The snow looks nice, but it’s getting hot in New Hampshire

I tried to catch some of the Fox News forum this evening for Republic presidential candidates, and a little of CNN’s one for Democratic candidates. Got a bit of both in between family activities. Good that they’re getting more incisive and personal than those terribly staged affairs called ‘the presidential debates’ that we’ve seen for months. We’re hearing more specifics, thoughtful ideas, probing questions, necessarily direct answers.

But….not from everyone. During the Fox forum, I wondered aloud a few times “Where’s Ron Paul? Where’s Duncan Hunter?” After all, they’re running too, and Paul is putting up some impressive results. But there’s this paradox about Paul. He’s a phenomenon, but mainstream media treat him like a wacky ‘also ran’.

They shouldn’t do that, no matter how unlikely they may feel a candidate’s chances are to be the eventual nominee. It’s disrespectful of the process and the people. They marginalized Sen. Sam Brownback, though he has a strong track record in the Senate and should be better known. In fact, in both parties, the media are paying attention only to the ‘top tier’ candidates (three in the Democratic, four to five in the Republican).

I found this news item that answers the question of where Ron Paul was.

And this item, that says a lot about the top two Democratic candidates.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, slipping further behind her chief rival in the Democratic primary here, has taken direct control over her strategy and message as she scrambles to block the ascent of Sen. Barack Obama.

And what’s her message?

Frustrated by her campaign’s reaction to the defeat, Clinton ordered her advisers Sunday to reorient their message to more aggressively focus on the idea that Obama is all talk and no action.

To state the obvious….that’s not positive or inspiring. In fact, it sounds bitter. It repels rather than attracts. 

“This election is about the difference between talk and action, between rhetoric and reality,” Clinton said at a crowded rally near the coast Sunday night in what advisers said was a new approach that she scripted herself. “If we’re going to be talking about change, then let’s talk about change. Let’s talk about who’s produced change, and let’s talk about who’s more likely to bring about change.”

Obama, drawing overflow crowds at every stop, challenged Clinton’s assertion that he is offering “false hope.”

But the piece focused on Clinton’s desperate measures.

The Clinton campaign on Sunday held two conference calls to knock Obama over his record, advisers said, and attacked his campaign’s use of automated phone calls.

And besides that…

Clinton’s campaign pounced on the fact that one of Obama’s New Hampshire co-chairs, Jim Demers, is a registered state lobbyist, arguing that it calls into question Obama’s pledge to clean up the insider culture in Washington. She also pointed to votes on Iraq war funding, the Patriot Act and energy policy that she said conflicted with her rival’s public positions on those issues, attempting to portray him as another waffling politician.

How duplicitous politics can be. She’s attacking Sen. Obama for supporting funding of the troops, although he’s opposed to the war. At least he voted to fund the men and women in the field, for goodness sake.

Since Iowa, this election is getting more gritty, with defining days just ahead. In the heat of the battle, some candidates are defining themselves already. Ron Paul holds his own public forum to clarify his position on all the issues. Hillary Clinton shifts strategy to tear down her chief rival.

How they handle themselves and their opponents tells us a lot about how they would govern. I won’t even use the word ‘lead.’ It doesn’t fit the discussion just yet.