How Could the Polls be so Wrong?
Damn. The media favored story line just blew up. The Obama romp over Hillary was wrong. It's still early and Obama may eke out a statistical win but he lost. Why? Because the media made the story all about his commanding double-digit lead. Senator Clinton's staff can make the valid claim that they "came back". Media loves the underdog story, normally.
I don't know about you, but I am thoroughly pissed off at the lame, unprofessional conduct of the various networks--MSNBC in particular. They knew that the polls had at least 17% undecided. Rather than simply report that there were a significant number of undecided voters and any projections were not reliable, they danced around like crack addicts celebrating the demise of the Clintons. Hillary is too wimpy. Hillary is too stern. Hillary is too manipulative. Hillary is not manipulative enough.
Special offenders include Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, and Howard Fineman. They were so busy dancing on the Clinton grave that they did not have the decency to do some objective analysis. Hell, they tried to deceive the American people. So much for the death of Hillary's campaign.
For the sake of our democracy, can someone smack the crap out of the media? Jesus! (take that as a prayer and/or a curse).
UPDATE: It is important that the Democrats have a bruising, tough, no holds barred contest. Get all of the dirt and problems on the table now. If not, let there be no doubt, the Republicans will be more than happy to dredge up every piece of trash they can throw at folks. Obama has not yet been truly tested. Let him be tested now. Hillary and John have been through the battle. They are proven vets. No surprises come September for them. We cannot honestly say that about Obama.
This is not a slam of Obama. I am seriously worried about the stars in the eyes of Obama acolytes. We can't afford to give him a pass just because he is an inspiring symbol. He only has two years under his belt in the Senate and has not produced any substantive accomplishments that will cause folks to say, "Wow, what a genius". Get it on the table now. Fight it to the bone. If he comes out on top, then God Bless him. We won't be faced with buyers remorse come September. But do not send him to the real battle without being fully vetted and tested.
The media are not a friend and they are fickle. They celebrate the Messiah. They welcome him to Jerusalem. And they will crucify his ass in a heartbeat if it gets them ratings. Hillary and John understand this. Obama may have learned a lesson tonight. We will see.
Dude,
What planet you been living on the last few days? Doing the ganja mambo? Storyline was clear--Hillary was toast and Obama was marching to a double digit victory.
Personally, I don't understand why we give a shit what two pissant states like New Hamphsire and Iowa think. They don't represent the United States ethnically or culturally. The real story ought to be why do we indulge in this bullshit fantasy.
January 8, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the "storyline" was baloney. Try reality, like the points above about actual numbers and poll reliability. Not "storyline." Larry.
In reality, Hillary dropped considerably in NH over the last several weeks while Obama gained.
Hillary is only competitive becasue Edwards is still splitting the "change" vote. If he dropped out, Obama would be winning in a landslide.
January 8, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also think it's pathetic the people who abuse the rating system whenever they hear reality they'd rather not admit.
At this moment, Hillary has 39% to Obama's 36%, and Edwards has 17%.
If Edwards dropped out, Obama would have a double digit lead over Hillary.
In all the upcoming primaries, Edwards is far behind. And has been for moths. And has never had a more positive vector than Obama.
Edwards does not look to be competitive going forward. Why is he staying in, and having the effect of helping Hillary.
January 8, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards is providing Obama with much of his best material. Not to detract from Obama, who uses it well. But this goes to the convention, while Edwards keeps Obama supplied with proven material and handles the tougher attacks against Clinton. Then Edwards gives his delagates to Obama and shares the ticket.
This is politics the way it's supposed to be done.
January 8, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another way that goes is Edwards stays in for his ego, and hands it to Hillary.
Which is what he just did tonight, by splitting the "change" bloc and allowing Hillary to win with a minority vote. If he splits the vote in February, he could hand her the nomination.
What I think he's egotistically hoping for is that he's suddenly going to soar, which is totally unrealistic. Or that maybe Obama could drop out, despite having double Edward's numbers, which is also totally delusional. And even if Obama did drop out, I don't think he could make Edwards a winner.
January 8, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards is a populist, and some of his supporters might go to Clinton. There is still a portion of the Democratic rank and file that have very low information, don't get what the DLC is about at all, and have been suckers for the Clinton snake oil show for 15 years. They don't get it. But Edwards does get it. So when does he finally make it clear to his supporters that the Clintons must be stopped, at long last, and the sorry era of CEO fondling, Davos butt-kissing brought to an end? It's time for him to join forces with Obama.
January 8, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I lean toward Edwards at this time, but if he were to drop out, I'd go Clinton. Obama is my third choice. Not because I especially dislike him, but his supporters give me an eerie "People's Temple" feeling.
January 8, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah swell. This isn't a poll. And for all I know you could be a Hillary supporter just saying that.
I'm talking about survey after survey of Edwards supporters who say Obama is their second choice, and 3rd tier candidates who broke for Edwards and Obama, and Edwards himself, who aligns with Obama and says that Hillary represents what he;s campaigning agianst.
January 8, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for all I know you could be a Republican supporting the weakest general election Democratic candidate.
But questioning someones sincerity and honesty just because you disagree with them is what gives me that "People's Temple" feeling about Obama supporters.
January 8, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why I'm talking about logic and data, not personal anecdotes.
Personal anecdotes are less than worthless in anonymous online fora, and the favorite tool of trolls and liars.
Not to mention rating abuse. And we can all see who uses it, just in this thread for example, it's rampant on one side of the deabate.
January 9, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 21, 2011 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards himself aligns with Obama. All the data I've seen on Edwards supporters say they overwhelming have Obama as second. That's indisputable.
The problem is that by staying in, he's splitting that vote, which is benefiting Hillary. Already tonight he handed her a slim victory, when it could have been a landslide for Obama. And Edwards is never going to win. So what's he jockeying for?
January 8, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he's jockeying for change in the current political primary system whereby only one candidate survives past South Carolina.
That's some change I'd love to see. I'd love to see the rest of the country have a chance to vote before all the candidates drop out of the race because people say "what's the point?" after one or two small and statistically insignificant contests.
Iowa and New Hampshire are important only because the media has made them important. The media would, if it could, play the Super Bowl in September and the World Series in April.
Iowa and New Hampshire should be the preseason. They should be exhibition matches. They should be spring training. Instead, they're the championships.
I haven't asked John Edwards, but maybe he thinks Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't decide for the rest of the country who will be a party's nominee.
January 8, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't look at electoral politics as some kind of rational market. Psychology factors into it immensely. The majority of undecideds and Hillary's weak support aren't wonks or ideological, and will just vote momentum.
Many voters in big states like CA and NY, particularly less educated voters in regions like Southern CA, who have no idea how the delegate/convention system works, will just vote for the perceived safe bet. Call them momentum voters.
The only rational argument for Edwards is a brokered convention. The problem is he hopes to win more voters to "change" by argument, but by allowing Hillary plurality wins, he's ceding her the momentum vote. That's a self canceling strategy.
There are actually a lot more "change" voters than "status quo" voters, but if Hillary gets the momentum voters, she could go to the convention with a slim majority.
January 9, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Edwards is going for the "anti-coronation" vote. Works for me...
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 9, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Au contraire, barackman. In fact, Obama and Clinton have been appropriating Edwards' ideas and themes. Cf. last night's speeches. And that is why he should stay in. He will force attention to economic/class issues that the others would, albeit for different reasons, just as soon ignore or gloss over. We have to make it clear what this election is about, viz., a choice between two political/economic systems, one serving the interests of the very few, the other (ours) combining opportunity and security for the great majority. Edwards serves this larger purpose, forcing HRC away from a laundry list of incremental programs approach and injecting Obama with a dose of substantive realism.
Besides, it is not beyond imagining that something unknown in the Obama record at this point could cause the Obama wave to dissipate. In which case, Edwards will be well positioned to pick up the banner of transformative change.
January 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out of the three candidates, Obama is the only one who passed major ethics and healthcare reform. He did so in the Illinois legislature, long before even coming to Washington, and long before Washington remembered Progressivism after going corporate for decades.
I'm glad Obama has state legislature experience and hasn't been in Washington for long. Washington wears down legislators towards the corporate interest, unless they come from strongly progressive districts. They're forced into bad compromises and votes, and forced into bed with corporate interests.
At least the States aren't totally over-run by corporate interests becasue the people are closer and it's harder to divide people on wedge issues. It's still possible to pass some local legislation that's progressive on the environment, healthcare, ethics, and so on. that's changing in Washington now, becasue people are sick of it.
Hillary and Bill would just torpedo change, like they did HC reform in the 90's, after the last time people wanted change after an Iraq war and Bush admin.
January 9, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And btw, waiting for Edwards to win the nomination, or a brokered convention where he gets to support the progressive, now that's naive!
Didn't happen in 2004, and he's doing even worse this year. His campaign is going to be iced in February, no matter what he says, and by giving Hillary the appearance of a winner, with her squeaked plurality "wins" and "comeback kid" crap, she'll also get the uninformed momentum voter, which is what the power broker and insiders (like the DLC) always rely on to put them over the top and get the nomination.
And people are falling for it, again.
January 9, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're assuming that the Edwards vote would automatically go to Obama. I'm not so sure. I'm an Edwards supporter, but if he were no longer in the race, Hillary Clinton would be my second choice.
I'm sorry that you seem to think that Edwards has no right to remain in the race because he is spoiling your preferred candidate's right to romp to the finish line, but I for one hope Edwards will remain in the race for a good while, even if he continues to run in third place. He has important things to say that nobody else is saying, and I want him to continue to say them as long as possible.
January 8, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I find that very dubious.
All the data on Edwards supporters show they'd go overwhelmingly for Obama. Even Edwards has said he's on the same side as Obama, and Hillary is basically the enemy.
And the fact remains Edwards already lost the nomination to Kerry of all people in 2004, and is doing even worse this year.
I'm all for vigorous campaigns. I'm also a supporter of ranked choice voting, so we can have vigerous campaigns. But the reality remains Edwards isn't doing well and isn't going to be the nominee. At this point he's splitting the change vote which is benefiting Hillary.
Is Edwards going to pull a Nader or what?
January 8, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. People who say they would break for HRC obviously are not change voters. Obviously, they are not opposed to corporate interests either because Hillary is the corporate candidate. Those people are really anti-Obama and could even be so due to race but it is easier to not to have to acknowledge that race is their issue. Experience is not their issue of they would have supported Dodd, Biden or Richardson as Hillary has the lease amount of elected experience of all the candidates other than Edwards.
January 8, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I originally supported Dodd.
I think it all depends on your definition of change. The change I want is Democrats no longer bending over to Republicans and letting them run the show even when in the minority. I want to support the candidate I feel most capable of putting a knee on the back of the neck of the Republican political machine.
January 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
I think these people who claim to be Edwards supporters, and then say they'd be Hillary supporters, are either clueless or just Hillary trolls trying to be clever.
While I don't personally trust Edwards after he jumped on the Kerry ticket, voted for Iraq, and has done so little for the middle class in Washington, still, if one is to believe his over-the-top promise-the-world populist stump speech, he's the opposite of Clinton. Even Edwards says so.
So Edwards > Clinton? No.
January 9, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
slb, you may be right:
John Edwards won the "cares about people" category in Iowa, but the former North Carolina senator was much less of a factor in New Hampshire, and Clinton seems to be the clear beneficiary of that. It will be interesting to if Edwards has a similar effect on the race in the upcoming states.
– CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider
January 9, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmic, You are off on the Edwards factor--take a look at the CNN exit polls. The votes Edwards picked up would not necessarily have gone to Obama. By the same logic, you should concede that if Obama dropped out, Edwards would be a shoo in. This is nonsense!
I predicted immediately from the Iowa turnout that Obama and McCain would have a common problem in NH. Both needed to get independents not just to like them--that's the easy part--but to vote in the respective primaries. Obama's gain was McCain's loss. Mark Kleiman picked up on the same point early on as well. My bright-line statement for NH was that both McCain and Obama could not win. Period.
Larry's puzzlement notwithstanding, the polls were right--and, I suspect, still are. Obama has huge support in NH. But he might have actually become a victim of his own success--as the independent saw Obama with a large lead, they chose to support McCain in the GOP primary instead (and some voted for Paul), counting on Obama to carry his weight within the party. He did not. If you look at exit poll numbers, despite a huge independents turnout, Dems represented a larger fraction of Dem primary voters than expected. And the party members voted for Hillary. Independents still supported Obama.
On the other side, it was a slaughter--McCain swept the independent vote (with some going to Paul). But the margin was not great. Had the independents stayed with Obama, McCain would have lost. Whether Obama could win is open to question, but don't blame the media for missing an obvious but non-conventional point--the two primaries DO have an effect on each other. Take another look at the CNN numbers. Since when are there so many liberal voters in the Republican primary?
January 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, THAT is nonsense.
Obama has double Edwards' numbers. Which means he can afford to get less of Edwards' and still beat Hillary. Edwards would need an unrealistic percentage of Obama voters to switch to him, to beat Hillary. Also, obviously, more people will switch to a more viable group than a less viable group.
January 9, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
EVERYONE split the "change" vote tonight. Obama's message has been co-opted, corrupted, raped and rendered meaningless through constant abuse over the past few days. McCain stole votes from Obama. Romney stole votes from Obama. Hillary stole votes from Obama. Giuliani stole votes from Obama. He's going to need to re-tool his message, because they've torn the idea of change from his hands, ripped it to shreds and trampled it underfoot.
AP just called it for Hillary. I don't believe them.
January 8, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. Somehow he has to figure out a way of reminding voters once again that there are some rather serious reasons to vote for him and against his opponents, while staying on his high road message. It's one thing to say his opponents are all good Americans, etc. But that doesn't mean they would all be equally good presidents.
January 8, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there weren't any other candidates Obama would win 100% of the vote. It's a silly point to be making really.
The silliness is seen when you turn it on it's head: Edwards would be beating Hillary if Obama weren't in the race. Trouble is, of course, he is in the race. So Edwards people would look pretty silly if they argued that wouldn't they?
January 9, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, THAT is silly. But nice try on the spin, oleeb.
What I said was serious: if Edwards dropped out and endorsed Obama, Obama would get most of his vote, and beat Hillary decisively.
Even according to Edwards, he and Obama are the change candidates, fighting Hillary the status quo and corporate candidate. As a supposed Edwards supporter, you're familiar with that, right? Oleeb
You're not just a Hillary troll and chronic liar by any chance are you?
January 9, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you regularly insult people for no reason at all? Get a grip on yourself. The point I made is the point I made and that's it. It's pretty straightforward.
If you, or anyone else thinks they can predict where Edwards' supporters would go if he weren't in the race I think your crazy. Many would certainly go for Obama, but how many is completely unknowable. You know what you, yourself would do perhaps, but not what anyone else would do regardless of whether or not the candidates position themselves one way or another.
January 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb:
You write:
"If you, or anyone else thinks they can predict where Edwards' supporters would go if he weren't in the race I think your crazy."
I absolutely agree with you. Consider the labor support Senator Edwards has worked so hard to garner over the past four years. He has been relentless and he has earned deep and lasting support from some of the most powerful unions in the country. Speculation that we can assume at this point that, if Edwards bows out, all of his support in organized labor will go to Senator Obama is simply not grounded in objective fact.
Bruce
January 10, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary CEO of youtube to mp3 converter
December 21, 2010 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then why did "we" drop 20 million dollars contesting those states. Now that it appears that money was a bad investment "we" now will insult the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. It is that very disdain for the yokels that is sinking Hillary's campaign.
January 8, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not a disdain for yokels. I am one. Born and raised in Missouri. But Missouri is not representative of the US either. Overwhelmingly white and Christian. Nothing wrong with either, but not a think like New York, Florida, Texas, and California. Little states like Iowa, Missouri, and New Hampshire should not be deciding who the next or best candidate is.
Our system is broken.
January 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. They're not "deciding" anything, except in your "storyline." Larry.
Smart people actually weight the results for themselves to determine relevance. Deciding what they think is relevant, and what is not. Try it sometime.
January 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So they didn't decide it, so what's your problem? At least those who vote on Mega State Tuesday will have had the opportunity to have seen some coverage other than TV ads by the few candidates who can afford to buy air time in NY or LA.
January 8, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Larry, according to the census bureau, Missouri is a fairly representative state of nearly 6 million people vs NH with 1.3 million and Iowa with 2.9 million, at least in terms of race. The racial breakdown there is 85.1% white vs a 80.1% nationally. The black population in the state is 11.5% vs 12.8% nationally.
Anyone can see a snapshot of the various states by going to:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/
Be that as it may, you are certainly correct that the system is broken. The only advantage that Iowa and NH bring to the table as first primary contests is that they are small. Both, however, present various problems including that they are both states that historically have been far more Republican than Democratic for a variety of reasons. That skews results.
The thing that is most broken about the system, IMHO is that the media morons demand that the result be known in advance. They train people to believe what they believe about the system of primaries, the viability of candidates and what it all means.
The one thing the media don't do is report on what the candidates say, what they stand for, and why those positions are important. No, they focus almost entirely on the horse race and predicting the outcome in advance, deciding who the winners and losers are and they bombard the public with their often totally innacurate prognostications which very often do influence elections toward one candidate or another for all the worst possible reasons.
There's no better example than how they trashed Al Gore relentlessly for two years prior to the 2000 election and thus made the theft of the election in Florida possible. Had the media done their job (which is to report the news)Gore would have kicked Bush's ass and we'd be living a much better country today.
All the media's flaws have been maximized this year with the genuinely ridiculous compression of the primaries. The day after the Feb. 5 primary elections, unless the race is still closely seesawing back and forth between Clinton and Obama, the race will be decided. Between now and then the media will try and pick the winner and bury who they think will be the loser. No matter who the annointed one is, it is a perversion and a complete disservice to the public for the media to act in this manner.
The primary season ought to go back to being a six month contest with states large and small mixing it up. If there's an overwhleming favorite such a system won't hurt them at all. If things are close, stretching out the primaries prevents the public from being stampeded in one direction or the other.
One of the genuinely brilliant things the founders did was to prevent such a stampeding of our governmental process by the "passions" of the moment as they put it. So too, in the Presidential nominating process should we continue to have a buffer between being swept away in a media facilitated frenzy early on when the best choice may not be clear until sometime down the road.
In a compressed primary season, you get stuck with whoever was popular in February and that may not be the best choice for November. This is true no matter which candidate you're for. We may well find that the worst thing that happened in 2008 was all those foolish states jockeying for earlier and earlier primary dates last year.
January 9, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree in spades on the media. They are a destestably small-minded, ignorant, cynical, and incompetent lot. Worse, most of them are just shills for the RNC. That's where they get their brilliant questions at the debates--or maybe from some retarded 8 year old they met on the way in.
Anyway, this is why the progressive movement needs a counterpart media system, including print as well as electronic mass outlets. The MSM are beyond redemption as are the elite sycophants at the NYT, WP, etc.
January 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iowa and New Hampshire both tell us something and we ought to be figuring out what it is not trashing the people who live there. It's that kind of arrogant, disconnected, inside the beltway, b.s. that will make it easy for me to stay home or vote 3rd party if I have to put up with it for the next 10 months. I don't know how you differentiate yourself from the MSM when you think just like them.
As to the polls, they might have put more trust in them because the Des Moines Register poll surprised them by being very accurate in its projection of Obama's big win.
January 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed here?
January 8, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political Consultants' Dirty Tricks -- a must-read for this election cycle
http://www.politicalconsultantmisconduct.blogspot.com/
January 8, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's totally expected that Hillary shills are going to claim she's the comeback kid from this. The reality is that Obama was double digits behind in NH just weeks ago.
Some things to remember:
After Iowa, Hillary needed to create the narrative she was the comeback kid. Her supporters would need to have her over-perform expectations. Lowering expectations was in her advantage.
The reality is Obama was behind by double digits not long ago and has come back several points. Hillary has dropped several points over the last few weeks.
McCain is competitive in NH, which means independents who lean Republican can vote for a Republican winner, in the primary, though it's less likely in the GE.
The polls that predicted a huge Obama win in NH, also predicted a huge Hillary win in Iowa. They're just lousy polls, and people shouldn't follow them.
Edwards is still splitting the "Change" vote, which is the majority, allowing Hillary to remain competitive with a minority.
January 8, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I blame the Hillary mailer lying about Obama's pro-choice record. Women clearly made the difference.
A Clinton aide: "We got our woman back and our downscale voters back and we raised the right questions about choice."
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/
January 8, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't surprise me if that factored in. But I seriously doubt that could cause a several point shift.
No, the problem was once a again people bought into the wrong polls. The sensational data instead of the good data.
Down thread I outline some of the reasons why the last minute polls were really unreliable, and why people should have just stuck with the longer term trends which predicted a close race, and totally ignored the ARG and Zogby polls which can be incredibly unreliable. As I did.
January 8, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a good point O-meister.
People tend to forget that Hillary's campaign is also a crusade for a segment of women and women's groups. Their prime issue over the years has been the abortion rights issue. They used it at the last minute and it may have had a big effect on female voters thus being part of the reason she did so well with them in NH vs Iowa where they did not use a similar tactic and did not do so well with women as she did yesterday.
January 9, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What polls predicted a huge Clinton victory in Iowa, at least near the election?
If you are so certain about what the Hillary shills will say you as a Barack shill are certainly predictable.
Women came out huge to vote for Hillary. From all the women I know they are sick of the sexists in the Media and elsewhere.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what anyone said. Go back and read it again.
January 8, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I've been watching this user:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/smacfarl
becasue I noticed he was suddenly posting a lot to slag Obama, but not much of a contributor overall. Also, that he's pretty fond of rating abuse.
Which is the case for a lot of people suddenly popping out of the woodwork to slag candidates and do rating abuse.
So I went back and read through his posting history. The guy popped up here on late 2006, which is just when Obama was considering a run and getting some discussion here. And, from the very beginning of his small posting history, smacfarl has been slagging Obama.
So, beware these people who pop up on single issues, during election times, and don't seem very real. They're probably not.
January 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And speaking of rating abusers who have suddenly come alive to shill for Hilalry, and who just rated that 0:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/zk0sm0
January 8, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
shows how much you pay any attention to anything other than yourself, kozmik. i have clearly and repeatedly identified myself as an edwards supporter.
you need to stop trolling people and maybe recognize that the ratings that so many people have been giving you might just reflect the content (and tone) of your comments.
when you post a comment that amounts to trolling, i will gladly rate your comment 0.
when you post a comment that is unproductive (like many of the personal attacks you've been resorting to these last two weeks) i will gladly rate your comment 1.
when you post a comment with content that i think is merely marginal i will gladly rate your comment 2.
and so on....
if i remember correctly you posted a comment some time today that i thought was good and *surprise!* i gladly rated it 4.
January 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big Billy Boy from Arkansas started whining that the press was being unfair to his wife. Like clockwork, Larry 'Hillary's echo chamber' Johnson repeats the party line. At least today he is not claiming to be an objective outside observer but is coming on as a real partisan. Keep it up, we will have more respect for you if you are willing to come across as an honest Hillary supporter.
Having said that, we were really hoping that Obama would trounce her yet again. Maybe not tonight. It is going to be a real fight. This is going to be fun.
January 8, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are delusional. If that is typical of Obama followers you'll get clobbered. Try some reality. Obama was supposed to "win" by at least 9 points, maybe more.
You keep missing my basic point, because you are so busy thinking with your heart or your ass. The basic point is that the media presented as "fact" poll results that anyone with minimal statistical knowledge would recognize as unreliable because there were so many undecided. As a result, Obama suffers a crushing defeat. That's the perception. That's the story the media is now trumpeting. Does not mean it is true, but that is there story.
Please, grow a brain and use it. And honestly, if Obama had won by 9 points are you saying that you would be arguing Hillary was still "in" it? Don't think so.
January 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media is broken... that seems clear. But by the same token I would hope that Clinton realizes how destructive her use of Mark Penn and that ilk is to her standing and her ultimate ability to unite the party and govern in the way she would like.
It is fine to be loyal - and perhaps some of that makes sense for the political moment of the 90's - but if we are going to turn this around then we can't fight the last war. If we do, we are simply going to be accepting the status quo moved radically to the right given to us by Bush et al. And that is not acceptable no matter what letter the president has by their name.
January 8, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the way you come out swinging.
January 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep up your valiant battle Larry...you're up against folks who are SO closed-minded that they'd deny it's raining in a Hurricane -- and call you an evil fool for challenging them.
But you're dead-on and they are in shocked denial. This is a real race and it's Iowa and the dunderheaded media pack that have no relationship to reality.
January 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No we did not call Larry an evil fool. We called him on his dissembling, his attempt to come in here and present himself as an objective observer while pushing Hillary talking points. Today he is being much more honest in his partisanship and we applaud him for being more forthright.
January 8, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far it doesn't look like it's the undecided vote that was the main factor. I believe they broke fairly evenly for Obama and Clinton. I talked to a New Hampshire political scientist on New Year's Eve, and he said this race was all about the relative proportions of Independents and Democrats who would vote in the Democratic primary. Obama is favored overwhelmingly by Independents, and Clinton had a solid lead among Democrats.
Independents did turn out heavily, but a number voted in the Republican primary - perhaps more than was predicted because that race was perceived as closer than the Democratic race and they might have calculated their vote would be more important there. However, the Democratic turnout was massive, in part because Democrats are so energized and in part because the weather here today was very warm. Clinton won in the cities.
January 8, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to MSNBC's exit polls, that break was exactly even.
One factor may have been women: they went for Hillary Clinton in much greater numbers in NH than they did in Iowa. Women were 57% of the voters in the Democratic primary, and Hillary won the majority of them, unlike in Iowa, where Obama got a majority among women.
Olbermann, I believe, observed that the mild weather may have helped to bring out older voters as well as young ones, and the older voters are also more heavily for Hillary Clinton than younger ones.
January 8, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's probably true. But unfortunately I think the crying jag also worked. I suspect we will find out over the next few days that a number of women who had bounced to Obama bounced back to Clinton after the she cried about how her feelings were hurt because she might not get her pony. The warm mushy feeling will probably only last a day or two, but it was long enough.
January 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be correct about the emotion moment, but in the end, nobody can say with great specificity why the result turned out as it did. The best guesses can only be about broad trends. The number of independents who voted Republican instead of for Obama in the Democratic primary, combined with the shift of women to Clinton and away from Obama are the trends that counted yesterday. As much as I detest Russert, this combination is what he identified last night and I think it's valid. Specificaly why this happened is nearly unknowable. Anything beyond that is just speculation really.
January 9, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Crying jag? What crying jag? A brief pause and a tremor in the voice do not a crying jag make. I watched it several times, and nowhere does she come anywhere near actually crying, let alone going on a crying jag.
January 9, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I gotta concurr.
January 9, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK.
"Welling up" then. Anyway it worked.
January 9, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even see 'welling up.' Sorry. There's a microsecond hesitation, and then she speaks quickly and quietly, but her words are entirely focused and rational. I don't see it as anything at all. It's basically a media invention.
But it was a media invention that the media was unremittingly critical of. All the coverage was negative, half the commenters claimed she was faking it. I don't see any obvious or actual sign anywhere that it got her any traction.
At best it was a non-event, manufactured for attack by the media, which was part of the 'collapsing Hillary' narrative, and either hurt her or simply didn't matter at all.
And frankly, its sort of insulting to claim that Hillary's or anyone's voters are so brain damaged that they're swayed by these impulsive whims.
Maybe the real issue is simply that Hillary had a really good organization and a really good 'get out the vote' effort.
January 10, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of unconscious responses, when Clinton "welled up" she was not speaking in her large-room voice. I find that tone hard to take, too much "Mars Attacks" ack-ack.
She was using the personal tone I like, that we used to hear in interviews. The current wisdom, which I agree with, is she is warm in small groups, but harsh and less friendly in large settings.
Before someone jumps on that as sexist, can we remember the complaints about Gore the bore and Bush the friendly guy?
January 10, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Larry said:
Screw the perception. Screw the story. Here's the results with Obama's crushing defeat:
This is the breakdown of the twenty-two (22) New Hamphsire Democratic delegates awarded:
Next!
Hey Larry, kickback and pour yourself a little more sherry. And leave people's asses out this!
~OGD~
January 9, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Words matter. Perceptions matter.
January 9, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with you about the sort of push polling the media engages in. And I have to humbly submit, Larry, that you and other bloggers are a part of the media. I only wish that when the pundits embarrass themselves like this, they would refrain from continuing to push their narrative lines and do some real reporting. But it'll never happen because spinning is their real purpose. Maybe, someday, someone will reach across the table and slap that monkey smirk right off Tim Russert's face and the camera would track that smirk as it hit the floor and rolled right out of the studio.
January 8, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me, part of the media? Thanks for the promotion but I have no control over who reads or does not read my stuff. My so-called influence, which I question, comes only if someone takes time to read what I write. They have to choose. I can't chose for them.
That's not the case with the major media outlets. They control content and have a unique grip on the market. But hey, I'm flattered.
January 8, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I disagree. You publish news analysis for the public; that makes you media. No one has to watch Fox news either. The difference between you and the major media outlets is not that they force feed news to a to a captive audience but that they reach a lot more more people. It's a difference of degree, not kind.
Frankly, I don't care that much if you or Josh or the major news networks get the forecast wrong, but I'd like to see some introspection before you lash out at other media outlets.
January 8, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Larry is a part of the media insofar as his opinions are published.
However, it is quite a stretch to lump in someone who posts on the net (even on a popular blog like this) with television, radio and the major print media.
The audience here is teeny weeny in comparison. Also, Larry is here openly and obviously offering his opinion. NBC, CBS, ABC, Fake News, MSNBC, CNN, etc... are supposedly "news" organizations "reporting" the news to the public. Big, big difference.
January 9, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for explaining that, Oleeb. I quickly posted this last night and couldn’t get back to it. For some reason, I cut the explanation that I had of the line about Larry and blogs being media, too (a “people in glass houses” thing). Of course, blogs are a completely different beast than traditional media. My intent was only to say that blogs like TPM should not prejudice voters the way that a Bill Kristol or Bryan Williams try to.
Demagoguery and crass partisanship is fine when discussing issues but should be kept out of election news and information. When Larry or MJ post on their preferred candidates they’re often straining to make an issue out of something that isn’t. Their partisanship doesn’t inform but muddies the water. I think many in the “alternative” media have been falling into the traps set by the MSM storyline. When TPM headlines the “viable” candidates as sure winners, it is abetting the MSM in creating self-fulfilling prophecies.
The influence of blogs is small but not inconsequential because influential people read them (including MSM journalists). Sometimes, a hit piece on line is soon on air. Look at the relationship of Drudge to Politico to ABC and WaPo (or Drudge to anyone). Usually the bias is subtle like pushing polls. The headline in my local paper today is “Clinton Edges Obama, McCain Wins Big” when one won by 5 points and one won by 3 points. I think progressive blogs should try to be an antidote to that kind of deceitful campaigning.
Larry has an excellent post next to this one on the politicizing of DoD. It is well written, well sourced, and provides substantive information in a rational tone. When it comes to candidates and campaigns, though, it seems that rationality is thrown out (and fairness is the baby in that bathwater). Traditional media has become the biggest obstacle to having fair and informed elections in this country and many of us have turned to the blogosphere, which has provided an excellent alternative to corporatized news. That is nowhere more important than in national elections.
January 9, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think that all of us, the entire nation in fact, is trapped in the storyline woven by the corporate media But how to get the nation out of it is the big question eh?
January 10, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
True. I don’t think the nation as a whole can avoid the media spin. Most people are too busy to search out unfiltered information. But I think the media can be criticized and countered with some impact. Funny enough, Greg Sargent has a piece at TPM today about a mea culpa over political coverage by Politico of all places.
I distrust Politico usually, but this is a pretty good analysis. As Sargent points out, though, the proof will be in if and how they change. He also calls for improvement at TPM.
January 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
See. This is precisely why the Clintons need to get off the nation stage. Who in their right mind wants to relive all this crap?
January 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, Rachel Maddow now telling Chris Matthews that TPM is blaming Chris Matthews.
January 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a hoot!
January 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consider it done Larry. Look at Chris Matthews. He is getting the crap slapped out of him right now. Thank you, NH.
Let's share the blame with Edwards though, calling for a 2 person race between him and Obama after ONE caucus. And Obama himself, already acting 'presidential', according to MSNBC, above the fray in the debate the other night.
We've had to sit through a year of pre-game on this election, the least the media and the candidates can do is let us actually vote in every state before declaring victors. Again, thank you NH.
January 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was exhausted after none stop campaigning he even saw a doctor the next night. Please. One thing Obama is not is 'above the fray' his race doesn't allow him that luxuy unlike the crying emotional 'that hurt my feelings' whinning that Hillary playing the gender card allows her.
January 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here we have definitive proof that race trumps gender in America every time. Though the ubiquitous practice of calling the male candidate by his last name and the female candidate by her first name was a pretty good tip off.
January 9, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty good shesaid, well put.
January 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You're likable enough, Hillary." That patronizing remark by Obama, said in a rather dismissive manner at the Saturday debate infuriated every person I know. A lot of people have decided to take a break from the O-train to wait and see if he realizes that Hillary Clinton deserves far more respect.
January 8, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that didn't help Obama, although it's not really the full quote, but it's hard to hear the rest b/c he started to trail off. Anyway, he corrected himself the next day.
January 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was nothing dismissive or patronizing about the remark. Obama was being gracious given that he was the one who was being touted as being far more likeable, and he responded to her pitiful whine of 'that hurts my feelings'. Obama is always gracious, just like when he stepped in and defended Biden when he was being challenged on being racially prejudiced as well as when Hillary made that 'the boys are piling up on me remark' Obama said he was sure Hillary did not want to be perceived that way just as he did not raise how he looks different when he was attacked on the foreign policy issues.
Get a grip. Only dolts would have found graciousness infuriating. Especially in response to a whinny female.
January 8, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really missed it: every woman I know recognized Hillary's perfect deadpan in her use of that line. You believe that stereotype so strongly that you entirely missed her playing with it.
You look like a highschool basketball team faced by the Harlem Globetrotters.
January 8, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not the first I've heard to mistake her sarcasm in that line for whining. I guarantee you the women in New Hampshire got the joke.
And if that was Obama's version of graciousness, he better work on it a little bit. Of course, Hillary can't sharpen up her sarcasm or she'll be called shrill, to say the least.
January 9, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
A "whinny" female, are you saying she's a horse?
January 9, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik is right:
.I'm an Edwards supporter, but I can't vote because I'm a Canadian up here in Toronto.
However, if I were a Democrat who could vote in one of the up & coming primary States, I'd vote for Obama to consolidate that "Change" vote.
January 8, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, am an Edwards supporter, and if he drops out I'll throw my support to Hillary. And unlike Kosmik, I CAN vote in a primary.
It is a fallacy to assume that all Edwards supporters will swing towards Obama.
Don't get me wrong. I think we have a GREAT slate of candidates, and I'll be happy to see any of them in the White House. Come November I'll be voting for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Even if it's that wussy "can't we all just get along" candidate Obama.
It's wonderful to have a real set of choices, and it's wonderful that all of these candidates are generating so much excitement with voters. People are so fired up about their respective favorite Democratic candidates that they're practically trading insults over it. When was the last time we had such fervor about so many Democratic candidates? When was the last time that Democratic primary voters outnumbered the Republican ones by 2 to 1??
January 8, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I hate to point this out, right here at TPM I've been staring at a blaring headline for the last 36 hours about Obama's double digit lead -- and more recently, his tie with Hillary in one national poll -- and the accompanying rumors that Team Clinton is out of cash and will start throwing senior people under the bus -- so why blame this exclusively on Chris Matthews and the MSM? If it bothers you, stop watching TV. It looks like everyone loves a little excitement, and maybe jumped the gun a bit, like the kid who wants to be first to raise his hand with the right anwser. The lesson isn't "Chris Matthews sucks" -- although that may also be true -- the lesson is that voters will write the story on election day, and the script we write in our heads beforehand is simply our imagination.
January 8, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I hope Edwards gets out after SC but he has a right to stay in...
But if he starts getting single digits then he really DOES need to get out.
January 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think women made the difference tonight. I think many women (and some men including me) were ticked off at the way the media jumped on the Hillary is emotional story yesterday. Many undecideds yesterday became Hillary voters today.
January 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might well be right, but I hope not. The "poor Hillary" bit isn't going to go far. Sheesh, the woman had 8 years in the White House, I don't know how many in the Governor's mansion and she's into her second term in the Senate. Feeling sorry for this woman is just not something I can manage. What I can't handle about the Clintons is that it is all about the Clintons. I'm sick of them! When is the story going to be about the rest of us.
Let's put an end to the media playing reruns of Dynasty!
January 8, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am reminded of a comment by the late, great, Molly Ivins in a column which I believe was reprinted in her book You Got to Dance With Them What Brung You. As someone who was herself a member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, she was no particular fan of Bill Clinton, whom she regarded as "weaker than roadhouse chili," but the attacks on him had, in her estimation, been so blatantly unfair that she constantly found herself in the position of defending him "on the principle that some fairness must apply."
I think a good many of us feel the same way about the severe criticism of Sen. Clinton. It's been over the top, and coming to her defense is not about "poor Hillary," it's about trying to restore some balance and fairness to the debate.
January 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was a great admirer of Molly Ivins.
But I don't think the press has been unfair to Hillary overall. She wore the mantle of the inevitable winner for months. Obama and the rest, even more particularly Dodd and Biden who actually had some good things to say - had to scratch for media attention while the press thought they were going to have a soap opera campaign between Hillary and Rudy.
Hillary started running a general election campaign last summer in "Presidential" style, assuming she didn't have to bother much about the primaries. She wouldn't lower herself or was protecting herself from most national press interviews. That ticked off the press. They were happy to see her get a comeupance. She's triangulated the little crying jag to her advantage. And I'm supposed to be mad at the press?
I am just so sick of these Clinton melodramas and I can't stand the though of 4 more years of them. Let's move on!
January 8, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also have had enough of the Clintons but I'll sure as heck support against the Republicans. I think the press was unfair yesterday to Hillary and I think the short turnaround time to today influenced the vote.
January 8, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary lost any possibility of a vote from me when she voted for Kyle-Lieberman. The war has gone into the background for many voters but not for me. It's pathetic to think that people vote on whether she cries or not or whether some goofball pundit makes a snarky remark.
January 8, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason it has gone into the bkgrd is because the press, once again, gave HRC a free pass on that. Let's not forget how she snubbed the voters and told them if her war vote was the issue, then not to vote for her. Obama needs to raise the war differences again and create an ad with her saying those very words. Her saying those words, along with attacking that voter in Iowa when he asked how we could trust her following the K-L vote along with her crying jag should all be in one ad. With the caption, who is the real Hillary and which one can we trust.
January 8, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. And when David Axelrod had the temerity to suggest that bad decisions about war and peace might actually contribute to people dying, the Clinton protection squad screamed "no fair!" and the Obama campaign backed off.
January 8, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if Sen. Obama raises the issue of ther war and Sec. Clinton's votes, does he not risk creating problems for himself since their votes are almost identical and he was absent for the Kyl-Lieberman vote?
January 10, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, these substanceless, ephemeral reactions make me feel that people don't deserve to be governed well. I'm sure this cynicism will blow over, but it is hard not to be dismayed by the ease with which people can be emotionally manipulated, and the sheer frivolousness of it all.
Allegedly, women vote with their kids in mind. So I hope all of these women take a good look at their kids tomorrow, and reflect on the fact that if Aipac told "Hill" to stuff said mom's kid in a cannon, and shoot him in the general direction of Iran, Lady Clinton would ask "How much gunpowder?" That's what she did in effect to the 4000+ American kids who have been killed in Iraq.
So how about it Mom? Is all that carnage worth one touchy-feely moment?
January 8, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you bought Obama's spin about that one? Senator Levin voted for it as well and he is not noted for desiring to go to war with Iran. If it was open to misintepretation Hillary offered a no war with Iran measure as a counterweight to that misinterpretation.
Oh, and Obama whose charisma is going to bring us all together wasn't there and was blaming his absence on Harry Reid's son. Way to influence people.
January 8, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't need any Obama spin. I checked her vote and my own Senator's immediately. You are the one swallowing Hillary's spin. Hillary didn't offer any no war with Iran measure. She offered a weasel measure that would have required that Bush ask her permission and she would have given it as she did on Iraq. I totally don't trust her on war issues.
January 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more time: What crying jag? If you actually watched it you wouldn't call it that. There was no "crying jag." Quit doing the right-wing extremists work for them.
January 9, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her false mailers make me unsympathetic.
False claims about Obama's pro-choice record:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_abortion.php
Rove-style attack politics:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/ProHillary_mail_Be_very_afraid.html
DOVER, N.H. – Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow’s primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack – and that she would be the best person to handle it.
She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.
“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html
January 8, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as a historical aside, in modern times, most first-term presidents faced foreign challenges quite soon upon taking office. One exception was Eisenhower, but most of the others were challenged almost right away.
While I don't approve of fear as a tactic, after reading the Sibel Edwards (?) article over the weekend, I don't think it is out of line for any candidate to discuss this.
January 8, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Qaeda wants to provoke a U.S. overreaction. Bush attacking Iraq and overstretching our armed forces is exactly what they want. HRC assisted with her vote for the Iraq War.
HRC is way more likely to do something like that again than Obama, who has shown good foreign policy judgment.
January 8, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not about Pakistan he hasn't. Obama stated existing US policy in such a offensive way that he ended up front page in the Pakistani papers. See Juan Cole.
January 8, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ending up on the front page in the Pakistani papers says nothing about correctness of policy. We should discuss these matters openly before we vote.
Otherwise, it's more of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld "shut up and trust us."
January 8, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was shorthand for offending the majority of the Pakistanis by kicking their sovereignity in the goolies. The policy was an open secret -- he rubbed the Pakistanis faces in it and then wondered aloud "what did I say?". It was only later that this was recast as a brilliant new policy of letting the masses know that we respect their desire for democracy.
January 9, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Paid for by the unions no less. How much of this was responsible for the women's vote along with the crying jag and her pitiful whinning of 'I don't want to see this country go backwards' that was all for the female vote to beleive we would go back to back alley abortions and abortion would be outlawed.
January 8, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
'I don't want to see this country go backwards' jumped out at me too. Like, what have you been doing for the last seven years in the 100 club to stop the thrashing besides planning your presidential run?
January 9, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need to get your facts straight and learn how to spell. You're like a broken record, one with a really funny typo in it.
January 9, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you see, this is the Clinton victimology from which they continue to profit so unjustly. I also had to defend Clinton loyally during the nineties because of the ferocious right-wing attacks. I was determined not to let the right wing drive a Democrat from the White House. But I was inwardly disgusted at myself for doing it, because at bottom I had nothing but personal contempt for that undisciplined, compulsively lying lout in the White House who had seemingly groped every piece of tail from Pine Bluff to Pennsylvania Avenue, and whom I believed was just a master actor manufacturing phony populist theatrics for gullible audiences in the manner of Jimmy Swaggart, while selling out progressive causes day after day. He and his consort are cut from the same cloth: two intelligent, but cravenly ambitious creeps with giant holes in the place where most people keep their integrty.
I so wished that after I and others did our duty for the Party in the 90's by standing up for that slob, the Clintons would have the decency to go away, and not put us through another round of their slimy routine. But it was not to be.
January 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are NOT alone. Many of us who suffered through those years and having to defend the indefensible shudder at the very thought of having to endure that again. I was a staunch Hillary supporter and backed her and Bill constantly. I do not EVEN want to have to deal with all that muck and mire again it was just awful and nothing that they did during those years outweighs my personal agony of having to endure that all over again. I want a President I can defend on merit and have serious policy discussions not having to constant defend personal character attacks. ..which turn out to be TRUE!!! ...vastrightwingconspiracy..my ass!!!!
The Clintons had their turn, they need to move on for the good of the party. Step off the national stage and let the Democratic party emerge with a new face on the world stage to restore our moral high ground globally. We can never do that with Hillary in the oval office and Bill in tow. Hell, the rumors of his continued womanizing since she became a Senator are already started to circulate..it is only a matter of time before they become national front page news again. A serial womanizer does not change.
January 8, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your emotional dislike of Bill is clouding your ability to assess the evidence. When it comes to backing progressive policies Sen. Clinton is much better than is Barack Obama.
I had always thought of Sen. Clinton as a consistent liberal and the picture given by the Obama supporters never rang true for me. So I first heard that they had identical voting records on Iraq. Then I heard that Obama on joining the Senate conceded that he did not know how he would have voted on that resolution (and later deep-sixed that speech from his web site). Then I went to one of the how they vote sites and tried to do a side beside comparision of how they voted and came away with the feeling that they were very similar. Finally I found Progressivepunch.com which arranged the votes in a way that makes sense and found that my instincts were correct in the first place: Hillary votes much more liberally than does Obama.
Point at issue: Progressivepunch has a measure of whether or not a Senator votes with the progressives when the votes are close. Results: in 07/08 to date Clinton did so 87.93 % of the time ranking her 30th most progressive by this measure while Obama did so 77.11% of the time putting him 44th just above Lieberman at 75.84%.
This is a series of relatively obscure votes much less subject to manipulation than the big show votes.
January 8, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's voting to fund the war was the only responsible vote to support the troops having the necessary equipment. Hillary's votes parallel Baracks, as she is now in sync with all the members of congress who voted against the war. did you check those records? Think about it for a moment why does Hillary's voting record since the war match all those in Congress at the time who voted against the war.? Obama's voting record is no different than those who voted against the war.
I believe you are misquoting Obama. This is something that Bill Clinton has repeatedly said along with how his votes match Hillary. Do you listen to Bill a lot. Bill is trying to blur the differences between Hillary and Barack with regards to the war just as he claims he always opposed the war. That is not true. Obama has only said he did not know how he would have voted in response to Tim Russert on MTP when he was asked that question at the 2004 DNC. At that time, both nominees Kerrey and Edwards had voted for the war, so Obama demurred as a team player while adding that he did not believe the case had been made to go to war.
There is a big difference between voting to take this country to war and opposing the war from the very beginning. There is a big difference between voting against the bankruptcy bill and voting for it. There is also a big difference between affordable healthcare and mandated healthcare to support the insurance industry. I do not have the feeling in terms of character, leadership, judgment and integrity that Obama and Hillary are similar at all. Obama is not trying to present himself as experienced based on his spouse's achievements, either.
No Hillary is the least liberal of all the Democratic candidates. She is the most fiscally conservative and only rises to a level of 70% because of her votes on social issues. The Progressivepunch site uses obscure votes to distort Hillary's record and is unreliable. Obama is the most liberal candidate in the Democratic race at this point. The word progressive is misleading. It has only become in favor as a way for people to hide that they are liberal as the GOP made being liberal a dirty word. Progrssive seems to have whatever meaning folks choose to ascribe to it, as long as it isn't liberal.
January 8, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good debunking, puissant. The way AJM's argument is made rings totally false. No one randomly picks up on only the pro-Hillary lines. You do that on purpose with an intent to mislead.
January 8, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Progressivepunch in part because it does use obscure votes -- the ones where you vote your heart rather than the ones where you are trying to make an impression. It is too easy to predict how most rating organizations will treat the major votes and hence they can easily be used for spin. For example, the probable effect of Chief Justice Roberts in real life appears to have been of little concern to Obama but the impact on Obama’s political future did. Here, quoted on Barack's own site from the Wapo August 27,2007, is Barack's take on that nomination:
"[Obama] was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois democrat expressed his admiration for Robert's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were President he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.
And the Rouse, his chief of staff spoke up. This is no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obabma voted for Roberts, Rouse told him people would remind him of that every time the supreme court issued nother conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no."
Then there is Schiavo, Lieberman etc.
Ohiomeister you have been going around promoting Obama's view of his record on choice. Unfortunately, I missed the TPM posting and the links aren't working. Howabout providing some facts about the way you think it was distorted.
January 9, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me, his vote is what matters most. Given what you say occurred it also underscores Obama's consistent good judgment and ability to listen to dissenting views and make the right decision the first time. Using your same reasoning, let's look at the lack of good judgment on Hillary's part when it came to the most important vote a member of Congress makes to take this country to war.
Hillary was told that the NIE report, which she failed to read, did not make a case for WMD or to authorize the President to use military force. Hillary was told this by the ranking Democratic chairs of the Intelligence committe and Armed Services committe at the time, Graham and Levin, respectively who did read the NIE. Hillary voted for the AUMF. Additionally, whicle she claims she voted for time for inspections and diplomacy efforts the facts belie that assertion as just hours before she also voted no on an amendment by Levin which would have made Bush come back to Congress before using military force after the inspections were done. Hillary voted no for more time for inspections.
Judgment matters and when Obama is presented with clear evidence to the contrary he exercises good judgment., His statement on the Senate floor record as a constitutional scholar calls into question the way you present the circumstances and my recollection is that the blogsphere was anger about his unwillingness to filibuster Roberts nomination.. Obama stated he did not find that Roberts actions supported the constitution and that too many of Roberts decisions showed in siding with the interests of power over the powerless. Excerpt from Barack's Senator floor statement:
Hillary on the other hand clearly lacks judgment in spite of her intellect as she ignored the dissenting views of her senior ranking committee chairs despite her not even reading the NIE report. Her senate floor speech also does not match her vote. The statement on the floor says one thing but her ACTIONS vs. words say an entirely different thing.
Hillary just spent the last 72 hours telling us that actions matter more than words. When you look at her record it is easy to see why based on her actions she would think so, given her words and actions do not match. It is Hillary herself, who does not measure up to her criticisms of Obama.
Judgment matters..and Obama's actions match his words.
January 9, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The description of how Obama reached his decision was reported in the Washington Post and Obama placed it without objection on his own web site. We differ on interpretation -- his first -- gut instinct -- was to go with Roberts. Perhaps the considerations he announced on the floor drove his change of heart or perhaps they are only the window dressing he added to get maximum political advantage.
January 9, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
No we do not. You are asserting what you beleive was a part of the decision making process prior to the vote. I have provided the official record of his remarks from the Senate vote prior to him voting NO.
January 9, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. I was about to post the same, but you really nailed it. And yeah, the notion the Clintons are "liberal" is really a bad joke.
The Clintons are economically to the right of many moderate Republicans. The charter of the DLC, Bill's people, is based in the 90s strategy to steer the Democrats to be more accommodating to the ideology of supply side and deregulation.
The DLC rammed NAFTA down the throats of Congress, against a lot of resistance by progressive Dems, and Indies. And they did so with the full support of most Republicans. Same with deregulation, lack of effort on the environment, banking, energy markets, telecoms, and so on.
January 9, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
True enough, BC was hardly a great progressive president and he (and HRC) squandered through political mismanagement most of the opportunities he had, not to mention the embarassment of his Monica indiscretion. However, that does not mean that the right-wing did not go aftrer him/them or that Whitewate was anything but a SHAM SCANDAL.
January 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone changes his/her vote based on one 2-minute sound-bite, weepy or not; that person is ridiculous and should just stay home. Who in the hell votes for someone because they feel sorry for them? Or because after 20 years they show that they are "human?"
I can see how one might decide to vote against someone based on statements that show a deepened understanding of what that person believes (not previously known) but to switch TO a person because of a show of vulnerability? Get out of town!
Jan
January 9, 2008 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no Clinton fan, and that's why I agree with Larry's post here.
The media, by trying to change the story and crown Obama the victor, pissed off a lot of voters.
Obama exceeded expectations by winning Iowa and finishing a very close second in New Hampshire.
However, his large margin of victory in Iowa probably costed him a victory in NH, because the media decided to change the storyline.
I'm an Edwards guy (with Obama and Hillary almost tied for my second choice), so I have issues with the media because of their dismissal of John.
So Larry is right, the media dropped the ball on this one. But had they not, Obama would likely be giving a victory speech right now.
January 8, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it here. I think a sizeable number of NH voters decided that it was their patriotic duty not to let this thing end less than a week after it started and voted for Clinton just to prolong the thing a little. Also perhaps, as a way of giving the finger to the media and the pollsters.
Not the only factor - the women's vote was huge obviously, and the independents going to McCain - perhaps partly because they thought Obama was a lock all played a role, but just plain cussedness and not wanting a quick media coronation cannot be ruled out.
January 8, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, it's about time for everybody to be honest and respectful for the other side. Reporters should do it, but so should members of the same party who believe, more or less, in the same things. Stop it with "shills," and say, "supporters." Stop it with thinking everybody but you is driven by evil motives. People honestly disagree. All right? Stop sounding like the Savage show.
January 8, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you been paying attention? Larry came in here posing as an objective observer and then started pushing Hilliary talking points. When he denied being a hillary "supporter" I called him a shill. If he had been honest in the first place, we would have engaged him respectfully as one of her supporters. It was his call, he tried to play us as fools.
January 8, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got to be kidding me. TPM has been smirking up a storm for the past week about how the media underestimated Obama, and now you're telling us that the media screwed up in overestimating Obama. As if TPM were completely immune to the Obama bandwagon. Josh may not have been explicit, but there was a whiff of "I told you so" to every election entry this week. I'm getting sick of reading on this blog about how the media did this and the media did that without acknowledgment that, hello, TPM is media too and that TPM itself represented an Obama win in N.H. as a foregone conclusion.
January 8, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody needs to smack the crap out of you, Larry, for being such a miserable, dyspeptic, bloviating hack.
The media reported polls. Barack did a tremendous job in New Hampshire of pushing back a huge Hillary lead. That's the story but the media won't report it that way. Maybe somebody should "smack the crap" out of them, but it's little or nothing compared to your sicko "what drug is Barack Obama on" garbage. Get lost. Your fifteen minutes are long past.
January 8, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Normally, I would rate this post low and move on, but Larry has been pretty intense in his responses as well.
That said, I have heard that Larry is the type of guy that could kill two stones with one bird, so I would warn against trying to "smack the crap" out of him.
January 8, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The polls were accurate in Iowa. If they were accurate for New Hampshire, Obama blew a large lead in a short space of time.
January 8, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've put this out twice now in the last six months or so, I guess I'll just have to keep doing it.
The statistical theory of polling depends on the assumption that the sample selected is truly random ... it will thus have small random variations from the total population for which answers are being sought ... the exact definition of the margin of error is that 19 times out of 20, that variation will be plus-or-minus 3% (or whatever, the exact number being determined by ratios of the sample size to the total population).
THESE PHONE POLLS OF LESS THAN A THOUSAND PEOPLE ARE NOT REACHING A RANDOM SAMPLE IN THE AGE OF MESSAGE MACHINES AND CELL PHONES and fax lines and so on.
I have done a lot of business and political cold calling in recent years, I made almost a thousand calls for MoveOn.org in '06. If I got 13 actual people out of 100 attempts, I thought that was fantastic. When we were doing Connecticut it was more like 2 out of 100 calls actually reached a live person. (There is a real openness and friendliness in the Midwest that, you reached many more people there).
And out of the people I reached the number who didn't want to talk or didn't want to state their political preference was huge.
These polls are simply not reliable because the sample you can reach by phone is NOT representative of the population.
Look at those charts that are produced by graphing all the various polls. Because the sample is not representative, the actual margin of error is about 2 or 3 times the stated margin of error.
January 8, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention many polls, especially Zogby, are not without their own political agendas. Why TPM bothers to mention Zogby polls, in particular, boggles my mind.
January 8, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry called it on the nose. I still plan to vote for Obama in Florida but the media coverage would have made me vote Hillary.
If they back off, Obama has my vote. But if they continue this swiftboating of Hillary with MSNBC being the main agitators, Barack will suffer from the backlash.
January 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you must be really, really smart. You have set up a childish game and will let the MSM decide your vote!
Since you obviously don't want to take the time to actually THINK about who would be the best President, why don't you just use the I Ching?
But if they (the MSM) continue this swiftboating of Hillary with MSNBC being the main agitators, Barack will suffer from the backlash.
That'll show them! I'll bet the MSM will totally change when they find out the power they hold over your one vote!
Jan
January 9, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Swifboating is blatantly distorting someone's record contrary to the facts. How do you believe Hillary's record was factually distorted?
I recall that it was Hillary who refused to beat back the very restrictive abortion ban in South Dakota vs. Obama who advocated publically against it. Yet, Hillary sent out the mailer in NH distorting Obama's record based on his present votes which were a part of Planned Parenthoods strategy.He was the ONLY U.S. Senator who helped raise funds in 2006 to successfully repeal a South Dakota law that banned abortions. Senator Clinton refused to help in the effort. In fact, even EMILY’S List refused to help repeal the ban in South Dakota.
The record shows that the only swiftboating done was by Hillary and Emily's List against Barack.
Hillary needs to be asked the hard questions by women voters in terms of her lack of support for the ban on abortions to be repeal in S. Dakota.
January 9, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It makes sense that you shill for corporate America's favorite girl, since you used to work for an agency, the CIA, that spent the last 60 years running around the world doing corporate America's wet work. You sure do like the drug references as well...got any of the good stuff from Nicaragua laying around anywhere?
THIS ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE...and much sooner than anyone here is prepared for, I am certain. How did we get here? We got here because the regulations put in place after the Great Depression have been peeled away during the conservative ascendancy and corporate America was given carte blanche(look it up). And Hillary is going to put an end to this? Maybe you smoked all that Nicaraguan flake all by yourself if you believe that.
While you're looking up the definition of 'carte blanche' try looking up 'manners' as well jerkoff.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" -
Sinclair Lewis
January 8, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duck,
You are tossing around 1 ratings like candy. Take it easy...
January 8, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
DuckofDeath said:
Yep, people were lulled into a sense of security by these regulations, rightfully so; then Reagan came along.
January 9, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Compare and contrast pictures of Hillary right now on main page of pages of
Washington Post
New York Times
I linked directly to the pictures there now since the websites change them frequently. Thankfully, the NYT featured a nice picture. WaPo seems to delight in picking out the most unflattering picture of Hillary they can find from an event. I am sick of their pettiness.
January 8, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The WaPo was really blatant. The photographer caught Hillary in a forced social smile, but note how far her neck is twisted ("Hey. Hillary! Over here! Give me a smile!"); also note how the eyes are angled further right. See how the photographer first arranged extreme lighting or positioned himself to take advantage of it to produce exaggerated contrast so that the shading from facial relief goes all the way to the black of gaping crevices beneath the eyes and cheeks. On her left is a flaring light, but it is not the culprit light source. Here note how her right lapel shows the orientation of the light with respect to the line of her shoulders. Note that this is a narrow light source since the figure on her right is barely illuminated. The lighting and contrast portray Hillary as two-faced with a dark, hidden personality beside an icy public image. The use of an inappropriate focal length and a wide-open lens produces a very shallow focus and foreshortens the face into a mask. Terrible photo; great photographer.
January 8, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
scraig,
Did you also look into Putin's eyes and see his soul?
As Freud said: "Sometimes a picture is just a picture."
January 9, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Putin is off-topic and a poorly aimed ad hominem attack.
What I said is that too many technically challenging things were done right for the photo to be an accident; "just a picture" my ass.
January 9, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually liked the Wapo picture better. I think it is flattering, and her skin looks great. The NYT's photo has her doing that ridiculous clapping that she has thankfully put a lid on. I think the NYT photo is more the "I'm Hillary and I deserve to be your next President, so vote for me -- see that guy behind me? I was his first lady so I know everything about being President too" variety.
Jan
January 9, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
CDS?
I am not particularly enamoured with any of the candidates nor am I repulsed by any of them. What I dislike is how high-schoolish so many MSM reporters, analysts and editors are and how blatantly they attempt (and usually succeed) to construct narratives that determine our elections.
A news organization doesn't necessarly have to be impartial. However, the Washington Post is considered to be a "newspaper of record". If it wants to keep that designation, I think it should aim to be as unbiased as possible.
January 9, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what you mean by "CDS?"
That said, I still think tha Wapo picture was more flattering than the NTY picture.
So BIAS may jsut be in the eye of the beholder. I happen to be someone who never takes a good picture. I truly thought the Wapo picture was more flattering.
If you disagree, fine. I just don't think it rises to the level of A CONSPIRACY!!!!
Jan
January 9, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, I still think Obama would be a better candidate and president and I intend to continue the battle.
January 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, me too. And also for the record, she only won in a 3 way, squeakign by about 2 points, becasue Obama and Edwards are vying for the same votes.
In a two way, Obama beats Hillary in a blow out.
In a two way, Hillary beats Edwards.
January 8, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sour grapes don't become you or your candidate. He lost tonight but displayed a lot more class than you are in defeat. Don't give up, but you should admit your guy was beaten. It's not the end of the world.
I think Obama's best "excuse" tonight would be genuine independents who voted for McCain because they thought Obama was a lock. Had the polling been closer, they might have come to a different conclusion.
January 8, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sour grapes? Lol. Not even close. Unlike most people, I was always prepared for a close race in NH. Obama picked up huge gains in NH to Hillary's huge losses.
I already know what Hillary will do and what her odds are.
In fact, I've been saying for a while now that Hillary's only chance is to keep Edwards in. Which tonight proved. The reality remains that Edwards split the "change" vote but Hillary would lose badly in two-way vs Obama.
Even more hilarious is that her campaign knows this, and needs to downplay it for image. Which is why they just issued a press release saying it's a "two way race" now. Which couldn't be less truthful. Edwards just got 17%, and says he won't drop out, which is the only reason Hillary squeaked it. Sure he's never going to win, but he's he's splitting the majority with Obama.
:rolleyes: Her campaign is really something. Rove would blush.
Btw, this is the same way we got Kerry, who the party die-hards supported, who was supposed to defeat a weakened Republican, and just utterly bungled it due to a rather lousy record or triangulation, and weakness with moderates.
January 8, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Edwards helps Obama in splitting the white working class vote with HRC but hurts Obama by taking the "netroots" and similar types.
I honestly have no idea if it would help or hurt Obama if he dropped out but I think it would be better if it would. He's still a candidate though and should stay in... at least until he starts getting single digits. After that there's really no reason to continue--he's already made his point.
January 8, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happens to the delegates that Edwards is picking up in IA and NH. Does he control where they go. Are they bargaining chip for him at the DNC to determine the eventual nominee or his being on the ticket?
What does Edwards stand to gain by staying in the race?
January 9, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
A vigorous exercise of democracy, for one thing. I like that. That's one major reason I'm donating today, to help keep him in the campaign.
Josh showed a graph yesterday (I think) that showed Edwards picking up momentum in polls. With Iowa and NH basically cancelling each other out (hurray!), there's nothing to say Edwards couldn't pick up some momentum going into next month and maybe win a few states of his own. The only thing to stop him from doing that is a bunch of people whining that he's pulling votes away from Hillary or Obama.
No, he's winning his own votes.
January 9, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
My question was about the delegates he is gaining, not his winning votes. What happens to those delegates, do you know? If winning was his issue he would drop out. What is the value of the delegates are they bartering chips he can use to secure a cabinet post?
January 9, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards goes to the convention with those delegates voting for him in the first round. They only become a bargaining chip if Clinton or Obama would have a majority with the Edwards' delegates. It would mean that Edwards could be a "kingmaker" and even bargain for the VP slot.
Not sure it could happen. But we don't really have a clear 51% candidate yet and that 51% is what is needed to be a clear winner going to the convention. February 5th will be an interesting date.
January 9, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me three.
More importantly, since this is a race for delegates, they both receive the same number of delegates from NH.
January 8, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, that was pretty funny. When has anyone serious ever said that? Larry is just making it up as he goes.
January 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry's right, although his candidate is not mine. The MSM (and yes, sadly, TPM too) had taken one...ONE...result and turned it into an Obama coronation. Now they have another, conflicting results and they have to deal with two candidates! My God. (Let's not even mention the possibility of three candidates...the media would chew their own toes off from the stress/)
I am loving this. I hope voters across the country keep proving the media and the pollsters wrong, wrong, wrong. Two small states have had their say so far...good for them. Let's hear from the other 48. And yes, I'm in a "post Super Tuesday" state, and I really would like my vote to be counted.
--An infallible method of conciliating a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured. ~ Konrad Adenauer
January 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I have to say this, but I've got no choice.
Stop being an asshole, you're just not very good at it.
I know this must come as a shock, you've wasted years of practice, all those lessons, but frankly, it's time to give it up.
It's not personal. Some people try all their lives, they never get the hang of a foreign language. Some people can't play the guitar. Some people are lousy at golf.
You're just a terrible asshole, and you should just give it up.
Now, I'm sure you're shocked. What's so hard about being an ass? Should be easy as falling off a log. It should be, for some people it is. But you know what, it's like singing. Some people have pitch, harmony, clear smooth voices like wet silk drawn across a teenager's genitals. Some people open their mouths, and tone deaf squawking comes out. I'm afraid that you're a tone deaf squawker. It's just one of those things.
You lack wit, you lack perspective, you have no instinct for the jugular. At your best, you're a mean spirited flounderer. A true asshole wields a stiletto, searching for every chink in armour and wedging it into nerve clusters. They're fast, ruthless, full of tricks and traps. You're an angry guy slapping people with a large fish.
Look at this latest post. This should be a moment of victory, a series of elegant skewers to leave your victims sputtering with incoherent rage, and rage at the truth. What are you doing? You're playing defense. Still playing defense? What the hell are you thinking. What about your target? Do you even have one? No. At times you sort of seem to have one, but it all just decays into snippy paranoia.
And your barbs, oh my god. Typical example:
What the f***? I have to ask you: What the f***? What were you thinking? How is that any kind of acute metaphor? What's crack ever had to do with the Clinton's? Why would crack addicts care about the Clintons? Why would they dance? Did you give this even a little thought?
If you wanted a Clinton persecutor metaphor, you could have said something like "Dancing like Ken Starr discovering Monica Lewinsky's panty drawer." Or "Dancing like the Arkansas Project boys at a Linda Tripp cosmetic surgery fundraiser." "Or Dancing like poppa Bush scoring crack in front of the White House with Willy Horton."
As metaphors go, these are a bit clumsy and exagerated, and therefore not quite effective. But I'm not here to do your job for you. I'm just here to show where you should have gone with it.
About the only good thing to this screed is that you've finally come out of the closet as a Hillary partisan. Good for you. Nothing wrong with being a partisan and pushing your girl for all you're worth. Go for it.
But frankly, you're going to need to just leave off being an asshole cause its not working for you. Abandon the goofy attacks, focus yourself, make metaphors and analogy work for you instead of unbalanced flounders dragging you down. Abandon the nitpicking and dishonesty, avoid trivial attacks, and stop using a broad brush like it was a fine line marker.
Now go forth young man and sin no more.
Now go forth and stop mucking about.
January 8, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a nutshell, he can't help it.
But here's the thing, when the News Hour invited Larry to speak on the Plame affair, he said his bit, and then left the building. They didn't make him a regularly featured guest to opine on everything and anything.
January 8, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Entertaining, mildly pornographic metaphors but basically contentless.
January 8, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!!! And here I was, feeling unappreciated. Thank you.
You know, I thought about inserting some content, you know how it is. I didn't want to get too radical.
January 9, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great writing in a sarcastic cause, a five for spirit, a two for accurate description of reality, lots of laughs.
January 9, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I could go back to the "why doesn't Edwards drop out" line for a second ...
Because two states isn't the whole deal? Before Iowa it was "Hillary!" After Iowa it was "All over, Obama wins!" Now after NH it's either back to "Hillary!" or "obviouse toss up / brokered convention!" Is it totally impossible that after the next week the "obvious" predictions will have changed again?
Yes, I'm aware Edwards is not leading or surging or anything and that the odds are against him. But we do know that being the front runner tends to draw negative media attention. I can't wait for The Huck or the Forked Tounge Express to implode in the glare of media attention.
As long as Edwards is positive towards the other Dems and rips on the Repubs, it isn't a bad thing for him to hang around for a month.
Besides, he could pick up the Richardson vote. (Yes, a joke.)
JohnN gyroscope.jpnordin.com
January 8, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why the polls were so wrong but the obvious misogyny of the past two days is a big part of it; the big number of undecideds was too; and maybe the Bradley effect had something to do with it. Not very clear yet.
Barack Obama is a very interesting candidate but he's got to get more specific now. How is the change going to come? I love the oratory and the possibility of generational shift in our politics. But its now time to explain his approach to health care, climate change, family leave, the Supreme Court, Iraq withdrawl, labor policy, fixing the impending recession. All of it. Connect the transformative rhetoric with actual policy and programs.
January 8, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most polls are telephone polls. Increasingly, people don't have land line telephones, with phone numbers easy to grab. Instead they have cell phones, and young people are by far the most likely to have cell phones as their only phone. So any telephone poll is distorted by being largely limited to land line phone owners, who can be expected to be more likely to be Clinton supporters than Obama supporters. That, Mr. Johnson, is a probable contributer to the mistaken polls. Occam's Razor?
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 8, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor sure why the polls blew it so badly. My preferred option is that Obama blew a big lead.
Polls used to use random numbers which I presume would reach cell phones. The other method of correcting biases in who can be reached is to set quotas for specific categories. For example, if you know that there are 100 20 year olds using cell phones you can't reach you call until you reach 100 extra 20 year olds by land lines. This works only if you have data showing that 20 year olds vote the same whether or not they have cell phones.
I presume that the polls have sophisticated methods for counteracting some of these biases.
January 8, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is a little unfair to go after the media on this one.
By all accounts, even the Hillary campaign itself was essentially convinced that it was going to lose big on this one.
There really just was a major disconnect between what pollsters thought the polls were telling them and what actually turned out.
Some people are attributing this to the Bradley effect, in which poll respondents tell the pollster they are voting for a black candidate when actually they vote for a white one.
The problem with that explanation is that the cases I have ever heard of are cases in which the socially acceptable candidate is a black -- in the cases I've heard of, a Democrat -- and the white candidate is a troglodyte -- i.e., a Republican. People simply don't want to admit that they are voting for the troglodyte, so say they're voting for the black candidate.
I just don't see how that dynamic might play out between Hillary and Obama. What voter would ever be embarrassed to admit they are voting for Hillary (obviously a woman, and therefore breaking ground herself), and would feel obliged to say they're voting for Obama instead? It just doesn't make a bit of sense.
January 8, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really does sound fishy.
January 8, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once, a long time ago, an aging, grizzled, Spanish communist, veteran of their civil war, gave me this pearl of wisdom,
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 8, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The polls were right about the Republican field, no surprises there.
In the Democrat field, Edwards got what the polls said he was supposed to get.
Obviously the voters were not telling the pollsters what they really thought about Hillary and Obama. Was it racism? Probably.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 8, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the polls got it mostly right. They got the Republican side right, and they get Edwards and below on the Democratic side right.
The big losers aren't polls or pollsters, but rather, the Mainstream Media, who shoved their own self-righteous BS into voters. It's about time they got served.
January 9, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it wasn't racism. New Hampshire is certainly no more racist than Iowa, and the polling in Iowa was accurate.
I think we know by now what happened. The polling in new Hampshire was essentially completed by Sunday night, and none of the polls showed such a huge gender gap. But Clinton cried on Monday, and now there is a huge gender gap in the actual New Hampshire results. And we are hearing a lot of women in interviews saying they voted for Clinton because the other guys ganged up on her. The crying clearly worked.
January 9, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
January 9, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something appears to have happened on Monday to create a gender gap which was not apparent in polls completed on Sunday. After the Rasmussen and CNN/WMUR polls showed Obama had pulled even with women, women then went heavily for Clinton in the primary voting.
January 9, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not know about this deduction, it just sounds too pat. Penn, whose job was on the line and had been touting women as the demographic to carry Hillary all of a sudden looks like a guru in NH despite Hillary losing the women vote in IA? It just does not sound right, particularly when you throw in the record turnout and look at the size of the crowd that was there for Hillary's 'upset' speech (pun intended). What happened to all those folks who supposedly switched and came out for her, they didn't stay around to savor their 'thumb the their noses at the sexist media' victory? That just would not be human nature. On the other hand there was a massive turnout for Obama. It just doesn't add up, that the only folks the polls had wrong were Obama and Clinton no matter when the polls were taken.
It kinda smells like vote rigging. Especially as they both wound up with the same number of delegates.
Isn't the real story here that Obama after being down in the polls for months came withing 2 points of winning against veteran politicians and the powerful Clinton machine complete with smear attacks?
January 9, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're serious?
January 9, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of pundits and posters have made a big assumption here. How many women are really supporting Hillary just because of the tears - isn't this just more media spin?
Let's face it: Hillary's domestic policy history, especially as far as issues involving women and children, is great and may be the real reason many women will vote for her. Don't forget that she's responsible for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and other family-friendly legislation. I don't support her because I agree with you that her approach to foreign policy is way too hawkish. But let's not devalue those women voters who may have looked at her domestic policy record and made a rational calculation to support her on that basis. Why assume that their vote is based upon "ephemera" by citing the example of women who may have voted for her because of the tears when we have no evidence that sort of thing is at all representative of the majority of women who voted for her?
Although I don't agree with many of Steinem's conclusions in her NYT editorial, she does make some good points.
Also, there's a good discussion of the issue by younger feminists here.
What Obama and Edwards both need to do is make the case that her good domestic policy record is not sufficient when weighed against her foreign policy record, which affects women and children too, as you point out. Snarky comments and the devaluation of the motives of Clinton's women supporters are a big mistake - we'll need those voters in November, no matter who our eventual nominee may be.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
HOw is Hillary responsible for SCHIP? Hillary was not even an elected official when this legislation was passed. This is a very often repeated assertion by Hillary but there is no evidence that she was responsible for this legislation. Just how is she taking credit for it do you know?
I thought this post was a very good opposing view to Steinem's op ed.
January 9, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link to the discussion, Wordie.
As a women's libber from back in the days when MS Steinem (and feminist icon Erica Jong) were in the media eye due mainly to their sexual attributes, I was disgusted by her call to reinforce the counterproductive notions of tokenism. Gloria hasn't learned a damned thing and that she thinks the women between 50-60 who voted for Hillary are "radical" proves how clueless she still is.
The discussion among the young-uns cheered me up as the majority of them rejected her nonsense and give me......here it comes.......
HOPE!!!!
January 9, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
really, this result doesn't make much sense (except in a sketchy manner). indies broke Dem, and largely for Obama, so they said. Dems preferred Hillary, and 66% said they had decided who they were voting for long before the Iowa Caucus, so that's a big chunk for Hillary. I just don't understand who these people are who inspired by another Clinton candidacy, I just don't get it. According to Larry Johnson, Obama hasn't been part of any "genius" legislation - I would disagree specifically on ethics reform, and there's a lot from his Ill. Senate time in the same vein. on the other hand, Clinton, into her 2nd term as Senator, certainly doesn't have any major legislation passed on her record either, and has the ignominious shame of having vote both for the war in Iraq, and in favor of increased military tensions with Iran. I see no reason to support Clinton over either Obama or Edards. and Edwards himself has said that he and Obama are the "change" candidates, so to people claiming to be pro-Edwards, how seriously do you take what he says???
January 9, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who in God's name is Larry Johnson? Does he exist anywhere but here at the Cafe. I mean, he can't write. He uses foul language. He's a hack. I am not a snob but this guy is like some talentless drunken loudmouth. A really low-rent Archie Bunker.
I love the lumpenproletariat as much as the next guy but Jesus! What a slob.
January 9, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What happened to Hillary?
How about this?
Hollywood doesn't write any good parts for middle aged, American women... Hollywood's message to them is "drop dead" and in today's world of corporate concentration and infotainment, Hollywood and the news media are of one flesh.
However, look around you, there are many middle aged American women with a few extra lines around their eyes, with some furrows in their pucker, with a bit of sag in the chin, and with a little "rope" in the neck muscles, but who, somehow -- malgré Hollywood -- don't want to drop dead, just yet... and they can vote.
I have spent my whole life trying enthusiastically, but none too successfully, to understand women, but what little I have managed to learn tells me that it would be very difficult for a middle aged woman to join in publicly ridiculing and humiliating another middle aged woman... the empathy would be just too strong. That humiliation and ridicule are always just beneath the surface in too many places, even in their own homes, available to them all.
And beyond middle age, despite all the talk of a "youth crusade" around Obama, the old folks are the ones that really vote. Women live longer than men, so that among the elderly, women outnumber men, that means more women voting in the group with the highest voter participation.
So Hillary has been saved by her sisters, they rode to her rescue like the 7th cavalry in an old western... "Joan Wayne" saved Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 9, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having just witnessed a 3-month-long office war between two middle aged female managers, I have to respectfully disagree. They can be as ruthless as anyone else. The only thing that matters is power.
January 9, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is not middle aged. She is sixty. The demographic that is middle age would not admire her crying and weeping in public to get a sympathy vote. It would be seen far more likely as an age old sexist power play for a women to get her way based on emotions because she lacks any real validity in her argument or position. This would be especially so if she was right on the fact but deeply disliked despite the facts. Hillary fits the latter and her tears would not work with independent self reliant women who are achievers based on their own merit and not their spouses power and influence.
January 9, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares abut the polling! What we have seen is the best possible outcome for these early contests.
This sets up a contest that will test the mettle and organizational skills of the contenders. This is exactly what is needed so the voters have the greatest opportunity to make an informed decision. I can think of no more advantageous situation for the country, particularly at this time in our history, than to have a chance to objectively measure each candidate. No matter how nasty or ugly it may get from here we'll see how each candidate performs under pressure.
Now it is up to us to pay attention to what the candidates do and remember that the pollsters and pundits do not have the final say once we step into the voting booth. And we should by no means blindly listen to either. Much better we expend a little effort in examining the candidates and make a personally informed choice. At least that way if there is any bias in our decision it will be ours and not that of somebody we don't even know. And if we're lucky, unlike 2000 and 2004, perhpas this time it'll all be above board.
January 9, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The polls weren't wrong, except for the percentage which went for Senator Clinton--which came from the undecided camp. Many of these voters were probably women, and may have gone with Sen. Clinton even if they didn't agree with her--New Hampshire's ornery streak coming out.
Compare the actual numbers with the numbers at http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
BC
January 9, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The undecideds broke evenly for Obama and Clinton, so that doesn't explain it.
January 9, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
delete
January 9, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
where do you get that the undecideds broke evenly? Just saw something different on Olbermann. In many of the incorrect polls he showed that Obama got the percentages predicted by the polls, with Clinton showing a sharp rise close the numbers of undecideds predicted by the polls. That would seem to contradict what you're saying.
January 9, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over the weekend, this humble contributor predicted incorrectly that Obama would win in New Hampshire, but I also predicted that there would be a real contest at least through Super Tuesday. And now it appears that such a contest will take place.
It was a great victory for Obama and the country in Iowa and it was a great victory for Clinton and the country in New Hampshire.
I see lots of explanations about Hillary's win last night up above, very little of which credits the various Americans who have historically made up the liberal coalition in this country, starting with working people, real working people, who said a resounding NO last night to pundits and Clinton haters on both sides of the American political spectrum.
As I also wrote last weekend, we should all buckle up and get ready for the campaign this month. The heck with Hardball, let's play democracy.
Bruce
January 9, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course issues are important.
But do not underestimate the change in American consciousness if and when we elect our first female president. Also the consciousness of the world in their perception of the US will change.
While biology is certainly not destiny it does indeed count. Ignore it at your peril.
The global rise of the FEMININE in both men and women is a huge unstoppable megatrend which serves to counter the pathology in today's world.
GO HILLARY!
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com
January 9, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Thanks for doing this post. It is important. I have been a lone voice in the wilderness on why Hillary lost in Iowa and it was close in NH with a win for Hillary. In NH the undecided vote broke 40 30 for Obama, so it was NOT evenly split. Registered dems broke 45 - 33 for Hillary. This is a big gap. So the people who registered as dems on vote day created a big swing for Obama, but it was not enough.
Both Iowa and NH were open elections, i.e. you could register and vote same day. Given in Iowa there were 240K Dems voting and only 120K Republicans I think it has to be asked where the extra republicans went. Remember Bush won in Iowa 3 years ago. Given the "STOP HILLARY" movement it is probable that some number of Republicans regeistered as a Dem and voted primarily for Obama to stop Hillary. Given it was not a primary but a caucus it is easy for a relatively small number of these votes to swing the election. It is less effective in a state like NH since it is a primary and not a caucus.
The press loves the story but with the explanation that these new Dem voters are republicans but they are swiching so they can vote for Obama. The thing not addressed is the motivation. They like to think it is because of Obama's star power and ability to cross over and get people from the Republican side to vote for him. I do not think there will be double the number of Dem voters on election day. Many of these new Dem voters will go back and vote for the GOP. Sounds like a Rove plot. Kill Hillary because the GOP would rather run against Obama rather than Clinton.
January 9, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not true: the GOP really wants to run against Clinton (among other things, to bring up their turnout in the--possibly vain--hope of keeping the Dems from getting close to 60 seats in the Senate). They are scared to death of what Obama could do to break up the 50+1 national strategy the Republicans have been counting on since 2000.
January 9, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Dan K that a blip upward from crying or from women who "identify" with Clinton isn't something that makes one feel people deserve to be governed. It's indistinguishable from Bush is a guy you can have a beer with.
I will say, though, that it won't be easy to obtain a population ready for governance in this media circus, and as hateful as the system that privileges narratives centered around Iowa and New Hampshire is, at least the voters in New Hampshire didn't just buy the official story. I watched CNN for an hour, from 6 to 7 pm, and it was basically an extended Obama ad. Every words was about his lead, his character, and why he will be hard to beat. It was sometimes contrasted with Clinton as underdog.
I'd say he got 2:1 in mentions, but all his were positive and hers were mixed. Meanwhile, Edwards may have got one mention the entire hour, in contrast to Times coverage earlier in the week more about a three-candidate race with Clinton as most in danger. The fact that a single voter went for Edwards or that Clinton won is darn near heartening, and I don't actually like Clinton. I just want her to lose fair and square.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 9, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are polls being taken right now on how the polls were so wrong in the NH primary.
January 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found former President Bill Clinton's savaging of Barack Obama's "hope" message only too typically trashy for the former "Man from Hope" (Arkansas) himself. The bungling bomber of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade Yugoslavia simply has no shame.
As for the important demographic facts, Ross Perot twice split the Republican ticket and allowed Bogus Bill to slip into the presidency. John Edwards may perform the same service for You-Know-Her in the Democratic Party primaries. He couldn't carry his home state of North Carolina for John Kerry any more than Al Gore could carry his home state of Tennessee for himself. If he really hated monolithic corporate fascim in America as much as he says he does, John Edwards would drop out and throw his support behind Senator Obama. Both Barack Obama and party chairman Howard Dean have shown that they can grow the Democratic Party from the bottom up. The DLC Clintons have only proven capable of dividing up the Democratic Party and the country from the top down and for themselves.
The Clintons will sell out the anti-war "left" for their corporate Republican sponsors (or a ride in Poppa Bush's boat) just the minute they think they can. Whenever you hear You-Know-Her qualify her "troop withdrawal" proposals with the euphemistic "the right way" dodge, think Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and "Peace WITH HONOR" -- which means no peace and at lest five more years of stupid, senseless, dishonorable war on the Iraqi people and the American treasury, too.
No health care or education or jobs-creation policies have a ghost of a chance while Warfare Welfare and Makework Militarism -- "the right way" -- continue bleeding the American economy dry. Guns AND Butter has never put butter on any American bread except for those who profit from selling guns to our "government." And the Chinese have had just about enough of loaning us money for our deadbeat, free-lunch wars only to watch us try to screw them out of their return-on-investment by cutting the interest on our "full faith and credit" treasury bills and devaluing the dollar. Without ending the stupid, self-destructive, War on Iraq in the very next, six-month Friedman Unit (or F.U.) -- meaning in real time -- America will lurch into resession, stagflation, and worse. No amount of smarmy weeping and/or shouting at the "mean old media" will do anything to solve America's problems without bringing home America's marooned, militia-bribing military from Iraq where they don't belong and can't ever, ever, ever "finish" anything.
Legend has it that lip-biting Bill could cry crocodile tears out of the corner of one eye. You-Know-Her can apparently cry them out both corners of both eyes -- precisely when the "mean old media," who fawningly kissed her corporate ass for over a year, stop kissing. Trawling for mawkish, mauldlin sympathy has always characterized the Partners in Pathos. Blacks and the anti-war "left" will get jobs-losing globalization, "Welfare Reform," and endless colonial militarism "the right way" if the Bawl and Pillory Horror Picture Show manages to "feel" too much more of the pain they just can't resist causing.
January 9, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The media headlined Hillary's teary blow-up, but when I watched (and there were many opportunities to watch) the conference, I saw someone who when asked a personal question, took the questioner seriously, gave a personal, even intimate, answer, and showed that she deeply cared about what she was doing. I'd bet the incident and the saturation airplay was worth several per cent in the election.
January 9, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't Hillary's tears -- it was Obama's shrug
No one, male or female, young or old, Left or Right, has trouble recognizing, and applauding, the historic, inspirational aspects of Barack Obama's campaign.
But this campaign season has shown that men, including the leading male Democratic candidates and their mostly male campaign advisors, may be having difficulty fully recognizing, and effectively acknowledging, how historic and inspirational Hillary Clinton's campaign is for women.
That failure to grasp what the first serious female Presidential candidacy means for women, including those who are not committed Clinton supporters, or fully decided on any candidate, had consequences in New Hampshire.
For instance, if the Obama camp had been able to put themselves in the shoes of women, to see the campaign through their eyes for a moment, Obama might not have missed the opportunity handed to him in the New Hampshire debate, when Clinton was questioned about her "likeability" -- a question that, for women, resonated with all the age-old dismissals of public women and their attractiveness. He would have known that he needed to strongly and immediately denounce the cringe-making, sexist nature of the inquiry. He would have understood that it wasn't Hillary's likeability that needed defending -- with a shrug and a diffident, "You're likable enough" -- but a woman candidate's right to be taken seriously, and engaged with, seriously. He would have known that it wasn’t about standing up for Hillary, a strong and able competitor, but about demonstrating that he would stand with the women whose votes he seeks and needs.
Today's women, especially those of Clinton’s generation, have spent most of their lives bushwhacking into new territory, without guides or guideposts. They understand that competing against a woman is mostly new, and therefore tricky, territory for male politicians. They're willing to forgive a few mistakes, but not too many. Both Obama and Edwards made rooky mistakes in, at times, appearing to take cues on how they should compete against a woman from the mostly clueless, still male dominated, media. They also allowed themselves to be lulled into over-estimating how much the orgy of over-the-top negative coverage of Clinton could benefit them. Now they’ve been given a chance to get a clue from women voters themselves.
If they know how to listen, here is what they’ll hear; they have to take every opportunity possible to disassociate themselves from the boy’s club discomfort with a woman in the tree house that characterizes too much of the coverage of Clinton’s candidacy -- and run like men who fully understand the respect women have earned.
Male candidates can be reassured that women won’t vote for a woman just because she is a woman. But it’s past time for them to wake up to the full implications of this; increasingly, women don't have to vote for men simply because they have no other choice.
January 9, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullcrap. The men perhaps choose not to acknowledge as none of them are running as historical hispanic or black candidates either. Did you ever thng about that? First off Hillary is not the first female to run for President in this country. Chisholm and Braun preceeded her.
Pshaw. Women are no more of a monolithic group than blacks or hispanics are. Give me a break. The NH vote outcome in time will be determined to have been due to massive voter fraud just like FL and OH.
Boy. You sure do have this twisted. The truth is that it would have totally SEXIST for Obama to have PRESUMED that attractiveness WAS the issue. More importantly, most folks who have been exposed to Hillary over the years know and understand that her likeability has zilch to do with her gender and everything to do with her character as an INDIVIDUAL. She is not a likeable PERSON. People dislike her as a HUMAN BEING. She is a powergrubbing, calculating, polarizing, vindicative individual none of which are attributes soley exculsive to the female gender. There are men like that also. Obama was in fact being gracious given the known negative attributes of her pesonality by acknowledging that she was INDEED likeable enough.
How young are you to be spouting this sexist rhetoric? There is no one on the political scene who does not take Hillary seriously, she is a known poliicy wonk. Her intellect and competence as a professional are not issues, nor are they called into question, ever. Rather it is her judgment, integrity, humanity and empathy for others which is her problem. Hillary's likeability doesn't have a darn thing to do with her appearance. Nada. Perhaps, these are issues for you as a female but most women who are not likeable it is not about appearance rather it is their attitude and/or personality as individuals that makes them unlikeable. Especially when folks vehemently dislke them as is the case with those who are polarizing. It ain't about their looks!
So you are wrong about what Obama knew. He knew that her likeabilty had nothing to do with her looks and everything to do with her character. Thus his gracious response that she was 'likeable enough.' Nothing about the response was dismissive of Hillary, if anything it was dismissive of the assertion being made that she was 'not likeable' and empathic to her 'that hurts my feelings' snark.
I disagree. The way for Obama to demonstrate he stands with women is not by being effusive about Hillary as his political rival (let's not forget they are opponents in a debate) but rather by how he votes. Women who are intelligent and serious know that Obama is a staunch supporter of womens issues and in fact was the only sitting Senator who held a fund raiser to repeal the most restrictive abortion ban in S . Dakota. Hillary did not advocate for the repeal of the ban nor did Emily's List. So, as far as women being bright and smart and knowing the candidates if they check Obama's record any such skepticism of where he stands would be erased. Unless, they listened to Hillary's scurrilous attacks that have misconstrued his record without recognizing that was a nasty smear tactic on her part as his political rival. In fact, it is a classic example of why Hillary is NOT likeable and underscores just how gracious Barack was being when he said that she was likeble enough.
Perhaps, it is just women who are uninformed about Baracks record that fall for these dirty politics as Barack surely understands that he needs and seeks womens votes and has a record to demonstrate he has EARNED their votes by his legislative record. Did you even bother to check it?
This is nothing but sexist female victim rhetoric. Male politicians have been competing against female politicians for decades. Female politicians that is who have actually achieved on their own merit that is and have no reason to claim their spouse's experience like Boxer, Feinstein, Dole, Pelosi, Waters etc..all have had male opponents. Again, how young are you? I am of Clinton's generation and there were plenty of guides and posts along the way, if you chose to look for them. Just because we were trailblazers does not mean that we all thing Hillary is a historic candidate. Lots of us believe she is the absolute worst role model to be held up as historic anything as she has not achieved on her own personal merit but rather has attempted to pigback a career on her spouses power and influence. Which is anything but new territory for women. It is the antithesis of female individual achievement.
O please, just stop it with this archaic and arcane gender stupid rhetoric. Are you leaving the doll house and all your Barbies behind? Is that what it takes for you to fully understand and respect how to be a competitor regardless of your gender? Did you throw out everything pink, also? How about burning your bra? Did Monica make you discard your thongs, too? Having done all that do you think you will have earned the respect of men?
Did you really mean to say here that as long as you have a choice to vote for a women you will soley on the basis of gender? If so, that would have saved you about 5 paragraphs. As one female the only thing you can assure men of is of your vote alone.
January 10, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really. Do you know what the question was that Hillary was asked? Hillary was queried about her personal appearance. Did you realize that? The woman asked Hillary 'how did she do it, how did she keep herself looking so well, and get out the house each day looking well kept...who does your hair?" is what the women asked. Who. does. your. hair., that's it.
THAT was the question, totally female, about HRC's appearance that was the personal question.
Hillary never answered the woman.
Instead she went on a tangent talking about how personal politics was for her! She turned the question into something entirely different.
Now, why did a question about appearance cause her to tear up, a question not from a sexist male but from a female...you know ...woman to woman. Recall, this was an all female, billed as intimate, gathering ..15 women...described as intimate despite every major news network being there to capture the 'intimate moment' which Hillary then turned into a very contrived referendum on her, how 'deeply she cared', and how hard it is on the trail so tough in fact, that a question about her hair and necessitated her to 'tear' up?
Please!
Hillary totally played the gender card, purposely, deliberately and entirely scripted moment of 'human weakness'. She stayed on message and gave all her talking points while she was so 'overcome' emotionally.
The woman who asked the question about 'who does your hair'...voted for Obama.
She didn't buy the drama, But of course, she was a female of Hillary's generation and she knew it was nothing but pretense.
January 10, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I looked at the clip again. You lie.
January 11, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The parranoia maggots are eating on my brain. I worry that this pre-empts any chance that exit polls that turn out to be wrong over and over again next time will not be given any credence at all.
While I am oly 99% certain that the 2000 election was stolen and would bet that 2004 was also, I am 100% certain that Republicans [enough of them] proved, beyond resonable doubt, that they are willing to brazenly steal an election.
January 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans know that if they steal an election its then up to them, the Government, to investigate the election.
Pretty neat, heh?
January 9, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know it has been a long, long time since the Iowa caucus, but I have a pretty good memory. In those caucuses supporters of those candidates who were "non-viable", Kucinich and Richardson, had to either leave or switch to a viable candidate. Most switched to Obama. That gave Obama his victory in Iowa.
If you take Kucinich and Richardsons votes in NH and assign them to Obama, roughly simulating an Iowa style caucus, you get the same result as in Iowa. Mystery solved.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 9, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard conflicting reports on how much agreement there was between the exit polls and the poll results.
First, the number of undecideds were similar to what is the case before the NH (typically early) primary vote. The whole slew of polls (more than 1/2 dozen of them) all placed Obama at least 7-10 points ahead of HRC. The overall differential then, was upwards of 10 points between the CONSENSUS of poll results from the FINAL polls, and the reported results of the vote.
Whenever this happens in some OTHER country, it is typical and perfectly mainstream to cite it as powerful evidence, if not proof, of election fraud. But NEVER in the US (just like the chances of a spaceship containing radioactive materials -- the chances of it coming down aren't the scientific 1 in 70, but instead the bureaucratic "NEVER" -- all fiat.) But here in the US they don't admit to the fiat so they just say that anyone who doesn't agree is 'conspiracy theory' or 'tin foil hat' thinking.
On the exit polls, in 2004, as in Ohio, apparently CNN made some changes in (fudging) the results, including what was reported. Some people managed to save the 'disappeared' pages on the web before the "TRUE" results were put out (true being those that concluded it was a sufficiently honest). In this election, there are differing reports about the exit polls. Some show wide variance EVEN BETWEEN THE EXIT POLLS AND THE ELECTION RESULTS, AS THERE IN FACT WAS IN OHIO 2004. But then again, the powers that pee cannot be wrong, and you dare not go into the "room 19" (as in the 60 minutes episode about the Kremlin after the fall of the USSR) in OUR system, only those of our adversaries.
That's the meaning of 'truth' and 'free speech' in this system in practice.
I would be interested in some balanced analysis of the details of various exit poll results and WHY THE REPORTS DIFFER AMONG THEM as to whether the reported results were accurate or not.
Simply assuming that 'conspiracy theories' are false, Gitlin-style, is no less romantic than assuming (as with the 9/11 horses*&)( movement that calls itself the 9/11 truth movement) conspiracy theories MUST be true.
January 9, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is clearly massive voter fraud. There is a post on TPM-EC which says that the paper ballots for Barack match the polls with him having a decided 8point lead over Hillary. However, the optical scan ballots all show a heavy lead for Hillary. That type of statistical variance based on the type of ballot is simply not a random occurence, and screams voter fraud.
2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand: Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes) Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)
Hillary LOST the paper ballot count but WON the optical scan ballot count. Obama WON the paper ballot count but LOST the optical scan ballot count.
Another link showing the same discrepancy between paper and optically scanned ballots.
January 9, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, thank you for bringing this up. BradBlog has a Chi Tribune story coming out that raises the same unanswerable questions.
Cui bono?
January 9, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The search for blame has now shifted to the thousands of media hounds, the pack which descended on the state ostensibly to cover what was happening, who failed to detect any sign of the mini-quake in HRC's favor over the last two days. Some are blaming white voters for saying they would vote for Obama, then not doing so (is that some sort of crime--like perjury, or a hate crime?)
I have another explanation, which goes to the heart of the problem with these opinion polls. David Brooks on the Lehrer Report pointed to the problem, though he provided no solution. Fact is that the exit polls asked voters when they had decided for whom they would vote, and those that said they decided in the last two days split evenly between Obama and Clinton.
My hypothesis--for which I have no proof and which would be very difficult to prove in any case--is that the shift did occur, but the women voters were somewhat inaccurate about when they decided for whom they would vote. They'd been thinking about Clinton vs. Obama (or Clinton vs. Edwards, especially, I'd say) or Clinton vs. Romney or whatever. The "weemo" pushed them over the edge in their decision, but they didn't acknowledge it as such in the polls (the rationale following after the action).
There's no deceit involved because they were different people taking the polls before and afterward. If they had been the same people, they might have recognized what answer they had given before and acknowledged the change in their view. The conclusions are:
1) Exit polling on the post hoc rationale for actions is likely to come up with self-deceiving answers. There's no way to check on this, and it is simply a product of human nature to invent a rationale afterward which does not accurately portray their semi-rational choice of a candidate in the voting booth.
2) New Hampshire voters insist on defying expectations--we've seen it time and again. It's the "live free or die" thing; in this case they gave Hillary the opportunity to live free and they "died"--sacrificed their interest.
But no harm done, really; Hillary was always going to stay in the race (contrary to what John Edwards dreamed after Iowa), and I would have expected her to rally herself at some point; Obama had to taste defeat somewhere along the way, and better to get it out of the way early.
It's still down to California, as I've always thought.
see http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com
January 9, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
its really good Canlı Sohbet | and soo nice | Canlı Chat
February 27, 2011 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v vhd, iscsi multiple connections
April 11, 2011 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of database high availability
May 5, 2011 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink