By Nathaniel Gurien

From its kickoff TH meeting in Berlin, NH in February, 2007 to the present day, HRC's campaign has been, apparently by design, informed by its sizzle, not its steak, process over policy, script and pandering over leadership. I made this specific point to Gen. Wes Clark during a small gathering of local activists in North Conway, NH in December, 2007 in which he was pitching Senator Clinton's candidacy. He agreed with my observation but defended her "cautious" approach as necessary to avoid providing the "right-wing propaganda machine" with material.

This fundamental defect of her campaign struck me from Day One when during the aforementioned 02.07 TH meeting, she opened with remarks and then took questions. In front of a impressive contingient of regional, national and international media, she answered a few softball questions about health care and tuition assistance with numbing generalities. Disgusted, I raised my hand and asked her: "We all know that the Bush Administration are congenital liars. In the interest of demonstrating that your administration would be more honest and transparent than the Bush administration: What is the true reason(s) the US invaded Iraq? We know it wasn't because of WMD or Al Qaeda, so take this opportunity right now to set the tone of your campaign and future administration by telling us the truth." Her reply, as reported by Patrick Healy of the NYT was:

She responded by asserting that President Bush and his advisers came into power in 2001 with an "obsession" to oust Saddam Hussein and resolve the "unfinished business" of the first Gulf War of Mr. Bush’s father. "From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein," Mrs. Clinton said. "I’m not a psychiatrist – I don’t know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession." "I guess they must have seen it as unfinished business, for want of a better term," she added. Mrs. Clinton then turned to criticizing the administration’s handling of the war, saying: "If you had been obsessed with doing this, as they apparently were, why were you so incompetent?"

Now, of course, with her security clearances, and those of her husband, she certainly knows at least as much of the truth as we moderately-informed little people. She chose instead an answer that translates as either: 1) No, my administration is not going to be any more transparent or honest than the Bush Administration, or 2) Condescending circuitous bullshit.

My question was followed by one from Roger Tilton, subsequently reported ubiquitously, who asked her if she was ready to apologize for her Iraq war vote. She answered no, based on a false claim of ignorance.

I and many other activists and citizens attended innumerable campaign events throughout the early months of the NH Primary, and one of the most common refrains was that most glaringly she, but also most of the other "top-tier" candidates WERE NOT ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS.

This ultimately led to my founding in October 2007 (along with Roger Tilton and other activists who felt that citizens deserved a responsive and substantive dialogue with candidates for public office) a non-profit, non-partisan organization called NH Asks to ask all the presidential candidates in NH provocative and tough questions in newspaper ads throughout the state. Their answers would then be rated for truthfulness, straightforwardness and responsiveness (STR) and published in subsequent newspapaper ads. As Executive Director of NH Asks, Inc., I can state with some authority that Senator Clinton rarely, if ever, supplied genuinely responsive answers to substantive questions, certainly at least when she campaigned in NH. Neither she nor her campaign ever answered NH Asks's questions.

The meeting with General Clark in North Conway, NH in December, 2007 was, for me, one of the most enjoyable and truly informative of the primary season. His candor and honesty was refreshing, and his respect for the intelligence of his audience was genuine. He stated that Hillary shared his progressive policy views, and that we could be confident of her similarly competent and progressive leadership.

I pointed out that whereas that might be true, she had given us no basis to know that. Her public interaction seemed all scripted and/or manipulative, as well as devoid of demonstrative leadership, citing examples including her support of the Kyle-Leiberman Amendment, and her failure to stand with Senator Dodd to defend the Constitution.

I suspect that the other side of the same coin that also doomed her candidacy was an excessive reliance on professional political advisors, rather than trusting her own instincts. However, my suspicion in this regard is largely circumstantial.

Notwithstanding, her campaign's most monumental blunder was a failure to demonstrate her ability to lead the nation with both her words and deeds. And she squandered numerous golden opportunities to do so.

The real shame is that she could have run an inspiring and historic campaign, and if she had shed all this baggage, she might have been a great president.

by John Clark

Last Sunday evening we were treated to a rare delight, the 'Keynote Speaker' at the Detroit NAACP Dinner.

Carried 'live' by two national TV networks, regular white folk were afforded the opportunity to be addressed by a leading Black Liberation Theologian who was speaking to 'us' rather than to his 'normal' congregation. Jeremiah Wright explained in a very lucid manner why he felt that color did indeed make people different, he went to considerable length to differentiate the cognitive reality perceived by black and white.

A speech with sufficient examples of both African and European origin thought processes to assure 'us' many times over that "Indeed Change is Coming".

In quite a different manner of Speech than those given within his Home Church, Wright left no doubt of the differences between the way he and his followers, including as stated last evening, the Nation of Islam, see what they wish our Country should be from the Country which predominantly white Europeans have built.

No recognition was given for the evolution and emancipation of the last two centuries, only "That Change is Coming" 

No inkling of fault being with anyone except the white majority who must accept "The Change which is Coming"

Given such a Speech, by Barack Obama's current Pastor ( until the end of May, according to his introducer that evening ) it is totally beyond my comprehension just how a President with the thought processes described in such detail by Jeremiah Wright could possibly represent ALL of the people, including those who 'think so differently'.

Especially a prospective President (and spouse ) who have been Wright's congregants and friends for twenty years.

Wright made no attempt to offer any exceptions to his 'Thought Process' paradigm, thus including ALL black people in his characterization.

Until this Speech a lot of white folk had no idea that the difference was so profound. Probably  a large number of both black and white folk, could and should, disagree with Wright's Speech and his reasoning, but now it is out there for Obama to suffer the consequence.

Liberation Theology has changed the political face of Latin America in the last four decades into a communist dominated society. "Change has Indeed Arrived in those Countries".

This Speech, without being specific, left little doubt as to the implied "Change" facing the United States of America. 

Thank You, Jeremiah Wright, for explaining so clearly !!

note: Please go to   www.socinian.org/liberty.html   for a basic definitive Paper on Liberation Theology

by John Clark

When Barack Obama needed contacts to help his 'community' efforts in Chicago some twenty years ago, he turned to a very dynamic preacher. Jeremiah Wright was in the process of building a congregation from less than one hundred to several thousand. Openly, and under the conventional radar, he based the premise of 'social theology' in a racially appealing, politically motivated manner which attracted attention only within the black community. ( Wright deserves to be recognized for such an achievement.) 

The relationship worked very successfully for both Obama and Wright, not just coincidentally it also worked for Louis Farakhan, another close associate of the congregation. All parties grew to achieve national stature.

Then, Barack Obama became a candidate for President of the United States of America, until he gained 'front runner status' his prior relationships were not relevant, now they are.

Why did Jeremiah Wright retire as soon as the relevance or connection between the two began to be significant?

Is it really necessary to be the 'past Pastor' to attempt expiation of Obama?

The fact is that the Pastor, retired or not, has now surpassed Jesse Jackson etal as the most recognized spokesman for most of the black community. 

It must be posited that the growth of his message during the past ONE week has eclipsed a million times the growth of the previous twenty years.

If Obama 'used' Wright to achieve his goals, now it would appear that Wright's message has superseded that of Obama, only time will tell which man is the more important to our Country and the direction which we shall take.

Certainly Jeremiah Wright has clearly 'stayed on message', whilst Obama is attempting the biggest 'flip-flop' ever attempted in political history.

John Clark,   Louisville Ky (former resident Peterborough, NH)

by Marshall Cobleigh

If either Hillary or Barack do receive that dreaded 3 AM phone call that they are both now bragging about on their latest TV advertisements, the first call they would each make after they hung up would be to their respective pollsters to find out what they should do.

When will the American people smarten up and realize that the only thing political pollsters can tell you is what the american people think about yesterday. Political polls will never tell you how to solve complex problems or what to do about will happen tommorrow.

We badly need a political leader with the belief and faith in their own convictions and the courage to do what they believe is in America's best interest rather than what is currantly popular. People like Harry Truman, Mel Thomson and Ronald Reagan come to mind .

We are electing a President not the best poll analizer.