Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWell, that was interesting. Here's a quick theory on what just happened: I was telling someone earlier today that to me the single biggest story out of New Hampshire these last five days was the press corps' evident glee in the Clintons' "demise."
There they stood on shore as the Titanic sank, waving sadistically as the passengers and shipmates scrambled for life rafts. To a lot of Democratic primary voters this no doubt stirred intense memories of the Kenneth Starr witch-hunt and the impeachment madness. I think it was so over-the-top, it changed some votes.
People didn't want to feel like they were endorsing this wholesale evisceration of the Clintons. Also, it's worth remembering that the most popular Hillary Clinton has ever been was during the Lewinsky affair, when she was a deeply sympathetic figure. From a feminist perspective, there's something a bit troubling about Clinton being most palatable when she's most vulnerable, but she was certainly vulnerable this week, and I think the over-hyped tears moment probably pushed a lot of voters (especially women whom she won handily) into her column.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
oh what a sorry state we on the left are in...two days ago scorned them both...now willing to shovel forth an Obama victory. whoa oh oh whoa is us.
Posted by alweber at 01/09/2008 @ 12:21am
I agree this is such typical arrogant Nation bullshit, holier than thou and totally out of touch with the working class of this country.
Posted by nationwatch at 01/09/2008 @ 12:22am
It was truly gratifying to see the vapid and near-parody of the words of far greater men than Obama (constant references to MLK speeches) used in his defeat. My African-American wife finds Obama to be the most contemptuous of opportunists and narcissists, and he would be eaten alive by McCain and on the world stage should he make it that far.
Idealism is great, but using the word change repeatedly does not a candidate make. I am still waiting for one idea from him. Just one.
Posted by honestman at 01/09/2008 @ 12:23am
And your wife being African-American means what? Is that supposed to give her opinion more weight?
Posted by fla331 at 01/09/2008 @ 12:27am
Edwards will support Obama. This will tip the scale back to Obama in the convention.
Posted by parulis at 01/09/2008 @ 12:29am
FLA331
It means she can spot a phony invoking the words of MLK far more easily and is far more offended by Obama's parody of them in the form of speeches composed of cliches. MLK had substance. Obama is a narcissistic creation of Oprah Winfrey and the those who wish to feel good about themselves by voting for him - and even attributing the bogus attribute "charisma" to a man who has absolutely none.
Posted by honestman at 01/09/2008 @ 12:40am
I agree that the savage attack by the media pundits had a bunch to do with her victory today. I sat and watched MSNBC all day, and I swear they had it in for the Clintons. Chris Mathews repeatedly kept bringing up Bill's loss in New Hampshire, and the subsequent use of the term "The come back kid" as if he was trying to make him lose his race back in 1992. And all day they kept showing the clip of Bill contesting Obama's foreign policy foresight. I watched it, and I thought his argument was valid and level headed, just good politics. However, the pundits kept bashing on him as "Angry," and characterized him as an "Attack Dog." Couple this with Hillary's emotional display (looked fake to me, but) and you have an instant call to arms to her side. This kind of reminds me of the bashing that Al Gore gave Bush, especially the shoulder bash he gave him when they first came out to shake hands before the debate, he beat so bad that people felt sorry for him and rallied to his side. I think this is exactly what happened today, and I for one am glad. I want this thing to last until our primary in February.
Posted by Dethtol at 01/09/2008 @ 12:47am
i actually agree with this theory for now. i mean, at least that's how i felt. of course, now i feel empathy for obama for losing, so i'll probably want him to win, then vice versa. this is retarded, but it warmed my heart to see a candidate almost cry, male or female (ever see the video of Gravel reading the pentagon papers?)
most of all i should feel empathy for Kucinich, who actually deserves to win more than any of them.
Posted by Ryan444 at 01/09/2008 @ 12:59am
Hillary's going to win. She has to. She's got to absolve Bush for all of his crimes during office. Much like what Bill Clinton did for Bush senior, and Regan for that matter. Olie North is a Hero! Yeah right! They all belong in jail.
Posted by Dethtol at 01/09/2008 @ 01:16am
If New Hampshire democrats are dumb enough to vote for her because the press picked on her and she cried (the two big theories I heard tonight), then they deserve it when she sells them out to her corporate donors.
Posted by dentedpat at 01/09/2008 @ 01:19am
And don't tell me that we are only involved in two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that Somalia is our proxy war as well. You're going to sit there and tell me that the Ethiopians have enough money to invade and occupy another country?
Posted by Dethtol at 01/09/2008 @ 01:20am
Obama and Edward are into horse trading as well.
Posted by Dethtol at 01/09/2008 @ 01:22am
Hey Lib's,
Never in my LIFe have i seen such a bunch of Schitsophrenic bunch of Namby Pambies..!!! You people can't even decide what it is that you want for yourselves..??? HUH..? DO you want an inexperienced JUNIOR senator, with the same name as the man we are HUNTING....? or do you want a C*M shamed Hag, who can't keep control of her own house, and Slick Willies pants...? Funny thing is that there are NO BLEMISHES on ANY of the REP candidates, and EVERY candidate the DEM's put up has something to laugh at.. HAHAHAHA You people are SUCH a bunch of loosers,.. I am SOOO looking forward to the REAL campaign, you will be shamed beyond any of your wildest dreams....
BIll...:-)
Posted by tidbit100 at 01/09/2008 @ 01:24am
Any Dem will beat the Republican on this one. That's the bottom line.
Posted by Dethtol at 01/09/2008 @ 01:27am
Re: What Just Happened? Nothing spectacular's happened. Iowa is just a caucyses, while NH's primaries. Don't make the former an eleffant and the latter a fly.
Posted by HelenDAO at 01/09/2008 @ 01:33am
I'll tell you "what happened". Hillary had to win N.H. to stay alive in this campaign, and HILLARY DOESN'T LIKE TO LOSE. They simply greased some palms in the urban areas of N.H. and, voila... victory !! The Clinton's resort to this kind of thing when pushed to the wall, and Hillary was pushed to the wall in N.H. All the polls showed Obama WAY AHEAD, in most cases by double digits. So, now you have the explanation for this very "surprising" result.
Posted by WinnieM at 01/09/2008 @ 02:19am
It is refreshing to see that there are others who view the press with some disdain after regarding their aggressive, but unsuccessful effort to take down Hillary in the NH primary. Gloria Steinem's article in Tuesday's NYTimes spoke eloquently to the fact that gender seems to trump race in the general public when the choice is between two people of power, one a white woman, the other a black man. (If Barack was a woman with the same background and short, shallow experience in government, would "she" be in the same position he is?) Men in general, and particularly those in the media, have really shown their colors on this matter, even in the so called liberal publications. Because HC doesn't curtsy to the media, they use their platform to vilify her at worst, or simply slant her negatively at best. Do you think the low esteem with which the general public views the press has some merit. Chris Matthews of Hardball pummels the Clinton on every opportunity, which means every show. Joe Klein admits as much. Matthews was cited by many on one liberal blog for the reason why people turned on the press and voted for Hillary in NH. It's called the American desire for fair play, and an unwillingness to be told what to think. Most in the media can not see beyond their own self-importance to recognize that fact.
Posted by DRev at 01/09/2008 @ 03:16am
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the same polling methods used for both repubs and dems would 'only' reflect the dem vote being way off. Makes perfect sense...
Poll_____________________Date_______Sample__Obama__Clinton____Spread
Suffolk/WHDH________01/06 - 01/07____500 LV____39______34____Obama +5.0
American Res. Group__01/06 - 01/07____600 LV____40______31____Obama +9.0
ReutersC-Span/Zogby_01/05 - 01/07____862 LV____42______29____Obama +13.0
Rasmussen__________01/05 - 01/07___1774 LV____37______30____Obama +7.0
CNN/WMUR/UNH______01/05 - 01/06____599 LV____39______30____Obama +9.0
Marist_______________01/05 - 01/06____636 LV____36______28____Obama +8.0
CBS News____________01/05 - 01/06____323 LV____35______28____Obama +7.0
NOT.
http://tinyurl.com/2exju2
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 03:53am
What happened? I'm shocked at this analysis--it's no better than Lou Dobbs! What happened is that voters who said they would vote for Obama experienced moments of racist fear in the privacy of their voting booths, and altered their votes. It is the only explanation of the discrepancy between the pre-New Hampshire polls and the actual results. Please don't tell me that you believe a largely despised woman's tears could change the outcome by over 10 points! If womens' tears changed outcomes, the world would be a radically different place, don't you think? I recommend that those of you who would like to think more about the racial dynamic involved in this primary pick up a copy of Keith Reeves book VOTING HOPES OR FEARS. You can find it on Amazon--there's great data to support this theory, and I am saddened and shocked that this discussion has been off the media table--even here at the Nation. Patricia Williams, where are you?!!
Posted by Sonal at 01/09/2008 @ 05:55am
I think Christopher Hayes is on to something here. I am not a Clinton fan but I did feel sorry for her on Monday. For so long, Bill Clinton has been so hugely popular with Democrats who have to look at George W everyday, that we felt a bit embarrassed by seeing HRC melt down so quickly. But we all have to remember, that regardless who is elected, it is only organized popular pressure that will move this country in a progressive direction, and that can happen even under a Clinton the 2nd presidency. Rob in St. Paul
Posted by RobRamer at 01/09/2008 @ 07:24am
The Croc Tears did their intended job. The idea a campaign that focus groups the clothing she wears, and spent $2 million on polls BEFORE the first primary, would allow Hillary to have an unscripted moment is absurd.
In one way, this is good news. Instead of lily white, conservative, farm-based Iowa (with a population smaller than Chicago), and tiny New Hampshire, (half of Iowa's population) being able to force their choice on the rest of America, we have a real primary race.
Better yet, how about four primary dates, each in a certain region? That would give all of americans some voice.
Posted by AGNOSTIC at 01/09/2008 @ 08:19am
Chris Matthews zero, Hillary one
Thanks to pundit wannabe Chris Matthews Hillary got back on track in New Hampshire. He has been obsessing about Hillary most of his so-called career and was happy to trash her again when it looked like Obama was on a steamroller. Keep it up Chris!
Posted by pacrat at 01/09/2008 @ 08:20am
What happened? A ton of voters showed up. That's what happened. Hopefully this trend continues throughout the states. NH showed, I believe, that the race to the WH is still wide open. Good stuff!
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/09/2008 @ 08:43am
"I reprogrammed the simulator so that it was possible to win the primary. I changed the conditions of the test; got a commendation for original thinking. I don't like to lose. I don't believe in the no-win senario."---Adm. Hillary T. Kirk
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 08:51am
Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 08:51am
In other words, cheating. Don't think that's applicable here, Mask.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/09/2008 @ 09:21am
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/09/2008 @ 09:21am
Never know. 81% of the votes in NH were counted by DIEBOLD optical scanners!
There's something for RESE to post about, huh?....heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 09:25am
It's raining in hell-- Frita, RESE and I all agree.
Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 09:47am
No, this definitely wasn't a triumph for the Clintons, it was a victory won through the use of fallacious mailers, Bill's lies, pandering for a edge in the female vote, and terror-threat fearmongering. The whole affair disgusts me.
Posted by bridoc at 01/09/2008 @ 09:56am
I thought that liberated women weren't supposed to do the "I'll cry if I don't get what I want",thing.People who want two family rule of America should move to a monarchy rather than trying to create one here.First we get ignorant Republicans giving us King George 2 and now many Democrats want to inflict Queen Hillary 2 on us.Enough already.We don't need political crime families ruling America.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/09/2008 @ 10:08am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/09/2008 @ 09:47am
I WAS joking....you think New Hampshire was stolen by HRC?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 10:08am
I'm with FRITZ. This was a huge turnout in a hotly contested primary. All the candidates will be better for it. Conspiracy theorists need not apply, please.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 10:11am
What is it about you people that you can't see the forrest for the trees. Wake up and get on board or get the hell out of the way.
Or maybe we just don't share your fanatical crush on Clinton. The point is that women may have been turned off by Edwards comment on her "Muskie" moment. The race issue (New Hampshire being a secret ballott) is also a good one. Lifetime of service? Would that include the time she spend as a partner at a private law firm?
Posted by brunowe at 01/09/2008 @ 10:14am
Jesus... I like how you say the press and everyone was wrong. But then you say the reason that she won is basically that she is a woman who cried. Man.....I can't believe the amount of bigotry you write just because she is a woman. What about earlier this week when she got angry in the debate? How come you don't mention that may be a reason why she won? It's just funny how quick you are to say the only reason she won is because she cried.
Posted by josh20950 at 01/09/2008 @ 10:25am
Lifetime of service? Would that include the time she spend as a partner at a private law firm?
Okay, she has done public service work throughout her adult career, the rest of my statement still goes.
Posted by JOSH20950 01/09/2008 @ 10:25am
Nothing bigoted about it, although the reaction to the "Muskie moment" may have had more to do with it. I refer you to Pollitt's column where she stated that Edwards had lost her vote because of his statement.
Posted by brunowe at 01/09/2008 @ 10:30am
Posted by HMAN23 01/09/2008 @ 10:11am
Just loggied off and checked....yep...sure enough, ol' RESE thinks "Diebold and (of course) the CIA stole the primary for Hillary!"
Gotta be more careful with my jokes...don't want people to think I was serious and get lumped in with her and HSUB!
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 10:33am
Josh-My wife is a feminist who agrees with the author of the article and my wife is not an anti woman bigot.She would love to see a woman in the White House,but prefers one that doesn't rely on a man(Bill)and tears to get into the White House.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/09/2008 @ 10:48am
I'm Nobody - Thanks for your reply, but I think Bill is there to support her, just like any candidate has their support of their spouse. But what's most interesting to me is how the media doesn't say anything about Obama's two wives....Michelle and Oprah. How come no one in the press said anything about how Obama is relying on Oprah when she was heavily there to support him? I mean come on. Your wife may be a feminist yes......but does she agree that Oprah has tried to influence millions of voters and did Obama rely on her? Yes he did. He relied on her at several events. And if you want to refer to relying on a man and tears as kind of a way to get a sympathy vote, can you not say that John Edwards mentioned his child's death and wife's cancer (though these are very serious issues and i'm not saying they are not) to get sympathy votes as well. But no one said anything about that. So, I truly, truly think that it's different for a woman, specifically Hillary Clinton. And how the word "rely" comes is handy when talking about a woman.
Posted by josh20950 at 01/09/2008 @ 11:05am
Some thoughts...
New Hampshire and Iowa are unique demographics 'played to' by specific candidates. I don't think anything happened to affect the voters between the two events... except, of course, a bunch of media pundits finding reasons and excuses where none exist...
Diebold, however, IS highly unaccountable, hackable, and suspect... whether RESE is posting about it or not.
It's simple. 'Paper trails' or appointees. Do you want your vote to count, or not?
Posted by ttr at 01/09/2008 @ 11:06am
I believe the voters in New Hapmshire realized that Obabma was about to "ordained" and they didn't want to be viewed as "sheep" following Iowans. I think HRC's teary moment was genuine.
I think Chris Mathews is an a--hole. I used to think he was bright until a couple years ago when he told Kieth Olberman the he was the Edward R Murrow of our era. What an insult to Murrow!
Mathews and Olberman are a couple of selfserving theatrical hacks.
Go Hillary!! I hope she wins. I just sent her more money. If you don't like that, then I'm LMAO. Ha Ha Ha
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 11:22am
Gees, maybe the Bush biographers should take note of what an effective ploy it is to paint a politician as a poor, despised, misunderstood, undeserving target of the biased agendas of others and who really deserve sympathy and compassion for all the mean-spirited, unkind people picking on him when he has had so many unfair burdens and has been the target of so much hostility.
Nice if you can spin it right. Strut like you are the alpha dog--and when others legitimately challenge, cry that you are being picked on, and while throwing dirt on others, tear up about how difficult it is that the red carpet treatment has turned shabby. Then spout about experience in the face of demands for change due to the fact that all the years of experience created the situation that needs change.
There is a sucker born every minute who will buy it apparently.
Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 11:28am
Response to the first post: What "lifetime of service"? This is the biggest "fairy tale" of the campaign. Hillary was First Lady of the US for eight years and First Lady of Arkansas before that -- big deal! What has she ever been elected to, except the Senate seat? Her sense of entitlement is sickening, and it is unbelievable that voters don't see right through her.
Posted by neal621 at 01/09/2008 @ 11:31am
Nothing bigoted about it, although the reaction to the "Muskie moment" may have had more to do with it. I refer you to Pollitt's column where she stated that Edwards had lost her vote because of his statement.
Posted by BRUNOWE 01/09/2008 @ 10:30am | ignore this person
I agree with Brunowe's point. The women in my life are far left academics, who have studied women's issues during their undergraduate days, and though they're not singularly entrenched in that thought process they are still very sensitive to how women are treated; the fact that many people (white males) refer to Clinton as "Hillary" while using last names for the men, irks them, as one example. And I would add, they are pretty much against Clinton and consider her the worst of the Democrats when measuring policies and issues. So, yes, they notice these things.
I wish the focus would shift from the hyped-up coverage of these two superstar candidates, where Clinton and Obama's every move, every word is blasted over the headlines, while the actual issues (and other candidates) remain buried beneath the personality fetishism of the media. I don't accept the supposed anti-Clinton bias in the media. I'm left in my small city Virginia isolation to the sole media perspective of NPR (I don't have a TV) and they have certainly blessed Clinton with more favorable coverage than any one candidate deserved. This is probably the most important source of media information feeding likely Democrats, and all I heard for many months was "Hillary the inevitable," or Clinton is running the "mistake free campaign," etc.
It would do justify to the so-called democratic process if the media let this play out and let people decide for themselves. After all, as Edwards has correctly stated, we have witnessed one percent of the voters voice their opinion. Now how about letting others participate.
Most people are upset because the government, which had invested considerable national resources to building and cultivating a middle class during the first several decades post World War Two, has been effectively transferring wealth from the working middle and lower class to the filthy rich. Edwards is the only candidate willing and capable of taking on this group. He's willing to use the presidency as a way of kicking open the dark and secretive mahogany doors where politicians and big industry make decisions enriching themselves at our expense and exposing this behavior for what it is. This is still a remarkable distinction between him and the other two Democrats who decided to remain beholden to big money interests.
Edwards tried the behind the door insider game, focusing on incremental ‘pragmatic' compromise, but is now committed to a new more aggressive and honest approach. All the cheap shot criticisms of trial lawyers fail to acknowledge the reality that big business will fight even when they have committed crimes intolerable to the whole of humanity; a child killed or maimed by negligent corporate business decisions will still evoke a fight to the death by industry to prevent their being held accountable. Hell, Exxon, amidst record profit margins, is still fighting the jury settlement from the Valdez disaster decades ago, saying the captain drunk at the wheel was not their fault. This is a claim so absurd it warrants no further comment.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/09/2008 @ 11:44am
PLEASE gimme somebody NEW...with NEW ideas. If Hillary Clinton were to be elected and re-elected, the nation could go 28 years in a row with the same two families governing the country. Add the elder Bush's terms as vice president, and that would be 36 years straight with a Bush or Clinton in the White House. Already, for 116 million Americans, there has never been a time when there wasn't a Bush or Clinton in the White House, either as president or vice president. Does a nation of 303 million people really have only two families qualified to run the show? As for "experience" Clinton -- six years in the United States Senate; Edwards -- six years in the United States Senate; Obama -- seven years in the Illinois state senate and two years in the United States Senate.
There's no question that Clinton was highly involved in politics and policy for most of her adult life. But is her pre-Senate experience as a lawyer and a policy advocate really that much more substantial than Obama's seven years as a state legislator?
"During the two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
And during one of President Bill Clinton's major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled."
Here's the real money quote: "And, in the end, she did not feel or process the weight of responsibility."
Posted by bperiod at 01/09/2008 @ 11:55am
For those who keep insisting that the status quo needs to change, how original. A politicain espousing change. Gee, I never heard that before.
Heads up folks, if there is any one thing that has remained constant throughout history, it's change. Look back 25, 50, 75 years and tell me there hasn't been change. Our culture and our world is always changing. It's the nature of all things. Yes, the current state of our nation needs to change and it will. And it will again in the future. Those who've been in office have made changes. Those who will succeed them will make more changes. And so on and so forth add infinitum.
How anyone can believe that a particular person has an exclusive message of change is laughable. How anyone can believe that anyone currently in office got there on anything but a promise of change, is naive.
So the question is not who will stand for change. The question is who can make the changes we each believe in. Who has the experience and has shown the ability? Then we make our choices.
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 12:05pm
"...as a poor, despised, misunderstood, undeserving target of the biased agendas of others and who really deserve sympathy and compassion for all the mean-spirited, unkind people picking on him when he has had so many unfair burdens and has been the target of so much hostility."----Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 11:28am
Isn't that the WHOLE basis for race-based politics?
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 12:07pm
Edwards is the only candidate willing and capable of taking on this group. He's willing to use the presidency as a way of kicking open the dark and secretive mahogany doors where politicians and big industry make decisions enriching themselves at our expense and exposing this behavior for what it is.----Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/09/2008 @ 11:44am
No....that's what he's been PROMISING to do.
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 12:08pm
Josh-Celebrities aren't former presidents who have tremendous power within their parties.Oprah is not living to get Obama elected,but Bill is living to get Hillary elected..Oprah will not be moving into the white house with Obama and sharing power with Obama as Bill would be doing.Former presidents should stay out of politics as much as possible and retire to a life of doing good works.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/09/2008 @ 12:27pm
Josh-Many people have mentioned Edwards using the death and disease to get sympathy votes.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/09/2008 @ 12:29pm
You know I am an Obama supporter, but a fairminded one.
After Obama's Iowa win, I realized Hillary bashing was suddenly in vogue. Mainstream media as well as the Obama supporters on many blogs went overboard to put down Hillary--almost conducting a verbal personality assasination while praising Obama so highly that he almost can do no wrong.
This actually made me sympathize with Hillary because I could understand what type of pressure she was under. If I were her, I would have collapsed already. In the meantime, the doubt also occurred. I thought no matter how inspiring Obama is, he is still politician in this political game to grab the power. He can be ruthless too--even though subtly he has consistently belittled Hillary. He is lucky because he is young and without bagage, so he doesn't need to go negative, which makes him look good and make Hillary look less better. Also, with all my admiration for Obama, I can sense he is also a politician craving for power and glory. (Also, sometimes he sounds like he loves Republicans and independents even more than Democrats, which did bother me a little bit.)
I am still leaning toward Obama not because I hate Hillary. But because I simply believe that it is for the health of the country, we should rotate the executive power, not let the same group of people in power for too long.
If media is surprised by this NH outcome and embarassed by their inaccuracy and rush to kill, I as an individual is also surprised by my own changing mind.
Posted by may2002 at 01/09/2008 @ 12:46pm
Response to the first post: What "lifetime of service"? This is the biggest "fairy tale" of the campaign. Hillary was First Lady of the US for eight years and First Lady of Arkansas before that -- big deal!
Actually, she did much government and non-profit work as First Lady of Arkansas and before that. Although her Senate seat is her only elective experience, it isn't the sum and substance of her public service. There was: Children's Defense Fund, House Judiciary Committee staff during the Nixon impeachment inquiry, the Legal Services Corporation and as Arkansas First Lady--Arkansas's Rural Health Commission, Arkansas Educational Standards Committee. Of course, she was still a partner at Rose Law Firm at the time, so it wasn't more of a private-public service mix, but there is a record of public service there.
Posted by brunowe at 01/09/2008 @ 12:51pm
I'm Nobody - I agree that it has been mentioned of Edwards using his personal issues to get votes but he doesn't get slammed for it. If so, it would have been a major issue. And it hasn't. If so, you would have seen the headlines say "Edwards emotions over personal issues may have gotten him votes." And they didn't. Also, i do believe that Oprah is living to get Obama elected. And I do believe that she influences millions of people. In fact most people would agree that she is the most powerful woman in entertainment. And unfortunately many people think (especially young people. And I am young myself) that people in the in entertainment industry are some sort of gods. But to go a little off topic, no one has ever asked Oprah if her words are backed by actions, meaning...has she ever hired or promoted someone to an extremely high executive level position that didn't have the experience listed on their resume? I know it is not her that is moving in the White House, but she has a lot of influence over woman. Bill Clinton has done a lot of good work after he left office. And I do believe he will continue to do a lot of good work after Hillary is elected. i like Obama, I think he is very charasmatic. The man is a great, great speaker. But I don't feel the substance behind his words. I think his words are just words. People never really question his experience. To me his words are far more greater than his experience. I have read many articles and they don't question his experience. They say what kind of experience does Hillary have? What makes her more qualified than Obama? Never what makes Obama more qualified than Hillary? Let Obama get slammed for once. The media is soooooo nice to him. Soooooo Sooooooo nice to him. And the Republicans are only being nice to him now because if he wins the Democratic ticket, everyone knows they are going to use the same words as Hillary Clinton...."what experience?" They are not stupid.
Posted by josh20950 at 01/09/2008 @ 1:04pm
Josh-I suspect that more people would mention Edwards trying to get sympathy if he were a front runner.Oprah does not spend her every waking moment trying to get Obama elected,but Bill does spend all his time trying to get back in the white house.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/09/2008 @ 1:25pm
I'm Nobody - Correction, Bill spends all his time trying to get Hillary into the White House. I don't think the word emotions would have been mentioned regardless if Edwards was a front runner or not. And I don't believe that just because he isn't a front runner he shouldn't have been slammed in the same way Hillary is for either "relying on Bill or getting emotional" In fact I think it's important Edwards brought up those issues about his family. But I do believe he used that for a sympathy vote and relied on his wife experience with cancer to get him votes. I think she is a very nice woman. And I think she is a great role model to help people who have cancer and fight for the cure. But he used it a lot when he first mentioned he was running for President and I think it's sad that he used it the way he did. So that's the reality of the situation. All of the candidates rely on their spouses to influence the votes. It just happens to be that Hillary Clintons husband is Bill Clinton and I think it's great that he supports her just like Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards supports their spouses.
Posted by josh20950 at 01/09/2008 @ 2:22pm
So, let's say I want to build a custom house to suit my needs. I need a contractor. Two apply for the job.
One tells me his family have been contracting for years and that he's built many homes. He knows where to get the materiels. He knows all the good carpenters, plumbers, masons and electricians. He knows the intricasies of getting my designs approved through proper channels. He's expperienced the pitfalls that may occur and knows how to anticipate and avoid them.
The other tells me he's never done much contracting. He built a playhouse once for his kids and also a doghouse. But he's really a nice guy and I know he's going to try really hard to build me what I want because he knows how much it means to me.
So, all other things generally being equal, who should I hire?
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 2:27pm
With no further information? I'd take the first.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2008 @ 2:34pm
Posted by EDDIEBISME 01/09/2008 @ 2:27pm
Curious EDD, what if the First Guy (or Gal) tried to build a house, first time out of the box as a contractor, and it collapsed and the dust and debries damaged the homes of the folks nearby who tried to help him (or her) build it...but he (or she) promises that THIS time, all that experience he (or she) got from her house collapsing will help them build "an even better one"?
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 2:56pm
EDDIEBISME: problem is you need to check the record of #1--all those disatisfied customers and lawsuits-- now riding on past laurels to cover for present sloppiness and negligence, shoddy materials, overpricing, while #2 is hustling to make a name--really has his nose to the grindstone, trying to establish his reputation with exceptional quality and innovative ideas.
See you can take this anywhere.
Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 3:01pm
yeah it can LIL, it was a loaded question. I guess that's why I'd need to thoroughly & honestly check past experience and make an objective judgement. Emotions shouldn't be a factor.
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 3:18pm
but LIL, shouldn't I check the record of both contractors?
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 3:24pm
Mask, based on your hypothisis, I'd look for a 3rd prospect.
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 3:36pm
and I'd let the second guy make a name for himself on someone else's house
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 3:38pm
Posted by EDDIEBISME 01/09/2008 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person
The guy who has been in the business for years also knows every way in the book to cheat/change order the owner into bankruptcy. But, is the contractor honest? Does he have a reputation of getting results for his client, the owner? Check his references.
I have checked HRC's references, she has a world of knowledge when it comes to the process of governing. However, I don't agree with her views. Not all Democrats are the same. She is a DLC centrist, with ties to every major corporate special interest, who is trying to run left of center during the primaries. The change we need is to buck the status qou, change the calculus of how we run this nation. Will we run this nation for the corporations/1%-ers/lobbyists/war-profiteers/special interests/ (including the liberal special interests) or for the people. HRC has accepted alot of money from the former, the power brokers. What makes you think she will govern in the interest of the people?
The Republican have learned that you can not win with "Centrists". Bush II and Dole lost because they could not form a message with a clear distinction between them and Bill Clinton. The base did not come out for them because the Republicans nominated someone they thought could win, rather than someone who appeals to their ideals. So they nominate George W. Bush- a man who clearly speaks to his base, who showed without a doubt who his constituency would be. Eventhough the general public disagreed with GWB's handling of the War in Iraq, Stem Cell Research, Environmental Policy, Republican Corruption, Economic Policy and an approval rating in the mid-forties-HE STILL WON! Becuase the Dem's nominated someone without a clear message.
What will HRC's message be in the general election? Will she say that she has more experience than John McCain or former Gov. Romney? She may be able to use that on Giuliani but he will counter with the "I'm a Washington Outsider" line. Will she say that she will get us out of Iraq in 3 years? Anyone of the Republicans can challenge that if the Iraqis stand up in three years we won't be in Iraq under either party. Will she run on the economy? She share the same campaign donor list as the special interest whores of the Republican Party. What message will she run on?
I still don't know if Obama or Edwards are for real, but they are willing to talk that way. Politically speaking, that's a step in the right direction. We cannot afford another Democratic Presidential Candidate that is not willing to seriously distinguish themselves from the Republicans. The left has views that the American people are ready to hear. The Progressive Party needs the stones to make the clear distinction, to create a message that will cast this next election as choice- Change? or Stay the Course? HRC is far too indebted to the lobbyists and corporate sponsors that have funded her campaign to affect any real change in this country. And if she is willing to take their money, then slap them in the face when it comes time to govern does she deserve to lead?
Can any of the HRC supporters tell me what the message of the next Clintonian presidency would be?
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/09/2008 @ 3:44pm
I heard someone say today that HRC picked up Biden and Todd's "experience is important" supporters. wadda ya think?
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 3:45pm
Posted by EDDIEBISME 01/09/2008 @ 3:36pm
Just saying it's not a pure example/analogy. Somebody can have a LOT of "experience"...at failure.
We all know ...he's sitting in the Oval Office!
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 3:57pm
Can any of the HRC supporters tell me what the message of the next Clintonian presidency would be?----Posted by BIZARRORIO 01/09/2008 @ 3:44pm
Setting the Wayback Machine (or DeLorean) to 1995?
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 3:58pm
Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person
LOL!!
Seriously, I have not heard anything substantial from the campaign. Running on the first Clinton's record is not a message. Running to the right of the field in the primaries means running further to the right in the general election. Not my idea of change.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/09/2008 @ 4:02pm
hey Mask, it's Wednesday! ;) lol
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 4:29pm
Posted by EDDIEBISME 01/09/2008 @ 4:29pm
And I'm glad (and apologetic) that you're still here, EDDIE!
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 4:32pm
Posted by BIZARRORIO 01/09/2008 @ 4:02pm
"Change" is Obama and Edwards' stuff. She just picked it up because "that's what the peasants want to hear". (Remember, before Iowa, her mantra was "experience" not "change").
And what's so bad about a return to the 90s? Surpluses...no wars...booming economy...welfare reform on a bipartisan nature....POST-Renaissance Supreme Court Justices.
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 4:34pm
I was just looking a a shot of Obama on the tv. Nothing significant in itself but it helped me realize that the best, most positive thing that came out of last night, especially for the Dems, is that it's going to get a lot of people's focus on issues and substance instead of personalities. More than ever, Americans need to be smart about this election. The fact that it's all happening so fast makes the effort for everyone to be diligent in their choices all the more neccessary. It seems a lot of people are calming down a little. Getting things in a better perspective.
I feel myself having a little more breathing room today and not, as yesterday, feeling like I'm being swept away in a wave not of my choosing. I still have a preference but, given new information, I could change my mind. Whomever wins in the end, if they win because they presented a good case, I'll be ok with it.
I just don't want a candidate or a President elected by people who were blinded by the light.
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 5:02pm
c'mon Mask, nothing to apologize for. your concerns helped me see that the discussion is serious and intelligent.
Posted by EddieBisme at 01/09/2008 @ 5:04pm
Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person
Precisely my point, she carefully polished the change message to coincide with her experience message. Her Senate record, campaign finances and message scream just another corporatist.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/10/2008 @ 12:02am
Posted by BIZARRORIO 01/10/2008 @ 12:02am
Well, the main thing was in answer to your question about "returning to the 90s", actually.
Posted by Mask at 01/10/2008 @ 09:37am