he worked through a hoarse-voiced litany of why his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, is a “world-class change agent.” He urged his audience to “caucus” on Tuesday for Mrs. Clinton, before correcting himself (“vote”). He took questions, quickly worked a rope line and left.

Those of us who attended Clinton’s talk did note the meager line, as well as the empty seats. But I don’t think sleepiness and politeness adequately account for the passivity of the audience. No doubt, we were polite, but the opening ovation seemed sincere enough to me. Moreover, unlike at Senator Obama’s rally in Exeter, there was no aspiration on behalf of the campaigners to generate (nauseating) “pep”; at least one Obama volunteer attempted to get us to participate in The Wave while we waited for the Senator. Egh. I think, too, that Clinton’s talk was sufficiently cerebral – more detailed and less bombastic than Edwards’ or Obama’s – and, I hope, what looked to the reporter like passivity might have been careful listening.

The Times explains President Clinton’s lackluster performances as caused by the uncertainty of the Clinton Campaign about how to put the man to use.

Mr. Clinton’s practiced self-deflation on the stump reflects something of a split within the campaign over how best to use him, campaign advisers say. There is a feeling among one faction that he was overexposed in Iowa, and that his presence became a distraction.

[...]

“On strategic level, I think he’s been very effective in that campaign,” said Mr. Rutherford, citing behind-the-scenes contributions like making fundraising calls.

But in more public roles, Mr. Clinton’s challenge has been greater. Let Bill be Bill, and risk him outshining the candidate.

I think, though, that the tone of Clinton’s talk was as much about maintaining the contrast between Senator Clinton and her competitors – even at the cost of Senator Clinton’s “likability” – as it is about repressing the differences between the former-President Clinton and the Senator Clinton.

For example, the article describes Carrie Sheridan’s question to President Clinton. Alluding to both Senator Obama’s campaign and challenging the necessity of the in-fighting and bickering of campaigning, Sheridan asked, “Why not just change the game?”

To this challenge, President Clinton offered a peculiar anecdote and a response that, for better or worse, remains consistent with Senator Clinton’s campaign message – Change is located somewhere in the (messy) past. President Clinton may be practicing “self-deflation,” but his speech sounded identical to Senator Clinton’s comments in Saturday’s debate about her 35 years of experience and her ability to survive the Republican attack machine.

Mr. Clinton replied that in a survey of talk radio hosts, he and Mrs. Clinton scored one and two on a list of figures who are “most vilified” — even higher, he noted, than Saddam Hussein.

“No one would like it better to end the vilification than me and Hillary,” he said, adding that they were vilified during their eight years in the White House.

The line scored scattered applause. But it also served as a reminder, fairly or not, of all the bitterness that the Clintons came to represent in the 1990s.

(2) Quotes offered in an article at seacoastline.com initially makes Senator Obama sound like a really good mouthwash,

Democrat Linda Safford from Exeter is one of those undecided voters. Though she said Obama’s speech was “awesome,” she left the building only leaning towards Obama and still uncommitted.

Alan Cronheim of Portsmouth was strongly leaning toward Obama before the Exeter event and said he will likely vote for the senator on Tuesday.

“I think he brings a refreshing change to the political dialogue,” Cronheim said.

Awesome and refreshing, Obama is also an awful waste of time.

Though a number of people raved about Obama’s address and the energy of the crowd, some in the audience said they were not moved.

David Weiss, who is supporting a long-shot candidate, said the event was “a waste of time.”

“It was just an inspirational speech, nothing more,” Weiss said, adding that he felt Obama was not specific enough about his plans. Weiss was also miffed at the senator for showing up an hour late and neglecting to apologize.

Lorna Lable and Deborah Stubbs came up from New York City to see some candidates this week. Both walked into the rally Clinton supporters and both left Clinton supporters. Like Weiss, the two women felt Obama is just not specific enough about his plans.

“He didn’t really say anything,” said Lable.

I don’t have a heck of a lot to say about this article, except that even though I’d heard most of Obama’s speech before attending it – since he, as they all seem to do, brings the lines that work everywhere, I’d read this review of Obama before it was written. Obama inspires; Obama says nothing substantial. Can’t we find anything else to say?

And doesn’t it seem like you can either take the Clintons’ route – unlikable, dry, but informative – or the refreshing, awesome, insubstantial route? Has anyone elaborated or does anyone have an example of a third way?

I’d be curious to hear what others who have heard Obama in N.H. think and if either side of the debate – refreshing or waste – resonate for you.

No mention of the two women – one at each talk – who actually fielded cell phone calls while the politicians were speaking. That’s right, while the former President of the United States lectured us and while a current Senator refreshed us – two women, neither of whom were one of those youngsters who let their phones ring in college classes and I.M. from their laptops during lectures, actually took calls and filled in the silences between the speakers words with some of their own. They also drew the most terrifying looks that I’ve ever seen strangers throw. Perhaps the phone calls were important, but silent the ringer, step out and call back! Security will let you back in!

No mention, either, of the Clinton’s biggest gaffe of the afternoon – referring to President George W. Bush as Bill Clinton. According to former President Bill Clinton, we’re still struggling to pay off Bill Clinton’s tax cuts. I don’t think that I’ve ever heard anyone refer to someone else as himself.

Happy voting day!

PS: Since this is my first New Hampshire primary, can anyone tell me how we’re supposed to survive the political hangover Wednesday morning?