Results Open Thread
With about 40% of precincts reporting, McCain has won and the Dems are too close to call.
As Josh PERMALINK | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Advertisement
With about 40% of precincts reporting, McCain has won and the Dems are too close to call.
As Josh PERMALINK | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
I'm not sure but I think Triangle Man beats Particle Man. And the average Person man doesn't vote.
Obama's going to win the Democratic nomination. Hillary's self-immolated and the emotional approach is too late, too contrived and unlikely to convince people she really does empathize other than to win and obtain control. When you have to convince everyone you really, really do care about the country, it sounds like you've already lost.
If I were a Democrat, I'd vote for Obama.
If I were a Republican, I'd vote for Huckabee.
Since I'm neither, I don't really have a candidate. A large number of the most qualified people are qualified in part because they do not want power and aren't geared toward clawing for it.
January 8, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really see how Obama wins the nomination. His main demographic is the under 40 crowd particularly college age or recent grads. And while I'm very excited to see he has gotten record numbers of them active, and this bodes very well to the longterm social direction of the country, I don't see that group as whole coming out even with portions very hot and bothered in the number of the over 40's and particular the very reliable over 65s.
If you look at the CNN Iowa and NH exit and entrance polls you see they pulled the same demographics each primary, but Clinton pulled more of hers in NH, which matches the traditional patterns nationally.
smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/
January 8, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"His main demographic is the under 40 crowd particularly college age or recent grads. "
Not true. He does especially well among them, and with educated Democratic professionals, but does well with all demographics and breaks about even with Hillary across the spectrum. The exception is elderly women who break overwhelmingly for Hillary.
Also, Edwards does well with blue collar, and splits the "change" voting bloc. But Obama is their second choice. And the "change" bloc is almost 2/3 of the total.
In a two way race between Obama and Hillary, it's a blowout, with Obama getting blue collar, professionals, across the income/age spectrum.
The only real questions at this point is: how long will Edwards stay in? And considering he's not competitive anywhere, why is he staying in?
January 8, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In a two way race between Obama and Hillary, it's a blowout, with Obama getting blue collar, professionals, across the income/age spectrum."
The exit polls do not show this. Look at the CNN exit polls.
While Obama's distibution of incomes for his dominant demographic, the under 40 voter, is certainly across the lines. But the dominant by numbers group are under 40 and of that dominantly under 30.
The best indicator seems to me to be who actually voted and the results of IA and NH are almost exactly the same in terms of age and income based demographics. Hillary not only gets the groups who most reliably vote, she gets the most reliably democratic voters.
smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/
January 8, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, Edwards is getting a lot of the labor vote, which skews Obama's numbers.
But, Edwards supporters are overwhelmingly for Obama as second choice. Edwards himself is for Obama, after himself. As Edwards put it, they're the change candidates.
If Edwards drops out, Hillary is a goner, and Obama wins the primary across the board. In the GE, he'd also win across the board.
For example, tonight Edwards presently has 17%. If he dropped out and endorsed Obama, almost all of that would go to Obama. Which would be a huge blowout, not just from his votes, but also psychologically as people abandoned the Clinton/inevitability camp.
January 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't take that for granted at this point.
Edwards is going all the way and knows exactly the value of his constituency, whichever ways he goes it will be to their advantage.
If you look at the CNN NH exit poll she won the union vote pretty convincingly.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM
smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/
January 8, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pal, your rating abuse of everyone you disagree with is really obnoxious. It just reflects poorly on you. I also think your credibility is highly dubious as your posting history shows you've been slagging Obama since your first posts in TPMC.
**
And on the facts no, she won the vote in a 3 way split.
In a two way between Hillary and Obama, Obama wins.
In a two way between Hillary and Edwards, Hillary wins.
Edwards is doing even worse this year than he did in 2004. He consistently polls about half of Obama's support nationwide and in many key states.
January 8, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pal, your rating abuse of everyone you disagree with is really obnoxious."
Don't you think your projecting is obnoxious.
I don't slag on anybody. I am arguing entirely from the numbers. The reality is in NH Clinton won the Labor vote. That's what the exit polls show, and frankly I'll take this current set over any of the other polls that were released these last 5 days. I think based on these NH numbers you are wildly optimistic to think that 100% of Edwards will go to Obama.
Worse for Obama his key demographic, the under forties neither historically or currently have the numbers of actual voters to beat her key demographic of the over forties. NH has just demonstrated this.
I am guessing you are a big Obama advocate. That's great. But the reality is that minus the press delusion as demonstrated so clearly this last 5 days, even with a big enthusiastic youth turnout, he simply doesn't have the numbers to win.
The trends are good for him. 8 years from now when the older generation has died off more, and the younger ones have added to the ranks he will have more of a shot.
I'm very very pleased about the very positive future changes he and his young constituency are signaling for the longer term future of this country. But that future is not today.
smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/
January 8, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baloney.
1) I don't abuse the rating system, as you do continually, even right through this thread and a bunch of others.
2) Your posting history shows you popped up here right as Obama was going to run, and have a scant posting history, much of which is dedicated to slagging Obama, and has been from your first posts.
January 8, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually a question about the comment quoted by Josh on the front page from MS about how she'd vote for Hillary just to spite Tweety et al.:
Isn't that just doing the same thing as voting however they tell you to? Isn't voting a certain way to spite the talking heads just as bad as voting in accordance with their wishes? In both cases, aren't you still letting them get you to vote for a candidate based on ephemeral bullshit, instead of your honest opinion on who the best candidate is?
(and yes, this was posted in one of the EC threads, but since this is the open discussion thread...)
January 8, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if we can take the MS comment as representative. Although there's been much said about how the tears were the reason for Hillary's win last night, we have absolutely no hard data that says that was the case. BUT still,
See a pattern here? These aren't the sorts of things that should determine elections, true, but the media has used them to the detriment of good Democratic candidates. Some spiting of the talking heads is long overdue, imho.
I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I don't like seeing her vilified, any more than I liked seeing Gore or Dean vilified. I'm glad the media-created meme of the Democratic candidate being emotionally unsuited to the Presidency didn't work this time.
Further, Hillary's win may have been the best thing that could happen to the Democratic party at this juncture. With Edwards staying in, it continues to be a race, rather than a coronation. A competitive race will keep voters interested and paying attention. What more could we Dems want? The more opportunity we have to look at real differences between the candidates, the stronger our eventual nominee choice will be.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 9, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Dean Scream was almost entirely a work of fiction. The people present didn't hear it that way. Instead, it was distorted sound rendered through a directional mike and then broadcast without any explanation as such literally several hundred times within a few days. It really doesn't amount to much more than a manipulated hatchet job.
Hillary's "tears" were nonexistent. Basically, it amounted to a catch in her voice for a microsecond, followed by speaking softly, quickly, but thoroughly rationally. We're not talking gushing waterworks. Again, its entirely a fictionalized manipulated reportage.
This is manufactured coverage.
January 9, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
January 9, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely!
The longer Edwards stays in the more progressive the whole lot campaign, everybody wins. Edwards is the push where Kucinich is only a nudge. Obama is learning, borrowing and polishing populist rhetoric, even the Mittster is talking like he can figure out some kind of change non Mormons will embrace. I heard this from Clinton's celebratory speech "...I want to especially thank New Hampshire, over the last week I listened to you and in the process I found John Edwards' voice I found my own voice." It's contagious, I love it, I hope they all get a serious case.
I find the time crunch of Super Tuesday to be the biggest obstacle to refining our candidates and getting them to promise campaign pledges, or at least bouncing the people's input off one another and getting it on record. I would much prefer a more stretched out primary, maybe drawn from the hat a couple of states a week. An elongated regional airing would help distill particular differences, finding more common ground, forcing candidates to listen while honing the message to a solid platform.
January 9, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You noticed too! :)
Agreed. I've often thought some sort of lottery system to establish primary dates would be a good idea, but regional contests make sense too. In the meantime, the best thing we've got is Edwards.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 9, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that when the exit polls SHARPLY diverge from the actual voting tallies in OTHER countries, the MSM and commentariat assume election hanky panky, but such thinking is considered "paranoid" in the US?
In the Ukraine, the evidence of a stolen election in 04 was palpable, but not as strong as in the US.
It's all about s^*(&ing down the blame......
(that's the name of the game, so to speak...)
January 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what exit poll you are referring to but the CNN one seems to be very very accurate.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM
smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/
January 8, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because endemic corruption at every level of politics is admitted by Ukrainians and Russians who know their own countries. That's a pretty good indicator. You have to pay bribes to get standard of care medicine in Russia today also, unless you're rich or siloviki.
January 8, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whereas American politics are paragons of integrity. ROTFL
January 9, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say that? See my blogs of late on party.
Are you a party member in Canada? What are the parties that most people belong to and which do you belong to if any?
Are you politically involved there?
I have read / studied very little about Canadian politics.
January 10, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm afraid I'm not a member of a political party.
As to what parties there are, there are several.
First and foremost there is the Liberal Party, which is probably the oldest uninterrupted party in the country. The Liberal Party dates back to Confederation when they were a decentralist, anglophone party. This lasted until approximately 1915 when Wilfred Laurier came along and the french vote became a part of it. Thereafter, in part because of the French vote, in part because of the Conservatives handling of the Depression, and in part because of the Liberals successful handling of the War and of the post war era, they have been the dominant political party occupying the political centre.
On the left, there has been the New Democratic Party, previously known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. They're loosely analogous to the social democratic parties of Europe. Although never in power federally, they were instrumental in pushing Canada's adoption of various socialist or social safety net systems, including medicare, employment insurance, etc.
There is also, on the left, the Green Party, which has not broken through on every level but is making substantial strides.
In the past, as late as the 1960's, the communist party was a viable force in certain places and successfully elected persons, usually to municipal offices.
Also on the left are the Quebec Social Democrats - the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois, which may or may not be the same thing, depending on whose asking and what day of the week it is. The Parti is provincial, the Bloc is federal. They are strongly left wing social democrats along the lines of the NDP. But where the NDP are federalists, the Parti/Bloc are separatists. Despite being separatist, they don't actually seem to have any intention of leaving, but rather, seek a revised federalism.
The Parti Quebecois was an indigenous political party movement which replaced Maurice Duplessis Quebec Nationalist 'Union National' which had dominated provincial politics for a generation.
Meanwhile, the Bloc is a splinter group from Brian Mulroney's center-right Progressive Conservatives (now defunct). Don't ask how a center-right federal political party factionned off a provincialist secessionist left wing group.
On the right, there is the endlessly mutable succession of parties.
Originally, there was the Conservative Party, which was instrumental in founding confederation and dominated Canadian politics up until WWI. Then around the twenties it fell on hard times.
Brieflly it was supplanted by the Progressive Party, which was a sort of left wing/right wing farmer's populist party. But the Progressives didn't believe in party politics, were ineffectual and eventually fell apart.
Their remnants merged with the moribund Conservative party and they became the Progressive Conservatives.
The Progressive Conservatives were a long running political party. After Brian Mulroney in the eighties, they broke apart into three parties. One faction became the right wing Reform Party, the other became the Bloc Quebecois of the left, and the centrist part remained Progressive Conservatives.
The Reform Party quickly determined that it had no real constituency outside of Western Canada and thereafter began to recast itself, trying to better its position.
In short order, it became the United Alternative Party, and then became the Canadian Alliance a decidedly fascistic moniker whose full name produced the acronym CRAP.
But they still didn't get anywhere, and the Progressive Conservative party wasn't going anywhere, so eventually these two parties united.
The new party was then called the Conservative Party.
And there you have it.
I've glossed over the Social Credit Party, the Creditistes, the Confederation of Regions Party, the Rhinoceros Party, etc., but that's a basic summary.
January 12, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Though inactive since the 1990's, during the 30 years the Rhinoceros Party participated in Canadian politics, it was known for sticking to its basic motto, which was "a promise to keep none of our promises."
This party's basic credo lives on in US politics and government today. A good example is the Dep't of Justice's Civil Rights division.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 12, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If parties are allowed but forced into lesser stature / power via serious anti-trust and campaign finance laws, then they become participants, not dictators. That would open the door to greater populist fluidity and hopefully more I & R, with parties becoming public interest educational / or issue education groups.
January 13, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! Don't be a party-pooper and make my day!
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 11, 2008 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the Media:
The author was Josh Marshall.January 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh needs to re-write and flip the names.
January 8, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most dreadful thing about a Hillary victory at this late stage will be all the bloviating pundits speculating on what her crying had to do with it. If you thought the discourse was stupid before now, they're just now getting started.
January 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anything I think the press has to admit that instead of a beauty pageant what the voters really want is the return of the wonk.
I don't know how may press reports I read, an I'm thinking of the Dickerson Slate video as a prime offender, tried to say that policy is boring to voters.
Hillary is the wonk of the crew and her talking about the details of her policies was very effective. I saw her on Friday in S. NH and I have to say I was really impressed. I never realized how genuinely smart she is until I had the opportunity to see her in person.
smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/
January 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.politicalconsultantmisconduct.blogspot.com/
Political consultants and dirty tricks
January 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a night the biggest loser was the Media they can't stop themselves from analysing what they obvious know nothing abut to an inch of its life.
How many months ago was McCain finished. Hillary was too angry, no wait she was too teary, no wait it is Bill who is too angry.
When does not Media both admit error or at least show some humility. Perhaps Guantanamo has some use afterall.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 8, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Guantanamo has some use afterall.
Not even in jest.
January 8, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a night the biggest loser was the Media
We go to the polls with the media we have. Not the media we want...
January 8, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Defining "change"....
I'm a woman, a progressive and a feminist and despite my being closer to Edwards' positions, I was thrilled at Obama's win in Iowa, think Hillary would be able to handle the presidency deftly (despite having lukewarm feelings for her) and I though Bill Clinton was a great President.
But, the MSM's pathological myopia lasered on defining "change" as being about the Dem Iowa caucus voters choosing Obama because they wanted a "change" from the Clintons and not because Dems wanted a "change" from 7 hellish years of BUSH's disastrous foreign and domestic policies.
January 8, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter, but you know what? Gloria Steinem's column in today's NYT was right on. So I'm proud of my sisters in NH.
January 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not. Gender politics is just as divisive as red states and blue states. The Clintons are polarizing and do not know how to bring this country together all they excell at is pitting folks against one another whether it is GOP and Dems or their new fight...men vs. women. Their continuity brawling and partisan bickering underscored now with sexist tones would be the worse thing to happen to this country. Hillary will beleive she can do anything as President as long as she can justify it on a sexist basis.
This stinks. And it smells like machine politics specifically the Clinton machine.
January 8, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see a conspiracy here at all.
Obama and Hillary pulled in NH exactly the same demographics they pulled in IA. Hillary got more voters from her key demographics to the polls than Obama did. And I think this speaks to the limitations of Obama's key demographic.
Obama's strength in the under 40s and particularly the under 25s is awesome, but these groups just don't vote in the same numbers as the over 40s.
It's all immediately visible in the CNN exit polls of the two events.
Click here for CNN NH poll
Click here for CNN IA poll
smacfarl
http://reddit.com/user/smacfarl/
January 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so. The demographics out of IA were that Obama pulled the women vote, not Hillary. The demographics out of NH are that Hillary is pulling the women vote. Sounds very much like a machine politics to me. All of a sudden Penn's polling demographic 'the woman vote' is coming in strong for Hillary after her 'weeping lapse'.
I don't think it's a conspiracy. Just dirty politics and the political machine at work for the status quo candidate, we have seen it over and over and over for the past 4 decades in America, every since RFK was shot. The masses do not get to select the candidate as the special interests come in and derail the process, just as they bused all those folks into NH to make it appear that Hillary was bringing in crowds. Those people were from NY, Boston, Maryland...Scarborough said he saw the plates and asked the folks. Only the status quo candidate wins. Reall easy to see the pattern.
January 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The big difference between the Iowa and NH results is that one was a caucus and the other an election. In the caucus the big losers told their supporters to go for Obama, and most apparently did just that. In NH those "loser supporters" voted for their candidates and not for Obama. It is so simple the pundits are very unlikely to ever figure it out.
The NH poll mistakes are partly the natural NH tendency to lie to pollsters, and partly the effect of the 20% undecided voting block deciding to support Clinton more than Obama.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 8, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw your reddit site. You're a campaign volunteer, pure and simple. I don't expect to hear anything but yesmanship for your team. Go team!
Hillary's speech was one cardboard platitude after another. Every year I heard a student council president-elect give a speech, it sounded like that. I'll bet she's had the same speech since she ran for hall monitor in kindergarten. "We will face the challenges. We will seize the opportunities.." It's enough to give you sleep apnea.
I don't expect anyone to come out with technical plans for how they're going to fulfill their visions during the propaganda phase (the whole campaign). But at least they can say something that sounds better than that. Obama did.
Worse, Hillary said she just found her voice. Because she lost Iowa. Had she won Iowa, the implication is, she'd have continued speaking with someone elses?
January 8, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
whiterosebuddy, I don't agree with your opinions about the Clintons, but it really doesn't matter - as I said, I'm an Obama supporter, in part because he's got that rock star quality that has the potential to produce very long coatails that will result in Dem gains in congressional and statewide elections. Nonetheless, I'm enjoying today - its a very unladylike middle finger to the neanderthals.
January 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is, by giving that knee-jerk reaction, by voting to spite the smug voices instead of voting for the candidate you feel is the best one, what's created isn't any kind of 'lesson' for the talking heads. They'll ignore it and congratulate themselves for being so amazingly right, just like they always do when they're wrong. What it does have the possibility to create is momentum and the impression of greater support for a given candidate than is accurate, and from there, the 'bump' that the victory-bandwagoneers provide. Enough of a push from that, and congratulations, knee-jerk spite voting has the chance to alter the results of the election, giving the Presidency to a candidate getting votes for their party's nomination from people who felt that someone else would do a better job.
Vote your honest preference, don't let the talking heads influence you with their talking-headedness.
January 8, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, imagine a lifetime of being told you are inferior because of your gender. Then imagine a week of watching concentrated attacks on someone because they share that gender. Then imagine seeing a bunch of people you don't know rise up and defend that person, in effect shouting "BACK OFF!" to the attack brigade. It would cheer you up, trust me.
January 9, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would indeed. However, no matter how much it might cheer me up, one thing remains true:
You should vote for the candidate you feel is the best for the job. Period. If you vote to spite someone, you are still giving that someone power over your vote.
The election process, and maintaining the integrity of that process, is our highest duty as citizens. That includes superceding making one another feel warm and fuzzy about making a statement to the talking heads who will ignore that statement and learn nothing.
January 9, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What percentage of print journalists and commentators are Jewish Americans? Are they representive in the field comparable to their respective American population?
I ask the question because it seems, anectdotally, that a disproportionate number of columnist, commentator and journalist names are Jewish surnames. Why is that?
And why am I being punished for asking the question? Ethnic percentages are measured in every institution, profession, school, and other bottleneck of societal participation these days. And the census asks many more invasive questions. I ask this question and I get downrated for asking a simple question that goes to the issue of election coverage bias that has been floated quite a bit.
I'm not saying there's collusion or conspiracy, however, there is a signficant issue in representativeness. Am I less an American and my speech less important because I'm not Jewish, but a "gentile?" I challenged someone's use of the word "gentile" as a classification term used about someone ... i.e. he's a "righteous gentile" as if it had to be said to approve of a non-Jewish person or else by default they weren't a righteous gentile.
Why this glaring pile-on for using my free speech rights to question something that I think is fair to ask? I've advocated for Jewish Americans, Jewish immigrants and have written strong articles against holocaust deniers / denial in columns on the matter. I've friends and family of Jewish ethnicity. But still, I ask the question.
Can anyone answer it, or am I going to get little ratings cuts to try to silence me on the matter? Representativeness is a fairness and bias-control issue.
January 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike, you may be the Jewish peoples best friend, but in the context of Gloria Steinem's column, your question struck me as bizarre. And to be honest, your expanded version has not helped.
Gloria Steinem's father was Jewish-American, but what in the world does that have to do with what she wrote in her column or with your question?
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good question. To be honest, the election bores the tears out of me, Seashell. It's all the generalities and platitudes and the cyclic promises that are almost always broken. It's so formulaic, it seems pavlovian.
One thing that was running through my head when I asked it was whether there was distrust for Obama among the Jewish American electorate because of his childhood ties to Islam in Indonesia, and whether that reflected itself in the urban vote in New Hampshire? Does Hillary enjoy more support from segments of the Jewish American electorate? I wonder. I don't know. I'm not a Dem or a Republican.
And I've read with interest some of MJ Rosenberg's posts about the hubbub over neocon Kristol at NYT, and one of the posters in that thread referred to someone as a "righteous gentile." That implied to me that unless otherwise conferred, all other gentiles must be un-righteous. It bothered me.
Now I am over here on this thread about the election, and it seems that nearly every pundit referenced lately has had a Jewish surname, then you mention Steinem. I am noticing what seems like a disproportionate number of Jewish Americans in the commentator and journalist positions in American media companies. I have heard the tin-foil crazies who allege conspiracies etc., and recognize that for what it is, but I still have to ask about the representation question versus occurrence in the population. It seems a fairness issue in a diverse country in which proportionality is valued and in which the candidates seem to be talking about opportunity, fairness, fair shakes and the like.
IF, a big IF, there is an unfair skewing of ethnic representation on behalf of one group or another in the messaging industry, I am wondering how this could be considered a matter of diversity. I'd ask the same question if it seemed to me that most of the high profile commentators and journalists I'd been seeing anecdotally were Maldivian surnames, or Surinamian surnames, and those populations were over-represented in the messaging / analysis / news industry.
I have read Alan Dershowitz in Chutzpah discussing certain industries that Jews tended to go into because of then-availability following WWII and the Holocaust as a way of flourishing but also self-protecting. Who could blame anyone for that? And Jewish Americans surely wouldn't be setting precedent in that. Irish, Italian, Greek and you-name-it Americans have historically set out cooperative goals for establishing, self-protecting and progressing as groups as they moved from new to elder immigrant status. Is that bad? No. It seems the norm. Except for one thing: the Holocaust zeroed in on the Jews of all nations. I understand how that might cause self-protective inter-cultural favoritism against the world in which anti-Semitism has emerged and re-emerged again and again. I grew up loving the book and movie "The Chosen" and one of my favorite books of all time is Pete Hammil's "Snow in August."
Personally, I wasn't in that world growing up. I heard about it, and occasionally heard kids cast aspersions at others on the basis of race or culture or tell ill-jokes, but it seemed that most races and cultures were covered, and so it was equal opportunity bad.
However, if over time, in a diverse society, there emerges favoritism for one's own ethnic group within an industry or sector of the economy or even in a government bureaucracy in a locality or region, no matter the ethnicity, is that a good thing or a bad thing in 2007? Is it unifying or divisive? Is it safer for the favored group or not? I can ask this regarding anglos also.
It wasn't long ago I watched the movie directed by Robet DeNiro, "The Good Shepherd," about the beginnings of US spy services in which Matt Damon was supposed to reflect a mixture of a number of past CIA men, mainly James Jesus Angleton the famed CIA counter-intelligence chief. In it, Joe Pesci's character, being interviewed by Damon's character, asks Damon this:
You know this is a statement on ethnicity and power in America, and it is conspiracy-based. Do you believe it about anglos? It is clearly aimed at the anglo-American ID of Damon's character, and consistent with the movie's biases, it is answered to confirm the conspiracy theorems. Does Robert de Niro distrust anglos because this was kept in the film? Or the writer? Or are they offering an idea, popular perception or what have you?
I have watched an Indian-cast comedy / love story that portrayed the Indian-American family expectation that sons or daughters should be doctors or marry doctors. It was exaggerated, but it illustrates how cultural observations are considered differently from different sources.
You may want to note the following counterexamples to the gentleman's representations about me:
Mike7Woodson's BlogPutin and Moscow Prosecutor's Usual Suspects: Ukrainians, Chechens and JewsBy Mike7Woodson | bio2 of 2 people recommend this blog entry.andhttp://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/01/what_israel_means_to_me#comment-149948January 9, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something wrong if you're bored by this election. The circumstances of this election are potentially transformational. And if you ever get a chance to be within shouting distance of Obama you will no longer be bored.
How can this race be boring? Experience vs charisma? Continuing policy vs. major change? Minority or distaff side vs. old white male? Secular against religious? And what remains to be discovered in WH records that will further disgrace the GOP for having backed the wrong horse?
Things must not be going your way, to be frustrated by this fantastically fun and fraught political season.
January 9, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It has been fun in the past, too. And then the fun ends when the promises are broken. We've seen it before and here we are. The movers of the political system who remain in Washington year in and year out did not avert the path to where we are, even though some predicted it.
There is something deeper than a problem with this candidate or that. This president or that. There is something more disturbing in the culture of politics in this country that is depressing to the people and making them literally sick.
The entire government, not just the president, needs a country that is united and whose groups, associations and organizations, ethnic and otherwise, are able to cross part lines and solve pressing problems together, lending their weight to a unified, cooperative health care solution. That is the hope of Obama's politics.
Regarding the fear uncovered by my question above, I'm asking a real question. What is the truth? I don't care about names, I care about reality. Is there a fair, merit-based multi-ethnic Fourth Estate?
Daniel Schorr's "In the lion's dens" recounts how he was once turned away from the NY Times because they'd put a freeze on hiring folks with Jewish surnames. Was that warranted then? Was that a form of discrimination against Schorr for being Jewish, or was it to please some other power in the city which was anti-Semitic? Was it merit based? Or were Jewish named candidates the most qualified?
If we don't have transparency and truth we can't join together with mutual and poly-mutual trust. We have to work for that no matter our ethnicity or race, our party or our geographic/economic interests.
January 9, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steinem's column was well written and thought provoking. Some points I agree with and some seem too focused on victim-status in the sense that part of that status is permitted by the victim and should not be. More said about that fact would improve the column.
Having said that, that in no way detracts from those forces that have been trying not only to subjugate women, but also deride them should they speak freely. They are derided in the media, for example, through the Brittany's; bribed with money without regard to their capacity to handle and fully understand what's going on (forget legal capacity, I'm talking actual and evident capacity rooted in life experience or inexperience). And this is what is "celebrated."
This is what thousands of young people are trying to get or emulate on You-Tube. To become "performers" for others, like a court jester. If that doesn't show the impact of "celebrity" what does? To make someone else more money as a rising star, escape if you've got good advice, or see self-destruction if not. The fall is gleefully celebrated with false shock by the same industry / companies that bring these "examples" to the precipice. It's the same way industrial machine parts are treated. Used, shined for inspection, then recycled in a heap of to-be-destroyed items.
Look at Yahoo! alone, participating in making Brittany's humiliation a bandwitdth and mass attention hog of a puffed product, the disintegrating young woman. Before that, it was Jessica Simpson. But you know what's really strange: the dumb bimbo is almost always a white anglo saxon girl, and her undoing is an implied point. Not that any other race of person (without exception) should ever, ever act as a replacement, or arent' also portrayed awefully.
The teaching of the male-dominated PR, TV, entertainment and News industry is well exemplified by FOX News. It uses lots and lots of blonde anchor women, some who know what they're talking about, but more who do not, and instead peddle a form of propaganda for a partisan cause. They say it is in the name of balance. Of fairness. But it is not. It is part of the alignments of division within our country.
It is done via fictional characters played. Too often, whether positive or negative, the woman's role model is as a follower, nurturer of a bad man, bad-girl or what have you. The so-called heroic roles for women frequently have them imitating male heroes of past programming, and posing for fashion to cool music rather than acting well. Lower-wage workers tend to be portrayed as comedic instead of real people. They are too often clowns or outrageous people. Serving to entertain the rich folks.
On occasion you have a hero, a pioneer, a brilliant girl, a Reese Witherspoon character, or a the lady character in the movie with Harrison Ford where the secretary becomes the boss. Boy do we need more exceptions with more bandwidth. Yet even these are shown to be exceptions and tend to emphasize the looks anyway.
The message to young women is: here is what you are for, to serve then self-destruct when you are of no more use (can't be used as an ornament).
So you bet I recognize the sexism, but note that it exists shamefully in the halls of traditional democratic contributors, with potential racial and socioeconomic undertones too. Well, if this were done to anyone else than predominantly majority race, religion or culture characters, it would be charged as covert or even overt racism or bigotry. Done to a majority member of the gender, NBD, right? Well yes it is. Because to get out of the pickle this country is in now, we need all hands to be inspired to excel, to be educated, and not to be dumbed down. Am I incorrect? We can't have a drug-like media dumbing anymore kids down. This hits poor kids the most because their folks are less able to be at home; two jobs or one parent. Boom the TV or cable is on with the babysitter or worse, they're stuck at a daycare. You ever use familywatchdog.com search around day care businesses in the lower socioeconomic locations in cities? Pretty scary.
Everyone's at stake. Now tell me that there are not business executives carefully handling this celebrity propaganda you can't get away from even while checking out from buying your food. And they don't seem to give a damn about the effects it has on the young. I'm with Steve Allen on this, 100%. I'm with Michael Medved on this issue. Culture is a highly significant topic. Why is it on the Discussion Table over there if it were not? What is healthy culture? Isn't that worth a discussion more often? Action?
What is it these firms are expecting us not to think about as they push celebrity distraction and tabloid journalism in broadcast and internet media-tainment?
January 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, having long forgotten this loose end, I found an answer to a question no one would answer here. What is meant by a "righteous Gentile" when the term is used by Jewish persons. Here:
http://www.asknoah.org/HTML/righteous_gentile.html
"The Rebbe said that this spiritual reconnection of the world will be accomplished by Jews and Gentiles joining together along their perspective assigned paths, in a spirit of kindness, goodness and charity. Please search your heart and take these words seriously! After all, you never know whose life you may be uplifting."
Sounds good to me. I'd taken it as a condescension to 'Gentiles.' It doesn't seem so by these accounts. So there's a follow up on the very distant post of the past.
February 6, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You took an awful long post just to say that you don't trust Jews. In that respect, no matter how long your post it, you are a bigot, not the reasonable questioner you suggest you are.
As far as the term Gentiles is concerned, take a peek at the New Testament. You'll find it hundreds of times there, properly spelled with a capital G.
January 8, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link to the use of "righteous gentile" I brought up earlier:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/07/kristols_first_times_oped_neoconservatism_for_idiots#comment-326466
You've said that you do not trust non-Jews who ask questions about ethnic representation within institutions that involve Jewish Americans. You have assumed the high and mighty power to condemn me as a bigot because I asked the question. By condemning my motives you show your distrust of a "gentile" in a clear case of pre-judgment of my motives. Yet I am supposed to take that because I'm a "gentile," right?
Just answer the question, if you can. It is straightforward, and meant to be straightforward, not an aspersion or as a perjorative reference. One thing that was running through my head when I asked it was whether there was distrust for Obama among the Jewish American electorate because of his childhood ties to Islam in Indonesia, and whether that reflected itself in the urban vote in New Hampshire? Does Hillary enjoy more support from segments of the Jewish American electorate? I wonder. I don't know. I'm not a Dem or a Republican.
There isn't an ounce of anti-Jewish personality in me. You can scour my writings and interview everyone I know. I have to admit I don't like your accusatory tone and the air of assumed entitlement to smear me with the label of bigot. It comes across as threatening or intimidating. You've called me a bigot on this public forum. You're making legally actionable statements about me. I'm asking you to withdraw your libel.
The question I raised about the use of the world "Gentile" or "gentile" was the use "righteous Gentile". Does it connote a default going the other way for those not so identified? Help me understand that modern usage. I take it that the usage in antiquity (NT times) was different from that used today.
I have family who have risked life in WWII and who thought it worthwhile considering the crimes against humanity Hitler perpetrated against many, many populations, but chiefly the Jews. My dad was never anti-Semitic and probably had to have someone tell him what it meant at some point. None of my siblings has ever been so. I just totally reject your statements as false, libelous and damaging and can't understand why you'd jump the gun like that after a direct, honest question.
January 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your not going to answer me, are you. You are going to raise the accusatory finger, judge and disappear without confronting the reality of the person you falsely judged?
January 9, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arrogance is ugly on anyone's face, and every group needs freedom from it. No exceptions.
The fact that Hillary got emotional after she lost Iowa raises questions. Does she do what she needs to do not to lose power instead of do what she needs to do to do the right thing?
January 9, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
January 9, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're PO'd at the comment, go ahead and tell. I'll listen.
January 10, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my above update. I found the term defined and commented. My apologies if I offended.
February 6, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The McCain blowout here is big but it's just more fragmentation.
Iowa was less than a week ago - no matter who wins, NH is close enough so both Hillary and Obama can claim victory. Short term, it keeps Obama supporters from getting cocky. It will probably raise more money for Obama than Clinton.
- - - -
my videos - http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Stranahan
my blog - Stranahan.com
January 8, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Follow-up to my previous post - I'd also like to thank the morons from the Boston radio station that staged the "Iron my shirt!" stunt. I sure it delivered more votes to Clinton than Steinem's editorial!!!
January 8, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right now I've got a bit of egg on my face for my personal predictions, but I'm actually pretty thrilled that this is obviously not "over." (Yes, I know the night isn't even over)
I'm very anxious to see how the the Gentleman from Illinois handles tonights results. If he's as good as they say, this won't hurt him a bit.
January 8, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the surprise? I always thought this was going to be a close race. I'd be happily surprised if Obama won by a blowout, but expect it? No way. I said in the ARG/Zogby poll threads, they're totally unreliable and should be discarded.
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 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik,
We might disagree about a bunch of things but I'm totally behind the message of this post
Folks, the polls and the media give you a sense of direction but they're not telling us what we have to do. These are the early fights in the election. Your favorite candidate is not going to be knocked out right here.
Then only 2 candidates who are out (Biden and Dodd) have taken themselves out of the race. If they're still on your ballot when your primary rolls around, and if you like them you should even feel free to vote for them.
Fact is, it's the media that decided right after Iowa to wrap things up and find a new narrative for our nominating process. It's not real. I'm not an Obama supporter but if he wins, we can debate the merits of supporting him. We're not there yet.
Same way, if he loses NH, it is not a disaster for him. Among the big three candidates for sure, and probably even beyond, everybody has a shot until after Feb 5.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 8, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be clear, there are consistently accurate polls, often the local polls. In the NH race, and the Iowa race, it was the local polls with a good track record who called the races most accurately.
The big polling houses like ARG and Zogby can be all over the place.
I didn't see anybody smart calling it over. What I did see are some astute observations that Hillary has been dropping nationally, and that Obama has been picking up large gains. Which is a fact.
Another fact is that Edwards supporters will overwhelmingly break for Obama in a two way. Look at the numbers, and consider Edwards' votes goignt to Obama, and that is a blow out.
Otherwise, it's going to be close. Hillary can stay competitive with even 1/3 the vote, in a three way. In a two way, she's toast.
January 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also think Josh has lost his wits by calling this a huge upset. Talk about drinking the MSM cool-aid.
Here's the facts I was looking at:
Obama was behind by double digits all year in NH. He was rising as Hillary was falling, for several weeks, but it was trending towards a close race.
Any loss Hillary suffers on account of her own record, or loss of inevitability, is split between Obama and Edwards. So whatever Hillary loses is only half as bad for her competitiveness.
Obama did get a bump in Iowa, of a few to several points, but he was still about tied and within the MOE in the more reliable polls.
ARG & Zogby have been especially bad, all over the place.
When Hillary is the perceived winner, such as in Iowa, she needs to maintain that image. But the perceived loser benefits by low expectations if they can win or even tie, to exceed expectations, and claim victory against expectations.
The last minute polls all showed a huge jump for Obama. But, these are polls of a very brief window. Any large changes over such a short period are by nature hugely volatile, and might not be real.
There was a large bloc of undecideds until fairly late in NH. And those voters are often less informed and prone to snap decisions, as we also saw in 2000 and 2004, which makes them especially volatile and hard to predict or poll.
***
It's really disappointing to me that politcal pundits, here on a blog seeking to improve on the MSM, didn't show more intelligence about these things. And actually wound up buying into exactly the MSM spin one can get anywhere.
As I said in the threads here about the last moment ARG and ZOGBY polls, it was foolish to consider this anything but a close race.
That people allowed themselves to buy into the nonsense, and are now calling Hillary's squeaked 2% victory a "huge upset" for a plurality in a three way race, while she was trending down for the last several weeks...
Come on. Bloggers are supposed to do better than the MSM.
January 8, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
AS DK notes, “Hillary ran well among voters who decided their preference late in the campaign”
After she lost in Iowa, the press was quick to report about the demise of HRC. The Times even ran a story about how she might withdraw from the race following a NH loss (ridiculous!).
I think NH voters were watching this, watching the polls creep up for Obama, and maybe felt very uncomfortable with an early, unexpected demise of the leading Dem candidate. Voters who were on the fence, and who may have even told pollsters they were veering towards Obama may have switched at the last minute.
Honestly, they may have felt sorry for HC. I admit I kinda did. Not much of a Hillary fan, but I was strangely uncomfortable with the idea of her early demise. Someone who’s been such a huge public figure – to see that go up in smoke so quickly, I don’t care who it is, it’s sad. You feel for them. Maybe seeing Hillary get all teary and quiet and sad made people forget how uninspiring she is.
January 9, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have liked Hillary from the start, but I have nothing against Obama--in fact, I think he may be the strongest candidate in a general election. The guy does have that magic JFK grace and self-confidence (and I'm old enough to remember that well.)
The attitude of the MSM these last few days, in particular (ignoring their attitude for a long time) is that whatever Hillary does, it's wrong. First she was the cold, calculating witch (because they don't dare say the b-word), then she "cackled" (sounded like a hearty laugh to me), then she--Omigod--cried. And all of it was wrong, to hear them tell it.
If she wins tonight, it's not a vote against Obama, it's a vote against the media. And I am not generally a media basher. But this has just been ridiculous.
Who "cackles"? Witches. I would bet most of the reporters and anchors would blanch if you told them they were just another incarnation of Barbara Bush (re Geraldine Ferraro, remember?), but that's the way they've acted.
They should grow up and quit patronizing women.
Good for Hillary, if she pulls this out.
As the saying goes, "You go, girl."
January 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think the media's treatment of Hillary created a backlash for her. I am in Florida and leaning toward Obama but I would voted for her today.
January 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is more like it, rather than a "sympathy" vote that Chris Matthews has been talking about this evening. I'm not a supporter of Clinton, and it wouldn't affect my vote, but I've felt more empathy toward her given the full-press nastiness that's been directed toward her lately.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 8, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
this may not be an original observation, but absent some earthshaking event I see Obama getting the nomination. The people supporting non-Obama, non-Hillary Dem candidates, I can see them switching to Obama if/when it becomes a two-person race. I can't see them switching to Hillary. It's the Iowa caucus 2nd-choice voters writ large.
January 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm... you might be right, but don't push your luck with me. My issue right now is not whether I should vote for Obama in the primary but whether or not I'll support him in the general if he beats Edwards and Hillary. Voting for Obama in the primary is something I might do, but only in the ense that I might do anything. If Obama's nominated it becomes, for me anyway, Obama vs. a third party candidate. Honestly, when my favored candidated (Edwards) has been so mistrated by the media, the party can't just expect me to get on board with whoever wins the nomination. No way I'm voting Obama just because I'm supposed to.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 8, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
if it was a two person race between obama and clinton, i'd stay home. but in the general i will be voting against the republican war-monger (even if it means voting for one of those democrat war-enablers).
of course, here in michigan i'll just be going to the polls to pointlessly vote 'uncommitted'. what a crock of shit (thanks to clinton and her operatives in the state party).
January 8, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debbie Dingell begged Obama to stay in the race in Michigan -- he would not even allow his name to remain on the ballot. He felt that he would lose here and he was more concerned with that than with whether giving Michigan more of a say would be a good thing for the nation.
Uncommitted is not a pointless vote but it involves a lot more work to make it count. In a Democratic primary each candidate -- including uncommitted -- is assigned the same percentage of delegates as that candidate got votes. The delegates are then selected at Congressional district meetings. So if you want to have your uncommitted vote count for a particular candidate you have to participate in the selection of the actual delegates.
January 8, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS -- That is, of course, assuming that the DNC decides to seat the choices of the Michigan voters.
January 9, 2008 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
right, and i don't see why they should. the michigan primary results will be tainted and ultimately indicative of nothing.
January 9, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
first of all, this crap about giving more say to michigan is a farce: the time to change the primary calendar is before the calendar is made, not after. you can't change the ground rules once the race is already under way and strategies and ad buys are already in place.
and of course obama knew he would lose in michigan with a moved up primary, it stacked the deck against candidates trying to compete against hillary's national name recognition and reputation on such short notice.
i say pointless in terms of the fact that michigan will have no delegates and most voters don't understand the 'uncommitteed' option and may well just stay home or might even show up thinking that they can vote for the candidate of their choice.
January 9, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards had to win in Iowa -- he did not. But in hopes of catering to Iowa he announced that he would take his ball home and not play in Michigan. This put pressure on the other candidates who then also withdrew.
Obama's calculation may have been the best that could be made for his campaign but it may be extremely detrimental to the Democratic Presidential effort. The result has been that the Republicans are campaigning in Michigan -- Romney has family ties, McCain was well liked and there are conservative relgious areas around Grand Rapids. Michigan narrowly went blue last time around. So as I see it Obama put his own interests ahead of the interests of the country.
I'm not sure what fixes are now available. Yes, it could be a confusing primary but on the other hand those voters who make the effort to turn out should have their views represented.
January 9, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been an Edwards supporter, although I have begun to move to Obama since Iowa, both because I have been impressed with him personally, and for pragmatic reasons.
But I think it's possible that Edwards's attacks on Hillary, especially during Saturday's debate have helped her and, as a result, have hurt Obama.
January 8, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can somebody point out the horror of Bill Bennett and Ralph Reed as pundits for CNN commenting on the Democratic primary? Seriously, are these considered remotely credible people in this discussion? How do these people not burst into flames at the mere mention of the name 'Clinton'?
CNN is the only channel showing running realtime results, but I continue to change the channel so I don't have to look at their faces.
January 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
RALPH REED! You are joking - no? Thank god I don't have cable...
January 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have cable and am in Atlanta, but for unknown reasons the channels in the 30's range, where CNN is, would not work. Then I heard Ralph Reed was commenting, and called the cable company to thank them. They seemed startled, but grateful to hear from a satisfied customer.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bennett and Reed: The Roller Twins: High and Holy... ;)
January 8, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the other commenters here, I am not a Hillary supporter but neither am I a Hillary-hater and the media's treatment of her has been abysmal. I realize they don't like her because - until recently - she wouldn't take questions from them, but this is ridiculous. This is 'pack/tribal journalism' at its very worst. They are not there to carry out vendettas for slights, they are there to cover the race because that's their job.
January 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary EARNED the treatment she receives from the press. She will not even travel with them on the campaign trail. They have a separate plane from her.
There is no evidence that Hillary has been treated any worse than other Presidential candidates during this campaign. She in fact has been allowed to say things which are false without being challenged such as her flip-flop stance on the war and her total lack of experience as a legislator despite her claiming 35 years of experience. No one questions that patently false remark. Nor do they challenge her First Lady credentials that she uses to tout her foreign policy experience as if traveling the world and having tea with dignitaries amounts to some sort of foreign policy experience. The facts are she never had any type of national security clearance during those years that would have allowed her to even meet with foreign heads of states other than purely socially. HRC earns every bit of press she gets.
Heck, let's not forget that Bill's dalliance with Monica was due to a vastrigntwing conspiracy according to Hillary. No one has ever called her on that ridiculously false statement either. Hillary claims about being a victim and being abused and tarnished by the press when the truth is she and Bill create the situations and circumstances that warrant the press to investigate and interrogate them and their numerous lies, obfuscations and total fabrications.
Did you see anyone question Bill Clinton about his latest line that he was ALWAYS opposed to the war? Did you see anyone question HRC about her earmarks? How about her and Bills financial contributors and his speaking fees and library donors? Have you seen the press ask her about the papers for her tenure as First Lady since she claims that for experience yet Bill has put them under Presidential seal?
They let Hillary claim she did so much for the SChip legislation when in fact she was not even an elected official when that legislation was passed yet she claims to have been so instrumental in it being passed. Sure. Just like she was instrumental in passing Hillarycare. Do you see the press asking her for specifics on just what she has done for children and families? Nope. They just let her claim all types of nebulous and dubious experience without ever once asking for specifics. Yet we are to believe she has been vetted simply because the GOP harassed her and Bill with investigations that their own actions provided the fodder for? Please.
Hillary gets more breaks from the press than she deserves, particularly when she has the least elected experience of all the candidates running other than Edwards.
If the electorate wanted an experienced candidate then Dodd and Biden and Richardson would be the frontrunners.
January 8, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no evidence that Hillary has been treated any worse than other Presidential candidates during this campaign. She in fact has been allowed to say things which are false without being challenged...
I think we can safely say the news media generally sucks ass, and no candidate has a lock on getting either misrepresented or insufficiently challenged on the details of their record.
It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.
January 8, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Heck, let's not forget that Bill's dalliance with Monica was due to a vastrigntwing conspiracy according to Hillary."
You're mixing two things. Richard Mellon Scaife's money was behind the attacks on Clinton. Bill's personal behavior was abominable. Just as the money of a few rich people was behind the Swift Boaters against Kerry.
January 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not the way the NH voters saw it. According to MSNBC's exit polling, Hillary got 71% of the vote of those voting in that primary for whom experience was the most important factor.
January 8, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Words matter. Hillary's eloquence at the Beijing Conference has had impact on women's rights around the world. I have been attending lectures on China at a major University and the effect was marked.
The press has found Obama much more entertaining that Hillary who has been very cautious with them for obvious reasons. The last time they pushed a Presidential nominee towards us because they liked him better than his relatively non-emotive opponent we got Bush over Gore.
Prep school guys seem to go over very well with the Press.
January 8, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a lie.
January 9, 2008 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel Maddow on MSNBC just told Chris Matthews that blogs like TPM are saying Hillary's close numbers tonight we in part probably because of of the backlash to people like Chris Matthews.
I think it was this post being referred to...
January 8, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The TPM website has been one of many liberal blogs that have been suffused with Clinton schadenfreude recently. Things are a bit deadpan tonight. We all have a lot to learn.
January 8, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something I haven't seen addressed anywhere - maybe I've just missed it - is that among liberals there has always been a desire to see a viable woman running for President. And there has also always been a desire to see a viable African-American running for office. But NOT at the same time and not running against each other. So enthusiasm and sympathetic support that each candidate would normally receive throughout the Demoratic party has been mitigated by the other.
Tonight it may well be that many women Dems, who certainly would normally be sympathetic to supporting a strong black candidate, have taken some umbrage in the "manhandling" of Hillary and the disregard for respecting the importance of a strong female candidate in the face of the first leading black candidate. And that may be a factor in the NH results.
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of Dems who genuinely like Hillary (and/or Bill). And there are plenty who don't. But what's interesting is that most of us have always wanted a strong woman OR a strong black candidate: now we have both running against each other. And for some people it creates a conflict unexperienced before.
January 8, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iv'e been followng things closely since last week, and I was really pissed at the way Hillary was being treated. I am an Edwards supporter, but leaning Obama. But I'n not sure if I was voting today whether I would have voted for Hillary, it just ticked me off that much.
I'm not surprised that a lot of females decided to vote for Hillary, probably the last 24 hours.
Grandma Jo
January 8, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
NBC calls it for Clinton.
Chris Matthews says the pollsters should all get new jobs. Not, of course, the journalists that parrot the poll results.
January 8, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really torn as I like Obama, Edwards and Clinton but the trashing of Hillary reminded me of 1998 and the impeachment witch hunt.
I love Keith Olbermann but he and the whole MSNBC news crew, CNN, Fox and other pundits created Hillary's win. Now they are saying the independents crossed over and voted for McCain hurting Obama. That is BS. Both Hillary and Barack Obama's numbers smoke McCain.
January 8, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm totally depressed. Not because I'm pro-Obama but because I'm anti-Hillary. And I'm a boomer female, one of those who apparently voted strongly for Hillary in NH. Well, tomorrow's another day...
January 8, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can second that!
January 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am the same demographic, which is how we know this spin is totally false. Nothing but machine politics at work.
January 8, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not really, whiterosebuddy. The boomer generation is made up of quite a few different political demographics. Even the anti-Vietnam War generation was only about 50% anti-war. I was painfully aware of that in the 60's and early 70's.
January 8, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Barack Obama supporter, I'm disappointed in the results tonight. I wonder if some independents who would have voted for Obama went for McCain because they thought Obama was going to win; I just don't know.
The underlying question for me is what this means for Edwards' campaign. His distant third makes him less of a player and staying in the race he probably takes more votes away from Obama going forward than he does Clinton. I hope he drops out.
And, if Obama gets the nomination, I hope Edwards is his choice for VP. The two make a powerful combination.
January 8, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the extra ballots they called for went to Hillary because the machine knew that she was going to lose big to Obama otherwise.
January 8, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thought exactly. When I first started watching coverage tonight, EXIT polls led the media to predict a big Obama win. Guess they were just anomalous exit polls like in Ohio 2004. I know, I'm full of sour grapes. Still, I'd like this discrepancy to be discussed. Am I wrong that they were using exit polls as predictors?
January 8, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I dunno, when I tuned into MSNBC at 8 pm EST (just after the last polls had closed in NH), they were saying their exit polling indicated it was too close to call.
January 8, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, slb. I'm sure we'll hear more soon, but your response eases my mind.
January 8, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too have been depressed today, but for different reasons. I'm a political junkie, but I'm geting very little pleasure from this race. Hillary is my third choice among the Democratic candidates, but I think the way she has been treated is shameful. People can blame the media all they want, but I read a lot of blogs, and the comments, particularly from Obama supporters, has been so over the top that it drives me crazy. All of a sudden, Bill Clinton was a bad President? When did this happen? The comments about Hillary are so vicious and personal, that I can't believe the commenters can call themselves Democrats. And I know they're not all Republican sock puppets. I've seen Obama supporters calling her Hitlery, Thunderthighs and a bunch of other insults.
Not to mention the people who continue to dismiss every positive development for Hillary as a product of her corporate masters pulling the media's strings. Claiming that the entire media establishment gets up every morning and receives its marching orders from its corporate masters makes people sound naive and paranoid. And every time Hillary questions Obama's ideas or experience, it's not necessarily an indication of the Clinton's vicious, only-out-for-themselves back alley dealings. And when some precinct captain somewhere says soemthing inappropriate, I see tons of Obama supporters declaring as fact that they're acting on orders from the evil Clinton headquarters.
There's things about Hillary that I'm not crazy about, but I always have to check myself to see how much of my reactions to her are a product of the barrage of negative portrayals of her I have been subjected to since 1992. When people call her a neocon, or "Bush lite," it gives me bad flashbacks to Nader. Do you really think Hillary would have appointed Roberts and Alito, or let Gonzo use the Justice Department to run roughshod over the Constitution?
I know this screed makes me seem like a Hillary supporter, but I'm really not. I think it's great that Obama's bringing new voters into the process, but I think a lot of these people could do with a little less hubris, and get over their willingness to push aside the people who have been fighting for the Democratic Party for decades. Anyone who's followed politics for any length of time knows that things change a lot during campaigns, but Obama's supporters deluded themselves into thinking it was all over after Iowa. Someone upthread even said "a Hillary victory at this late stage..." This late stage? New Hampshire is the first primary. Obama may still win, but a little humility is in order for his followers.
January 8, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
My major problem with Hillary was her Authorization for the Use of Military Force vote in October 2002 and her continued support for the Iraq invasion for a very long time. Since she still calls for a 'residual' force of 20-30,000 to remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future, I can't help but think that she has as much of a taste for Iraqi oil as Bush does. I really like Bill Clinton but now that I look back I don't see any miracles coming out of his administration. Of course part of this result was that he had a Republican Congress most of the time. But his cooperation with Repubs on his Welfare Reform bill has hurt many, many people; his push for sanctions on Iraq during the 90's when Europeans were starting to be sympathetic to the inhumane deaths of Iraqi children doesn't speak well for him. He got rid of the deficit and was generally excellent for the environment. If I'm missing any great liberal successes let me know. I admit that he was immensely likeable.
January 8, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gave you a "5" and I wish I could give you three of them! Thank you for saying so well some things that badly needed saying.
January 8, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, slb. I guess great minds think alike .
January 8, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope your response was tongue in cheek, Crabapple. slb's 5 rating was for my post.
I do want to say, however, that I have no problem with people opposing Hillary for the reasons you mentioned. My point isn't that she shouldn't be scrutinized, or that there aren't very sincere reasons to oppose her. Like I said, she's my third choice.
January 9, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
All of a sudden, Bill Clinton was a bad President? When did this happen?
He wasn't a "bad" President, but he wasn't a great one, either. As time passes, he looks worse and worse, at least to me.
January 9, 2008 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I too would like to thank you for the post. Please consider reacting to your "depression" by voicing your opinion on blogs more often, I explain why a bit below.
On this part:
All of a sudden? Can you tell me which blogs you were reading before that? I must have missed them, because I've been seeing a lot of severe Hillary bashing for at least a couple of years now, a lot. And while Bill never came in for quite as much, if one raised the peace and prosperity point with such folks, they would always find something bad to say about him, too.
"DLC scum" is a perennial favorite, right up there with "Bush lite" and often high-fived with ratings where they are available. The theme of "I didn't leave the Dems, they left me" and "there's no difference between the parties any more" is also quite popular on liberal blogs.
I don't think most Obama supporters can be tarred with this, but I do think the liberal blogosphere can be be tarred with tolerating it without disapproval and often outright encouraging it. Partly because I have seen few speak against it like you have until now.
Personally, I think that few like you speak out because the vitriolic nature of their anger turns people like you off from participating. Then liberals are much more easily tarred as "angry." And the angry ones left to dominate the discussion start to believe that there are no real people out there like you who don't think Hillary is evil. And if someone like you does dare speak up, the group labels you as a Republican, and this shoos away anyone else thinking of presenting a similar opinion.
Actually it's extremely ironic that some of Obama's support comes from this kind of blog commenter, because it is the type of thing Obama himself has specifically spoken out against in the past.
January 9, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Artappraiser. Worry not. I don't think the so-called liberal blogosphere posters you refer to make up the real base of Obama's supporters. I am father to three proud, enthusiastic and informed Obama supporters, ages 18 to 22, and believe you me it is not because they hate Hillary Clinton.
I have come to conclude that, no matter what, there will always be a bloc of angry people at the Cafe and elesewhere who will, by their very nature, dominate comment threads like these. See, e.g. Kozmik over the past week or so, who can do things like write about Elizabeth Edward's weight and still go on engaging with people as if he's perfectly acceptable company. I don't get it, or on second thought I think I do get it.
Bruce
January 9, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know it is interesting, I just saw that there are a couple of people on Matt Yglesias' blog that are flogging the idea of a vote tampering by the Clinton machine, linking it with that story about NH running out of ballots early on. This is the echo chamber effect, one of the real downsides of people getting most of their information from a few blogs where contrary voices are shooed away. They don't know anyone that doesn't hate Hillary or opposes hating Hillary, ergo, it must be a conspiracy.
I was actually pleased and surprised to see Matt Yglesias venture into the comments yesterday to counter that sort of thinking. One commenter said something along the lines of "I don't know anyone under 30 who would vote for Hillary no matter what." Yglesias commented back something along the lines of: "you ought to get out more. If she's the candidate, I would vote for her. And I know plenty of other people under 30 supporting her now."
P.S. I should have put in my original comment above that the term DINO was invented by the liberal blogosphere, that's one perjorative no one can blame on Rush Limbaugh. Likewise the "concern troll" label was invented to ridicule and shoo away those who present any opinion along the lines of "can't we all get along?"
January 9, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he Kozmik keeps up with the volume, I would not be surprised if Obama himself steps in with a Sister Souljah moment, disassociating himself from this supposed "support."
January 9, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is incredible!
January 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something else to consider here tonight: Despite the 'win', Hillary comes away with 9 delegates from NH, compared to Obama's... 9.
As far as the nomination goes, tonight was a tie.
January 8, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you check the delegate count from Iowa before posting? It was 16 Obama, 15 Hillary. Were you calling THAT a near tie? Give me a break.
January 9, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody who votes for someone based on how the media treats them rather than, you know, their positions and, just as important, their records -- not just in public office but in their career choices and other acts outside of public office -- and their associates and members of their campaign and, finally, the source of their campaign money is just incredibly, incredibly shallow. Beyond shallow.
Based on the real criteria I just outlined, Hillary Clinton comes in close to dead last, if not dead last, for me on the Democratic ticket. I don't care whether she cries or not, or how the media treats it. Mark Penn on her campaign staff is practically a deal-breaker all in itself. Add to that her positions on Iraq and Iran, her strong (very strong) ties to corporate America, her lack of apology for taking money from corporate lobbyists, and on and on, I don't see how she'll govern as anything but Republican-lite, as did her husband. (Props to Crabapple, almost directly above, for a good, brief analysis.) I mean, come on, she's taken more money from the "defense" industry (a/k/a the military-security-industrial complex, you know the one that Eisenhower warned us about nearly 50 years ago) than any other candidate, R or D.
Republican lite is certainly better than Bush. And certainly better than Giuliani (Bush on steroids), Romney (ditto), Huckabee of the floating cross, and McCain. And the Supreme Court is beyond crucial this time around (it has been for the last several election cycles). For that reason I'll vote for Clinton if she's the nominee, and even drag my ass out to work for her. But it'll take a lot of persuading before I get enthusiasticallybehind her. And I very much fear that Truman's adage will once again come true: Give people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, and they'll pick the Republican every time -- as was shown so very, very painfully in 2002 and 2004.
January 8, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one has yet commented about their sympathy for those Iowa farmers. They did all of the heavy lifting, selected a president for us, and then those crafty Hampshirites (New or Old?) had the gall to refuse to accept that selection. All of that after a week of the pundits congratulating the Iowa farmers for the great job they had done. It just sorta ruins my faith in mankind.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 8, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
...possibly the best-known of all state mottos, partly because it speaks to an aggressive independence inherent in American political philosophy...
January 9, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as a Canadian with no particular dog in the fight, I think these are terrific results.
for the Democrats, I think that the worst outcome would have been a decisive win for Obama.
Yeah, that's all we need, a coronation in January, a dead primary season for the next ten months, a clear message to Democrats in the other 48 states that their opinions are not required, and a huge floundering target sitting there helpless for a year of Republican attacks.
How'd that work out for John Kerry, by the way?
If you've forgotten, let me remind you: The dumbest fucking incumbent in American history overcame three failing wars, international disgrace, the loss of an entire city through negligence, the worst attack on American soil in generations, a humiliation on social security, a bum economy, giant deficits, and a running mate with all the charm of an angry pedophile, managed to come from behind and turn your guy into his low rent barrio manwhore to such an extent that two years later, Kerry was still singing castrato. Kerry couldn't wait to surrender. The man still can't sit down from his assraping.
So, speaking as a Canadian to you Democrats, let me just offer this small piece of advice:
Don't do that again.
I know, sounds like crazy talk. But trust me on this. You'll see.
The Iowa vote went just about perfect. The front runner got upset, the dark horse came from nowhere to finish second. No one got a commanding lead, and the big three were damned near all within statistical margins of error of each other.
The New Hampshire vote comes as the almost perfect follow up. The now humbled heir apparent has made a comeback, the challenger is hot on her heels, and the dark horse has dropped back substantially, but he's still clearly in the game with room to come from behind.
From here, it's pretty much anyone's contest. Two down, Forty-Eight to go, and everyone's shown enough credibility and muscle to go some real distance.
The important thing is: No coronation this time. Not like last year: "John Kerry, Reporting for Duty!" Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. Did you know that in polynesian that phrase translates as "Please Mister Republican, bend me over and shove a cement mixer up my mangina for two months!"
No, this time out, contest. This time, the contenders actually have to challenge each other, they have to stand for something, as opposed to simply standing there like like a department store manniken with Jay Leno's stolen chin. This time out, the Republicans have no clear stationary target lined up to attack for the next year. This time out, Democrats in state after state get to have a say and have their opinions heard. This time out, the winning candidate is going to learn how to fight, as opposed to dressing up in lingerie and handing out invitations to red state sodomy.
To be honest, I'm not thrilled with any of the big three. But they've each got a chance to grow into the candidacy. Good for them. Hope they make the most of it.
This talk of it being over for this one or that one? Wishful thinking. All the big ass theories as to how Hillary is finished, or how Edwards has to drop out, are all just wind. Right now, it's anyones game.
Oh, and all this "All Edwards votes am belong to Obama", that's just goofball stuff. If they were Obama's votes, they would have gone to Obama in the first place. He doesn't have a lock on anything. The notion that Edwards represents a progressive axis that will naturally devolve to Obama is at best an untried theory.
On the Republican side, I'm also pretty pleased with the results.
If the Democrats have set things up for a real contest, the Republicans have built themselves a mess.
The Huckabee victory made the traditional elements of the party crap their drawers in Iowa. I enjoyed that. It's a real shadenfreude experience to watch a bunch of self involved, sanctimonious titty babies cry like stuck pigs getting it from a direction they never expected. It was a feel good experience, and bless the Germans for inventing a word that describes it so well, it almost makes up for all those world wars. The only thing that could possibly top it is if all their testicles wound up finally dropping simultaneously on live television... but there aint enough testosterone in the world to make that happen for those moon faced momma's boys.
But anyway, hooray for Huck, he's given hope to lunatics the world over, just as Dubya gave new meaning to Special Olympians.
In Shadenfreudeland, we also had the abject humiliation of McCain and Giuliani, and a surprise showing from Thompson, mainly for cadging the 'Night of the Living Dead' vote. Romney took a whupping but hung in there.
New Hampshire was the best possible follow up I could imagine to that, short of Nicole Kidman moving in next door to work on the Jenna Jameson story in secret and needed a partner for the trampoline scenes, whilst Al Quaeda mistakenly contaminated my water supply with Viagra. That didn't happen.
But what did happen, was the formerly abjectly humiliated John McCain popping a boner like he just crashed yet another fighter jet and catapulting to victory. This was followed by Mitt Romney, still coming in as number two, but wiping the semen from his face and doing it respectable this time. His improved showing and steady performance keeps him in the race.
Which means that like the Democrats, its a big ass three way race, but lots more volatile, so they're all going to go at it like scorpions trying to run a crystal meth franchise and tweaking the night away. Good enough I say, but in this case, we got the benefit that its wacked, wackier and wackenhut. It's like the three stooges but without the intellectual subtext. These guys are loons in godawful totally unique ways, and the only thing they got in common, is that they each got negatives the size of that comet that permanently waxed all the dinosaurs pubic hairs. And all this is going to be on public display for the better part of a year.
Hey, these three guys might as well steal a minivan and go cross country tea bagging every unsuspecting voter they come across. It's about that bad. Mind you, if I had my druthers, I'd prefer they do that before they're elected, as opposed to after, like the current incucumberancy is doing, but thankfully, that's neither hare nor thor.
Fred Thompson trades places with Rudy Giuliani, which is fine with me. Fred does barely well enough he might not drop out of the race, which will please the oft overlooked cadaver vote.
Rudy Giuliani is once again humiliated, and you know what, a day in which Rudy is humiliated is a good day for everyone.
Finally, we have Ron Paul to contribute to SuperHappyFunFunFunTime. Ron's not scored big, but he's fundraising like a son of a bitch. He's got it coming like a Britney Spears lingerie auction in Japan. The brother has it coming. The brother is also a crazy ass lunatic. How crazy? He makes Mitt Romney seem like a Mormon, is that scary or what. But, it turns out that the black helicopter crowd votes. Not much, but between their surging wallets and not so surging voting totals, Ron's here to stay, making his views and platform an integral part of the Republican image. He's like a one man bizarro A-Team. Hannibal lector, Face Benedict, BA Buffoonish and howling Mad everyone, who goes into a warehouse surrounded by people who just don't care, and triumphantly emerges with a mcgyveresque three story tall turd made from common household materials.
I swear to god, the only way that the Republican field could possibly be improved is if Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanon came out of the closet and ran as a tag team while dressed as Elvis impersonators. Even then, the orgasometer would only barely quiver. It's that good right now.
I'll tell you, I'm enjoying this immensely. The only cockroach up my kangaroo's rectum right now is the occasional passing thought that 'hey, there are actual human beings living in the United States' and then I get this feeling crushing horror, like when Paris Hilton travelled to Indonesia to show Tsunami surivors how to shop again. There are some things that just make you stop and think that there's no God, just a weird guy in a raincoat and groucho marx glasses.
But then I remember that these are Americans we're talking about. Not Sumo wrestlers or anything like that, and the feeling goes away.
Anyway, I'm pumped. Carry on. This might just be the best Primary Season ever!
January 8, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I somehow doubt that the dinosaurs (not being mammals) had pubic hairs... or any hairs for that matter.
Other than that, and the sexual references getting a little bit tired after the seventeenth or eighteenth one, fun post. (Are you sure you're not Australian?)
Not that it was entirely accurate. If by "loss of an entire city through negligence" you refer to New Orleans, please remember that event occurred after the 2004 election. Or rather, the 2004 "election." Kerry actually won that one (as did Gore in 2000), but as you pointed out, he couldn't wait to surrender. Because surrendering to Bush is what Democrats do, apparently. Not much has changed since the 2006 election in that regard, at least not in Congress.
Kind of lost you, though, in your third-to-last graf. You know, this one: