Thin-Skinned, Much?

I see via Memeorandum that Hillary got super-duper angry or something last night, and Sullivan has the apparently over-the-top reaction from Hillary:

Sullivan also has the idiots that Frank Lutz is apparently learning from:

“Hillary seemed to crack…”

I actually have about had it with all this crap, because I am sick and tired of defending Hillary. But if that was Hillary ‘cracking,’ or seething with anger, or whatever you want to call it (Andy states he thinks “she’s actually offended that anyone is challenging her for the Democratic nomination.”), I just don’t see it. in fact, I am beginning to think this really is a nation of wimps.

What you saw was someone making the point that there is more to change than just supporting change, and that change takes hard work. And that offends people? Seriously- change is work, and that is the point she is trying to drive home. And she has a right to be a little frustrated. What exactly has John Edwards done? Not much when he was in the Senate, if you remember the Republican talking points from the past election. What major bills does Obama have under his belt?

Quite frankly, I hate to say this, but I think what we are actually seeing is a double-standard here, and the feminists may be right. This is all about Hillary being a woman. John Edwards has been 150 times as angry the whole campaign, and has built his entire campaign around it. Howard Dean was angry, and people lapped it up. Here, Hillary isn’t really angry, just matter-of-fact and frustrated, and people are giving her shit.

I don’t want Hillary as President, but it sure looks to me like she isn’t getting a fair shake and is being subjected to a double standard. It’s bullshit.

And while I am ranting, one last thing- Watch that Luntz polling group video again and try to argue that it is not well beyond the time to end these special primaries and caucuses (cauci?). We are placing an inordinate amount of power in the electoral process in a bunch of yokels up to their armpits in pig shit and corn in Iowa and sipping mocha while driving a Volvo in New Hampshire. All the primaries, same day. Something. Anything.

*** Update ***

Apparently my ten+ year old memories of NH are off. I remember lots of wealth, lots of yuppie type shops with flowerbaskets and gingerbread woodowork, lots of flannel for effect. Whatever. My apologies to offended New Hampsherites, but in 2012 I say you should pound salt and to hell with your privileged status within our electoral process.






185 replies
  1. 1
    sparky says:

    This clip doesn’t show what Edwards said. If you see that it’s a lot clearer (at least to me) that she made a mistake reacting to his dig this way.

  2. 2
    LiberalTarian says:

    I wanna wonk.

  3. 3
    cleek says:

    Sullivan is just bat-shit insane when it comes to Hillary. he is actively seeking ways to find offense from her and to be offended by her. i just skip any of his Hillary-related posts.

  4. 4
    cleek says:

    All the primaries, same day. Something. Anything.

    yes, 10000x.

  5. 5
    John Cole says:

    This clip doesn’t show what Edwards said. If you see that it’s a lot clearer (at least to me) that she made a mistake reacting to his dig this way.

    That wouldn’t change my mind, I react the same way to Edwards. I can’t stand him. Complete phony who reinvented himself just for this election. If Mitt Romney were not in this election for the Republicans, Edwards would rightly be the running joke that Mitt is.

  6. 6

    I’m not angry! (anymore)

  7. 7
    Rex says:

    a bunch of yokels up to their armpits in pig shit and corn in Iowa and sipping mocha while driving a Volvo in New Hampshire

    you are one conflicted creature

  8. 8
    sparky says:

    jackass III: The Primaries?

  9. 9
    MJ says:

    sipping mocha while driving a Volvo in New Hampshire.

    I lived in New Hampshire for 16 years and that doesn’t really fit. I thought the rest of the post was spot on.

  10. 10
    Zuzu says:

    I don’t respect anything Luntz says, and I don’t trust any group he puts together.

    Witness:

    Fox News Caught Using Plant

  11. 11
    Sirkowski says:

    Last paragraph made me LOL.

  12. 12
    sparky says:

    Well, I can understand you not liking him, though I do. My point is just that she should have handled it better–given it back to him in a sharp fashion, for instance. Instead she lost her composure, which does make her look bad. I didn’t see it as a double standard problem because to me she reminded me of Bush when he gets petulant (usually whenever someone actually attempts to call him on something). Clinton absolutely should have hit back; I just think she did it badly.

  13. 13
    zhak says:

    New Hampshire is not a state of yokels, whatever you might think. & as far as our political decision making prowess, check out what happened in NH during the 2006 mid-term elections.

    And keep in mind that NH is the only state that changed from red to blue in 2004.

    It has confounded me since the (illegal) Iraqi invasion that anyone would continue to support Bush or the current Republican agenda, which is basically authoritarianism bordering on fascism (using the proper definition, not Goldberg’s).

    But then, I can’t imagine voting for Bush once, much less twice.

    My choice (Dodd) is already out of the race, and I think it’s a shame, because of all the candidates, he’s the only one who seemed to grasp that if we carry on the road we’re currently traveling, our experiment with Democracy will soon be over (assuming it’s not already).

  14. 14
    Chris Johnson says:

    I have to say I agree with John. I’m all for Obama getting the nomination and all, but please… that is supposed to be the scary mad woman? What the hell do you expect? And the other guy looked ridiculously smug. Sort of like “A ha, I got you- I made you go all shrewish, you bitch”.

    Well, if she’s talking total bullshit, fair enough.

    But if she isn’t lying through her teeth my sympathies are totally with her here. Isn’t the point that we’re sick to death of brainless soundbitemongering and a total refusal to get down to accomplishing anything? Is it that much of a triumph anymore to get a politician to commit an emotional or tonal gaffe?

    I would like explanations of why Hillary hasn’t done MORE. Screw health care, what about torture, what about cops with tasers, posse comitatus, the Magna Carta etc? I happen to come from one of the few states with a senator who makes noise about these things (Vermont) and I’d like to know what Hillary intends to TRY to do.

    I’d rather have a novice TRY to address these things than a pro like Hillary address only health care for children and vets- and leave all the rest as it is. Why isn’t she mad about the BIG issues? Not just focus-group-tested health care of sick children? and soldiers?

  15. 15
    Bill Arnold says:

    while driving a Volvo in New Hampshire

    What is the state car of New Hampshire? For the state to the left (Vermont) it’s Subaru, or at least Subaru is a contender.

  16. 16

    I thought her implications that Obama was like Bush, and that Edwards’ inability to pass that bill resulted in that woman’s death, were worse moments. For the “loud” moment, I liked what she said, and understand her point. At the same time, I also think that it was an odd time and choice for such actions.

    What major bills does Obama have under his belt?

    Depends on what you mean by major. He co-sponsored the bill that implemented a website for tracking, with specificity, every dollar the gov’t and spends. Bills like that have been, really, his strongest focus since walking into the US Senate.

  17. 17
    Cassidy says:

    I am beginning to think this really is a nation of wimps.

    I second that notion.

    our experiment with Democracy will soon be over

    I seriously doubt a generation will stamp out over 200 years of democracy.

    I see this going back to electability. The real winner in Iowa was Edwards. Obama’s charisma will only carry hom so long and Edwards was able to beat HRC. The two most competent people are are still having to fight a socialist with no real agenda.

  18. 18
    ThymeZone says:

    That wouldn’t change my mind, I react the same way to Edwards. I can’t stand him.

    So, is the thread about Hillary’s reaction, or is it about reacting to John Edwards?

    The “Edwards is phone” theme is really tiresome. There’s no evidence I know of that the man is phony, that he doesn’t believe what he says. That doesn’t make him right, and he isn’t my favorite candidate, but for crissakes, that stupid theme just doesn’t convince, and there’s nothing to back it up. I’ve been watching the guy for 4 years and I haven’t seen it, and I watch pretty well.

    The argument seems to hang on the bullshit idea that if a guy makes a lot of money, he can’t be sincere about the plight of people with a lot less. Give me a fucking break, that notion is just absurd on its face.

    I especially love it when Republicans, or Republican refugees, talk smack about a rich Democrat, as if their party isn’t bought and paid for by greedy-assed rich people. If we want to talk about whether rich people really have the poorer folks interests at heart, well we could have started that conversation about a hundred years ago, eh?

    As for Hillary’s reaction, it was modulated, and a little angry, but her problem is …. she looks bad when she does that, her face screws up and her voice would shatter steel. If she had a decent campaing advisor, she wouldn’t be acting that way a couple days before this critical primary. It was a gaffe, and let her feel the effects of it.

  19. 19
    ThymeZone says:

    What is the state car of New Hampshire?

    Based on what little I know about the state, I’d have to say, the Studebaker.

  20. 20
    taodon says:

    The clip reminded me of my mother right before she went off on one of her emotionally and physically abusive attacks. You guys may thinks Hillary’s great – but I see the same triggers, and still wince when she gets that look in her eye. Of course, broken bones heal, and good therapy works wonders so maybe I should just cut her some slack, right?

  21. 21
    MJ says:

    Based on what little I know about the state,

    That would seem to be very little.

  22. 22
    ThymeZone says:

    That would seem to be very little.

    Based on what information?

    WTF are you talking about?

  23. 23
    crayz says:

    I agree Edwards is a phony, but… Edwards anger is towards corporations and “the establishment”, which makes it seem righteous anger. Hillary in contrast seemed completely flustered by the attacks on her, and off her game after the loss in Iowa. I remarked while watching the debate that Hillary finally had to get off her high horse as the frontrunner/shoe-in, and seemed annoyed at having to win her votes in a real debate

    I don’t disagree that the current nomination process sucks, but an all-at-once vote would guarantee the establishment candidate winning every time. There has to be some way to run a grassroots/upstart campaign that gives a shot to candidates without a giant political machine behind them

    I would be happy to see Obama’s experience as a community organizer and legislator held up against Hillary’s “35 years” of …. whatever it is she did

  24. 24
    TheFountainHead says:

    Quite frankly, I hate to say this, but I think what we are actually seeing is a double-standard here, and the feminists may be right. This is all about Hillary being a woman. John Edwards has been 150 times as angry the whole campaign, and has built his entire campaign around it. Howard Dean was angry, and people lapped it up. Here, Hillary isn’t really angry, just matter-of-fact and frustrated, and people are giving her shit.

    You had me up to this point. I agree that her point was valid (in a certain way) and I agree that I would be frustrated as well, but this isn’t about her being a woman. This is about her running the “inevitability” campaign and the fact that when that image shattered, she had to be very careful to not look like the kid in the candy aisle screaming at the top of her lungs ’cause her mommy didn’t buy her the candy bar. America’s reaction (forget the damn bloggers, what do we know?) to this clip has been negative not because she’s an angry woman but because she appears to be whining about her well orchestrated and monied campaign falling apart around her. America likes a lot of things in a candidate, and there are a lot of things America dislikes in a candidate. They really don’t like a sore loser.

    BTW, I agree 100% that these primaries are an awful way to pick a candidate.

  25. 25
    MJ says:

    Based on what information?

    WTF are you talking about?

    The Studebaker is the NH State car?

    WTF are you talking about?

  26. 26
    ThymeZone says:

    The Studebaker is the NH State car?

    That’s a serious question?

    WTF are you talking about?

  27. 27
    MJ says:

    I stand by what I said you know very little about NH.

  28. 28
    ThymeZone says:

    I stand by what I said you know very little about NH.

    I made a joke answer to a joke question. No state has a “state car.”

    WTF is the matter with you?

  29. 29
    Stephen says:

    You are in right in that Hillary did nothing objectionable at this point, or, during the rest of the debate. I’m an Obama guy, but Hillary performed very well.

    I disagree with the notion of a press pile-on which seems to have started with Ezra Klein & Kevin Drum. There are zillions of news outlets. Not that many headlined with “Hillary in Meltdown.” I’m sure a few did, and I’m sure Andy Sullivan was one of them.

    But there’s not much of a meta-story here.

  30. 30
    Asti says:

    Instead she lost her composure

    Yes, she did. I just so happened to be emailing someone who was watching the debate at the same time I was and I emailed this person at that time and said “she came off as a bitch” and apparently I wasn’t the only one who saw it.

  31. 31
    Anne Laurie says:

    In a sane universe where the Overton window hadn’t been dragged so far Reicht-wards, Hillary Clinton would be running as a moderate (Eisenhower) Republican. Of course in that universe, John, you’d still be a Republican yourself!

    As it stands in this universe, Hillary has unfortunately positioned herself as the female Colin Powell. She’s been the “safe” Not-White-Guy, the scary Vagina-American who’s always been willing to toe the line, to work with the haters who fear everything she might represent, to trim her sails and compromise her goals and generally *suck it up* as she climbed the traditional ladder in her sensible shoes & businesslike pantsuit. And, like Colin Powell, she’s only succeeded in making everyone outside of the Mushy Center hate her out of all proportion to her sins.

    At this point, I think her best chance at winning in 2008 would be taking the VP slot under either Obama or Edwards. An Edwards/Clinton ticket would be unbeatable, and an Obama/Clinton ticket could probably bring in enough new young voters and discouraged non-voters to make up for the hardcore “no n*****, no b****” Haterz Blok. And it’s not as if Cheney hasn’t demonstrated that all the people who complained about the horrors of An Unelected Co-Presidency were barking at the wrong side of the political aisle. I don’t know if Hillary could swallow enough pride at this point to take the undercard, and I don’t know whether either Obama or Edwards would be willing to make the offer, but it would make me feel more secure against the nightmare of a McCain/Romney or Huckabee/Anybody ticket.

  32. 32
    MJ says:

    Lame joke, the writer must still be on strike.

  33. 33
    ThymeZone says:

    I’m an Obama guy, but Hillary performed very well.

    Is there any data out there on the possible correlation between her evaporating “lead” in NH, and the debate?

    Personally, I thought she handled the Edwards thing rather poorly. I’m still totally surprised that neither she nor her advisors had set upon the idea of having her be extra calm and “presidential” during this period. But I have no idea how the average voter might have seen it, all I know is how pundits are seeing it.

  34. 34
    srv says:

    our experiment with Democracy will soon be over

    It’s really past time to reset all these woefully misused words back to their original meanings. It isn’t even accurate anymore to call the US a Republic.

    I would be happy to see Obama’s experience as a community organizer and legislator held up against Hillary’s “35 years” of …. whatever it is she did

    For the parties and DC, it’s all about Levers of Power. She certainly knows how to play with them. If she were a man, she’d be seen more like Nixon was pre-1972 and less like Bill. In an alternate universe where Bill didn’t exist, she’s already rapped up the Republic nomination.

    Regardless of all the nits about Hitlery, I’ve come to believe latent sexism is more widely acceptable across society still than racism. Racism is deeper, but right now I’m not far from GW’s “ranch” and many of his former fellators here are talking admiringly of Obama.

  35. 35
    Chris Johnson says:

    That would be awesome, an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    They’d HAVE to shoot Hillary first, which would make things too complicated. It’s perfect :)

  36. 36
    ThymeZone says:

    Racism is deeper, but right now I’m not far from GW’s “ranch” and many of his former fellators here are talking admiringly of Obama.

    Wow, that is very encouraging. Can Obama win the state in the general election?

  37. 37
    myiq2xu says:

    My Gawd, the woman was out of control! Where were the guys with the straight-jacket?

    I haven’t seen anything this unhinged since her husband tried to murder Chris Wallace on the air.

    /end snark

  38. 38
    Zifnab says:

    I agree Edwards is a phony, but… Edwards anger is towards corporations and “the establishment”, which makes it seem righteous anger. Hillary in contrast seemed completely flustered by the attacks on her, and off her game after the loss in Iowa. I remarked while watching the debate that Hillary finally had to get off her high horse as the frontrunner/shoe-in, and seemed annoyed at having to win her votes in a real debate

    From wiki:

    One of his first sponsored bills was the Fragile X Research Breakthrough Act of 1999.[20] He was also the first person to introduce comprehensive anti-spyware legislation with the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act. He advocated rolling back the Bush administration’s tax cuts and ending mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent offenders. Edwards generally supported expanding legal immigration to the United States while working with Mexico to provide better border security and stop illegal trafficking.

    I don’t see where everyone gets off calling Edwards a phoney. How is he a phoney? He’s had one term in the Senate and the only “bad” bill I saw him back was the Iraq Authorization of Force bill. He’s backed minimum wage increases and expansion of government health care. After his Senate career, he established street creds fighting poverty and pushing for job training centers throughout North Carolina. He’s advocated expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, opposed the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and pushed for an increase to the pathetically low Capital Gains tax.

    In all of that, how has he earned the title “phoney”? Did he flip-flop on a position I haven’t heard about? Did he give under-the-table support for legislation I haven’t read about? Where is this coming from?

    Yeah, Hillary’s received a bad rap by the media kewl kidz, and Sullivan has always had a rage-on for the Clinton last name. Furthermore, if this is a clip of Hillary Clinton flying off the handle, she is probably one of the most calm and collected people I will ever see. She’s got an excellent point – 35 years of experience gives her a damn good resume. I don’t like who she surrounds herself with. I don’t like her Iraq policy. I don’t like her Protect-Our-Children Lieberman-esque concern trolling. But of all the candidates, I trust Hillary to craft a good universal health care bill. And I will be happy to see her in the Senate for many long years to come.

    In all honesty, I’ve yet to find a Republican Talking Point against Hillary that didn’t want to make me vote for her more. Let’s face it, she’s got more balls than a dozen ‘thuglican Senators we all could name. That’s their real complaint.

  39. 39
    Anne Laurie says:

    What is the state car of New Hampshire?

    Dunno, but given our experience, the “typical” car in the part of Upper Massachusetts that contains almost half NH’s voting population these days is a huge-ass Escalade or Tacoma or similar SUV-on-steroids with an “Ask me about my honors soccer student!!!” bumpersticker on one side of the rear window, a partially defaced “W” sticker on the other side, and one or more badly worn “Our Sainted Dead Troops” ribbons in the middle…

  40. 40
    Asti says:

    And it’s not as if Cheney hasn’t demonstrated that all the people who complained about the horrors of An Unelected Co-Presidency were barking at the wrong side of the political aisle.

    True, that!

  41. 41
    rmp says:

    I’m all for a different system BUT I do like the idea that a small player can get a shot. I lean toward a group of 4 to 10 different regional groups that rotate their turn to be first.

    If you go to national all at once, only the big money players have a chance.

    my $0.02

  42. 42
    Tom says:

    I agree 100%. I’m baffled at the reaction to this. She speaking forcefully with conviction… how people say she “cracked” is beyond me. Really. I’m for Obama, but I agree, I don’t think Hilary is getting a fair shake.

  43. 43
    sparky says:

    is anyone watching GOP debate version 2? i tried watching for a minute but it seemed like an infomercial so i gave up.

  44. 44
    nevrdull says:

    also: who do you wanna go to, when you are assessing the democratic candidates? thats right, a republican pollster (and luntz at that!) seemingly, FOXes definition of balance is based on the notion that opposing viewpoints balance themselves out – bullshit.

  45. 45
    srv says:

    Wow, that is very encouraging. Can Obama win the state in the general election?

    Sarcasm aside, Obama would get more votes in TX than Hitlery or any female equivalent (Pelosi, Boxer, Napalitano, etc).

    But I bet he’d win the border, El Paso, Houston, San Antonio and of course Austin. She’d only get the latter two.

  46. 46
    superdestroyer says:

    Does it really matter what Senator Clinton is doing? When she loses in New Hampshire, her campaign is over and the Democratic primary season effectively comes to an in. All of the changes that were made to the primaries basically allowed Iowa to pick the next Democratic nominee since there was no time between Iowa and New Hampshire to make adjustment and the since Senator Obama is going to win both, the media will declare him the winner.

    It is now apparent that Senator Obama is the presumptive president-elect a full year before the inaugural.

  47. 47
    TheFountainHead says:

    I think that’s a little simplistic superdestroyer. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against that all happening, but Hillary will not be done after NH or even SC. She is in it till the convention.

  48. 48
    sevenleagueboots says:

    Hillary got super-duper angry or something last night.

    An angry woman sees an angry world because her apperance excites derision in others.
    She can change the world no more than she can change her apperance.

    How about dropping this yesterday’s mash potatoes hill-dog crap & get on with the Sibel Edmonds case over at-Largely:
    Make the call John.
    http://www.atlargely.com/

  49. 49
    Tisse says:

    Right on post… except for the characterization of NH. And as sick as you are of the kind of nonsense you note in this post, I feel like I need to point out the nonsense you’re guilty of and add to MJ’s objection to the idea that NH is a state of Volvos and mochas. And it’s not because I find Volvos or mochas objectionable. In fact, I just finished a mocha, as I sit here in my yuppity enclave of Brooklyn where it is all about the Volvos and coffee shops and I rather enjoy the lifestyle. But honestly, as a native NH’ite, I have to tell you that your concept of NH is way off. Absurd, even. And I wonder where the hell this idea even comes from. I know VT has always had this reputation–even when I was a kid in MA we thought that; but I didn’t realize, I hadn’t heard until this election cycle, that NH somehow had developed this rep… It is SO far off, it makes no sense. I assume you’re processing some message from the always-useful media to come to this conclusion, there’s no other explanation, because if you’d ever actually been to NH, you would know that it’s an outright laughable characterization. You might find a few Volvos way down south, but even so it is a VERY recent thing… like, past 5-6 years recent, with the swells in suburban population in the very farthest southern part of the state. More than 15 miles from the MA border and I challenge you to find even 10 places to buy a freakin latte in the whole state. Really. It is just not that kind of place. Trust me… I spend a lot of time all over NH still and the lack of a decent cup of coffee is a regular lament of mine. I do not think most people in NH, seriously, could tell you what a mocha is. I know my dad couldn’t. Again, more than 15 miles from MA (and certainly also within that range), most NH’ites are pretty small town, regular, Podunkers. Not to say ignorant hicks – though there are plenty of those – but in NH they are pretty typical small-town, blue-collar, Maxwell House-drinking people like in any old state.

  50. 50
    Laertes says:

    I think, Fountainhead, that superdestroyer has nailed it.

    The last candidate to win both Iowa and New Hampshire and not go on to win the nomination was Ed Muskie in ’72.

    If Obama wins in NH, I think it’s over. He’ll run the table.

  51. 51
    sparky says:

    It occurs to me that part of these different takes may be based on whether you watched the debate as it occurred or whether you’re watching the clip after the fact. In real time, the debate was going along rather quietly, and no one had taken any potshots or raised their voice. Clinton tossed Edwards a softball about Obama saying he (Edwards) was unelectable. (Technically, I suppose that means she started it.) Edwards, however, apparently had decided to make the contest between himself and Obama, so, rather than taking what she tossed him, he stuck a shiv in her by calling her the status quo. Understandably, that annoyed her. But as TZ said above, when she responded, her voice shifted and became painful to listen to. It was an unexpected and sudden shift in the tone of the debate. But when you watch the clip, you are waiting for her to be horrible, and of course she doesn’t seem nearly as bad in the clip; her behavior isn’t (can’t) be as bad as the expectation.) In other words, the effect of her response at the time was much more striking than watching the clip can ever demonstrate.

    As an aside, it would be intriguing to know if this was a common perceptual phenomenon with video. Anyone?

  52. 52
    superdestroyer says:

    TheFountainHead,

    No one has been in it until the convention since maybe 1980. Look at what one loss did to the poll numbers. The Edwards and the Clinton campaign are effectively over on Wednesday morning.

    Since the Republicans have no chance of winning in 2008, that makes Senator Obama the president-elect over 370 days before the inaugural.

    Of course, as the U.S. becomes a one party state, people should be asking if this is the eleciton cycle where the Republicans will be the least bit relevant?

  53. 53
    conumbdrum says:

    I react the same way to Edwards. I can’t stand him. Complete phony who reinvented himself just for this election. If Mitt Romney were not in this election for the Republicans, Edwards would rightly be the running joke that Mitt is.

    Have to concur with TZ and Zifnab here.

    I don’t get you, John. In what way has Edwards “reinvented” himself? Far as this observer can see, he has been more consistent in his positions than most of the other candidates on both sides… and even mentioning him in the same context as Multiple Choice Mitt seems, well, fucking nuts.

    Examples of Edwards as opportunistic flip-flopper, please.

  54. 54
    TheFountainHead says:

    No one has been in it until the convention since maybe 1980. Look at what one loss did to the poll numbers. The Edwards and the Clinton campaign are effectively over on Wednesday morning.

    Maybe so, and I’ll be clear, I WANT that to happen. I’ll dance in the streets if Hillary concedes the whole damn thing Tuesday night. I’m just saying I think she’s going to hold out for Super Tuesday and see what happens. Why not, she has the money!

  55. 55
    sparky says:

    It will be over when Gore endorses Obama, which I expect will be before Super Tuesday. On the other hand, they might wait until after Florida to allow her the appearance of being a “winner” in one state. Especially in a primary with no delegates and no campaigning.

  56. 56
    superdestroyer says:

    TheFountainHead,

    But how can the U.S. claim to be a democracy when two states were the only ones that had any say in who will be the next president? Shouldn’t the other states have a say in who is the next president without the expectations games that are played in the media?

    Shouldn’t the candidates have to visit all 50 states while running for president rather than spending six months in Iowa to win the nomination and two months in Ohio to win the general election?

    Image what is going to happen after the Repubican party collapses. The general election is occur in Iowa and New Hampsire but no where else.

  57. 57
    Laertes says:

    She won’t concede. But she won’t win. After a NH win, Obama’s numbers will climb at HRC’s expense in every one of the Super Tuesday states. He’ll very nearly run the table on her.

    Who has won both Iowa and New Hampshire in a seriously contested primary?

    John Kerry in 2004
    Al Gore in 2000
    George Bush in 1992
    Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976
    Ed Muskie in 1972

    You have to go all the way back to Muskie and his spectacular meltdown to find a candidate who failed to turn Iowa and New Hampshire wins into a nomination.

  58. 58
    TheFountainHead says:

    But how can the U.S. claim to be a democracy when two states were the only ones that had any say in who will be the next president? Shouldn’t the other states have a say in who is the next president without the expectations games that are played in the media?

    Huh? This is an unrelated point. All I said was that Hillary will stick around and her campaign won’t be officially over until after Super Tuesday. I agree that the current nomination system is broken. What’s your point?

  59. 59
    sparky says:

    superdestroyer:
    I think you’re mixing two things together. Primaries are a creature of party politics, not democracy. The parties could eliminate the primary system next week and the Constitution would have nothing to say about it. But it is true that the winner take all feature of the Electoral College shortchanges the notion of a true popular vote in favor of a “stable” outcome. FWIW I think we’d be much better off getting rid of it as a device, since it seems to have failed more than once.

  60. 60
    jnfr says:

    Count me in the camp who skips all Hillary-related posts at Sullivan’s place. He goes crazy with bile whem anything about her gets near him.

  61. 61
    Pb says:

    Yeah, Zifnab beat me to it. Apparently Edwards is ‘phoney’ for continuing to do what he’d been doing. Wow, he sure fooled us!

  62. 62
    Dug Jay says:

    I am certainly no fan of Hillary’s, but I must say that in this rare instance I agree with John Cole. Her actions were far, far less “aggressive, angry or mean-spirited” than almost a third of the crap that Edward’s speaks to in hus campaign appearances. A major factor in the different standard to which she is held has to do with her sex, i.e., not a man, and to the batshit hatred of her by such people as Andrew Sullivan, the blogosphere’s own crazy old aunt in the attic (to steal a line from someone else).

  63. 63

    Have you looked at Edwards’ voting record in the Senate? It’s considerably to the right of Obama’s, which is, in turn, to the right of Clinton’s. Yet *Edwards* is the progressive candidate?

  64. 64
    grumpy realist says:

    Heck, it’s not just Vermont or New Hampshires, it’s the entire damn Northeast that’s gotten tarred with the “Volvo-driving, Enya-listening-to, latte drinking” image.

    When I consider how many small farms and obviously poor towns I drove past on my last trip back to my hometown in Upstate New York, it makes me just sigh.

    Get off the main roads, you dumb reporters, and away from the tourist traps.

  65. 65
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Hear, hear, John. When push comes to shove, there is really very little difference — in either ideology or personal qualifications — between any of the three Democratic candidates, and to see the press jumping up and down on Hillary (at precisely the time when she has substantially corrected her former tendency toward unconvincing screechiness) is rather disgusting. (Of course, another part of this is the press’ innate desire for sensational novelty, and thus for political “upsets” and “newcomers”.)

    And, yup, I agree that Sullivan is making a complete ass of himself in his attempt to define Obama as the new Christ and Hillary as the Whore of Babylon –something I’ve repeatedly tried to point out to him, since he’s told me in the past that he “values my views.” So far, I may as well have saved my breath (or my fingers). May I add that his similarly breathless enthusiasm for Ron Paul strikes me as equally loony?

    Actually, I’m much more interested in the GOP race. Every single one of them would be an utterly disastrous President — albeit for wildly different reasons: they really do vary spectacularly on a number of very important points, ranging from economics to torture to their degree of Iraq hawkishness. But at least two of them (McCain and Giuliani) would have a very real chance of winning the general election, which means that THAT primary race is important.

    I found myself actually feeling a bit sorry for Romney last night, too — as Yglesias says, it’s rather disgusting to see McCain attacking him for “flip-flopping” when he himself has done so to every bit as great a degree but gotten a completely free ride from the press, who are still obsessed with licking St. John’s pants leg. (If McCain and Obama go at it in November, it will be interesting to see whether the press’ appetite for “novelty” overcomes their tendency to cowtow excessively to the standard-model Right.)

  66. 66
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    That being said, I still got a kick out of Huckabee’s famous response to Mittsie last night (and never mind the fact that I wouldn’t trust the former with a burnt-out match).

    Oh, and when you diss Enya: SMILE.

  67. 67
    slodennis says:

    Spot on post, John.
    I’m an Edwards first, Obama second and Clinton third voter and even I thought her response was far from shrill. In fact, I thought she won the debate. And rather handily.

  68. 68
    PeterJ says:

    …and sipping mocha while driving a Volvo in New Hampshire.

    What is the state car of New Hampshire?

    Consider these facts:

    New Hampshire is the only state without a seat belt law.
    Volvo was the first car maker to use three point seat belts in their cars.

    Now that you know this, would you ever think that New Hampshire would select a Volvo as their state car?

  69. 69

    Quite frankly, I hate to say this, but I think what we are actually seeing is a double-standard here, and the feminists may be right. This is all about Hillary being a woman.

    Oooh, if you weren’t kicked out of the club already, you definitely are now, John. Defending both feminism and Hillary Clinton? The assimilation is complete. Welcome to the dark side. You can pick up your official bong-vibrator on the table to the left.

  70. 70
    myiq2xu says:

    What is the state car of New Hampshire?

    The state car of California is: Stolen

  71. 71
    KCinDC says:

    Howard Dean was angry, and people lapped it up.

    You did notice that whole “scream” thing, right? I agree that the reaction to this Hillary bit is ridiculous, but Dean is definitely not the example you should be using, since he was himself the victim of a similar inane overreaction.

  72. 72
    TheFountainHead says:

    This article at the Huffington Post pretty accurately describes the position Hillary’s campaign is in now. She’s not done, but doors are starting to close on her.

  73. 73
    Cuzco says:

    Ditch primaries altogether. They really don’t serve any useful purpose and are a ridiculous waste of money for the states. On top of that, primaries give journalists too much power to tilt elections. It would be much better to just set up a secure online site and have people vote there. That way we wouldn’t get into the problems of proprietary voting machines and the votes would be counted instantaneously.

    There’s an interesting article at Mother Jones about alternate voting systems to make elections fairer than our current mess http://www.motherjones.com/int.....loser.html

    As for Hillary, after watching that “unhinged tirade” of hers last night, she got my vote for Tuesday’s NH primary.

    Of the top 3 Democrats, she does have the most experience. If elected, her status as the first female president would be history-making and I think it would make her work her ass off. Far more than any man would do.

    Obama has potential but right now, to steal a headline from Talking Points Memo, I’m looking for a workhorse, not a show horse. Obama is a show horse.

  74. 74
    TheFountainHead says:

    I’m looking for a workhorse, not a show horse. Obama is a show horse.

    Hillary is a work horse? I will just go disagree in a corner, and attempt to breathe through the giggles.

  75. 75
    agene says:

    I completely agree, John. There is a clear double standard for Hillary because she is a woman and because her husband is Bill, the former president who is still hated by many. She gave an impassioned response (during which you could see Obama and Edwards shut their mouths and open their eyes) because they have been taking these little sly side shots at her. I don’t know if she was angry but I don’t think she was shrill or that she ‘lost it’ – I can certainly imagine the frustration she felt in, again, trying to defend herself and her comments when everything she says or does is judged by The Experts separately from the rest of the candidates.
    And, yes, please someone tell us why, why!?!, we don’t hold primaries/cockeye on only one day, like the election, so that yokels do not have undue influence over susceptible yokels. NH folks may not be latte-sippers nor hill billies, but giving Iowa and NH the first vote, as we currently do, means that they are indeed an elite, regardless of how smart or stupid they are, and their decision overwhelmingly influences the rest of the country’s easily swayed voters, not necessarily because the candidates have said or done something so different from the last year’s campaigning but because the “salt of the earth, middle class, Real, Americans” have carefully considered each candidacy and determined, with great weight and authority, who shall best rule us. And the horse race pundits get caught in the moment and amplify the meaninglessness of the votes from two states. So we choose the next shepherd for the herd. Moooo. Baaaah.

  76. 76
    Jorge says:

    My problem with Hillary is that her rhetoric is not matching up to her record. In reading her book and Bill’s books, there is no mention of her working on SCHIP or helping broker the peace in Ireland. She pretty much just talks about doing alot of good first lady work after getting her teeth kicked in on health care. These other claims just materialized right when it was convenient for her.

    Plus, I find extremely difficult to take her seriously when she attacks Obama for switching positions. She voted for no-child-left-behind, the Iraq War, and the Patriot Act. 3 issues she is running against now.

    So, her platform is: ignore the most important votes of my senate record – I take those backs, but believe me when I tell you that I was instrumental in all of the really positive things to come out of my husband’s administration.

  77. 77
    Anne Laurie says:

    Get off the main roads, you dumb reporters, and away from the tourist traps.

    Nu-uh, GR — you’ll never convince those guys “Deliverance” wasn’t a documentary!

    Let’s all consider what happens if Obama *doesn’t* win in New Hampshire, where people get a secret ballot instead of an in-front-of-the-neighbors-and-the-TV-cameras “caucus position. Will Teh Media go with the time-tested “All these dumb yokels are secret racists & they’ve just proved that America isn’t ready” theory? Or will The Villagers immediately proclaim that “Obama’s novelty value is at an end” and now the Sensible Centrist Grown-Ups can converge behind a Tested Campaigner, i.e. Bloomberg Senator Somebody?

  78. 78
    KCinDC says:

    If elected, her status as the first female president would be history-making and I think it would make her work her ass off.

    Whereas Obama’s election wouldn’t be history making at all, and he wouldn’t give a damn about doing a good job as the first black president?

  79. 79
    jcricket says:

    The Democrats can run a fucking dead shoe and I’d vote for it over the Republican nut jobs.

    John’s exactly right, but let’s broaden it. Right now Hillary’s getting the double standard as is Edwards (do you think the rich-person-like spending of Thompson, Guliani, etc. get the same kind of flack?). But whomever is the Democratic nominee will get pilloried as the press laps up whatever frame the Republican smear machine decides to push. As I read somewhere recently, “Obama’s first name will be Hussein, his kids will be would-be-suicide-bombers”, etc.

    Doesn’t mean the Democrat can’t win, but Democrats absolutely, 100%, do not play the “media game” as well as the Republicans, and they suffer because of that.

    If there’s one thing that drives me crazy it’s the whole “we must have a theme” about each candidate. And Democrats seem to suffer more than Republicans. Can you imagine if things were even-handed? Rudy never would have gotten off the ground. Huckabee would be a young-earth nutter. Mitt would be the flip-flopping RINO.

    I’d give TZ’s left nut to see that.

  80. 80
    Asti says:

    I’d give TZ’s left nut to see that.

    I don’t think it’s yours to give. ;)

  81. 81
    Cuzco says:

    Whereas Obama’s election wouldn’t be history making at all, and he wouldn’t give a damn about doing a good job as the first black president?

    That would be historic too, no doubt about it, but from my own personal experience in the workplace, the simple fact is, women just work harder than men do. The good ones anyway.

    I’ve listened to around 5 Obama speeches and they do nothing for me. I’m beyond the age where a president needs to be my hero/inspiration/national symbol/moral leader. I just want a smart president that can deliver on their promises. I happen to think Hillary is the best bet.

  82. 82
    ThymeZone says:

    I’d give TZ’s left nut to see that.

    Yah, uh, can you send me a picture?

    But all seriousness aside …. WTF? Whoever the Dem nominee is will crush the GOP crazy lying sumbitch like a maggot.

    Count on it, cricket boy.

  83. 83
    ThymeZone says:

    I don’t think it’s yours to give.

    I only take it out for special occasions :)

  84. 84
    Asti says:

    I only take it out for special occasions

    Sorry cricket, you lose.

  85. 85
    TheFountainHead says:

    I’ve listened to around 5 Obama speeches and they do nothing for me. I’m beyond the age where a president needs to be my hero/inspiration/national symbol/moral leader. I just want a smart president that can deliver on their promises. I happen to think Hillary is the best bet.

    Not to get too gushy or anything, but don’t you think now more than anytime in the last 40 years would be the time for a leader that was both smart AND an inspirational hero figure??? We have a long way to go as a country, and I don’t think a good accountant is gonna get us there.

  86. 86
    Brachiator says:

    Quite frankly, I hate to say this, but I think what we are actually seeing is a double-standard here, and the feminists may be right. This is all about Hillary being a woman. John Edwards has been 150 times as angry the whole campaign, and has built his entire campaign around it. Howard Dean was angry, and people lapped it up. Here, Hillary isn’t really angry, just matter-of-fact and frustrated, and people are giving her shit.

    Hillary is frustrated that she didn’t win? Big deal. Frustrated that her “35 years of experience” or “lifetime of experience” is being discounted? While I agree that often neither women nor non-white candidates get a break and are overly scrutinized over trivial issues, Hillary is also seeking to benefit from the weird dime-store romance novel fantasy that she has been co-governor and co-president simply because she was the wife of the president. But I don’t see Tipper Gore claiming that she deserves a piece of Al’s Oscar or Nobel Prize.

    I didn’t care for either Edward’s “this time it’s personal” crap any more than I cared for Clinton’s absurd suggestion that she is so deeply experienced that she is ready to hit the ground running on Day One of her inevitable presidency.

    The last time I checked the Constitution, there was neither a religious nor an experience test. And God knows that the experience bar rattled on the ground as soon as Dubya was elected. If experience were the trump card, then Richardson, who could easily rattle off the most impressive resume of all the current candidates, would be the presumptive nominee. I actually liked some of the things that Hillary had to say in the debate, but with her tin ear for understanding people, she in effect disavowed her husband’s entire administration, which had been based on words like “hope.”

    It’s telling that Clinton is discounting all those people who were first time participants in the Iowa caucus, or who were independent or Republicans, but who voted for Obama? She is FRUSTRATED that more people decided to participate because they didn’t find her to be the shining beacon on the hill? Hell, even Huckabee, of all the Republican contenders, recognized that Obama, for now, appears to be bringing a different spirit to the campaign.

    In the end, the reaction to Clinton has little to do with her being a woman, even though she seems to think that simply by positioning herself as a strong, powerful woman(tm), that should tell you everything that you need to know about how you should vote.

    Sullivan also has the idiots that Frank Lutz is apparently learning from:

    You mean that voters are not supposed to actually, like, voice their opinions? Nothing I saw in the clip indicated that any responses were prompted or forced. Some of the people there had been Clinton supporters and had changed their minds. Some even passionately defended Clinton and remained loyal to her.

    At this point, I think her best chance at winning in 2008 would be taking the VP slot under either Obama or Edwards. An Edwards/Clinton ticket would be unbeatable, and an Obama/Clinton ticket could probably bring in enough new young voters and discouraged non-voters to make up for the hardcore “no n*****, no b****” Haterz Blok.

    The way that Edwards so eagerly served as Obama’s wingman marked him as a permanent Number Two guy in my book. And I don’t see that an Obama/Clinton ticket does anything for Obama. She doesn’t really add anything to the campaign, and would probably be a boring campaigner. I say this even though I would vote for any of the Democratic candidates over any Republican.

    But unless she starts to bring something to the table other than her frustration and her inability to be inspiring, the wheels will soon come off of her supposedly inevitable run for the White House. This will be especially the case if Obama does well in New Hampshire and South Carolina and in retaliation her advisers hit back against Obama with negative attacks that have even a hint of a racial tinge.

  87. 87
    Zifnab says:

    Have you looked at Edwards’ voting record in the Senate? It’s considerably to the right of Obama’s, which is, in turn, to the right of Clinton’s. Yet Edwards is the progressive candidate?

    I have looked at Edwards’ voting record. I still don’t know what you’re referring to, unless you’re talking about how he’s pro-life and anti-gay. But since I’m not a single issue voter, I don’t let the word “progressive” revolve around the issues Republicans want to sell us on.

    Under a Democratic Congress and an Edwards Presidency, I would be shocked to see another DOMA or another corporate-cuddly pro-life judge. I don’t think we’d see the reverse – Abortion Rights Amendment or Gay Marriage laws – but I don’t think that should be the nation’s legislative priority over the next 8 years anyway.

    Again, where is this “far right” voting record you’ve discovered in Obama and Edwards? All three of the top tier candidates are only first-term Senators anyway.

  88. 88
    Tisse says:

    The system clearly doesn’t work well this way, granted – but there’s something to the fact that NH is the first primary… I do think it matters that NH has a history with this job; yokels or not, people in NH in general care more about this process than they do elsewhere. I live in a progressive neighborhood in NYC now, and I don’t know many people who vote in the primary — every voter I know does in NH. I don’t have any numbers, just anecdotal evidence, but it sure seems like more people in NH vote in the primaries, and they certainly pay more attention. Having grown up there outside of Nashua, it was a regular thing to go to the rallies, to meet the candidates, to have access and get informed. Everyone didn’t do it, of course (morons abound everywhere), but having that kind of access does give those people some experience that I don’t see how you replicate if you open the primary day up to be one big shebang all at once. Then what do we have to depend on to “get to know” the candidates? The media only? It’s a flawed set-up, but at least there is some interaction, some education, on the ground somewhere that gets this decision-making started. And I don’t think you could just switch it up either and have the same effect. Seems like having this tradition is something many people take seriously in NH and I think that gets more paying-attention people to the polls. Start flinging the first primary around from state to state and people who don’t get it, don’t care, will be screwing us all even worse. It’s a messy issue, and I agree it’s a weird unfair thing that NH has so much power, but I would argue there is something about it that works in a greater-good way.

  89. 89
    The Other Steve says:

    I have looked at Edwards’ voting record. I still don’t know what you’re referring to, unless you’re talking about how he’s pro-life and anti-gay.

    Bankruptcy bill?

  90. 90
    grumpy realist says:

    Great analysis over at GroupNewsBlog about the difference in speaking style between the top three candidates and why Obama so successful:

    http://www.groupnewsblog.net

    And take a look around for LowerManhattanite’s savory dissections of the problems of “the little man in search of a balcony.” Man, there are a hell of a lot of NYCers who detest the Giuliani with a passion. Hard to find room for all the knives, axes, pitchforks, and rusty knitting needles that have been chucked at him.

  91. 91
    The Other Steve says:

    Ditch primaries altogether. They really don’t serve any useful purpose and are a ridiculous waste of money for the states. On top of that, primaries give journalists too much power to tilt elections.

    Agreed. Let’s go back to smoke filled rooms, and only let the party big wigs make a decision.

  92. 92
    Zifnab says:

    Bankruptcy bill?

    That was in 2005. He couldn’t have voted on it if he wanted to, as he stopped being a Senator in ’04.

  93. 93

    Haven’t read any of the comments — sorry — but John welcome to my world. This sort of shit happens all the time and women do it to other women. Happens all the time.

    I am on probation at work (ends in Feb.) because I got into an email spat with a tenure prof over the war. My boss and her boss want to fire me, but shazam — they can’t — so I get probation and three sessions of anger management. The forst one was really productive. Turns out my bosses were way out of line, not me. The second was for me to vent. The third was so eventful that my anger management counselor fell asleep. I’m THAT angry.

    Oh, and btw, I got the highest raise ever in my time at my employer — quadruple my previous raises — while I am on probation.

    I’m not even a Clinton supporter and I still say all this shit is . . . shit. But we get it all the time. ALL THE TIME. It’s even worse when it’s from fellow females. It bites even worse at that point.

    Sorry if I went off topic. . .

  94. 94
    Cuzco says:

    It’s a messy issue, and I agree it’s a weird unfair thing that NH has so much power, but I would argue there is something about it that works in a greater-good way.

    As a current NH resident, about the only defense I can offer is that the state’s small geographic size makes it easier for candidates to stump/get their message out. If they had to do the same thing nationally, they would drop dead from exhaustion.

    As I mentioned a few threads back, I think the whole primary process should be dropped in favor of a secure alternate voting system.

  95. 95
    libarbarian says:

    I think she sounded defensive and a little whiny – like “Why wont you people believe me?”

    Other than that I agree about it being overblown and not worth the attention its getting.

  96. 96
    Beej says:

    Welcome to reality, John. Men react to attacks with “righteous anger”, women get “flustered” and “lose their cool”. Men who call an attacker on an unfair and untrue statement are “strong”, women who do the same are “scary”. The worst part of it is that this kind of reaction is so ingrained that most of the people who think this way really don’t realize they’re basing it on the sex of the person being observed. They honestly think there’s some personality quirk or philosophical disagreement that is behind their discomfort with the female participant.
    Oh, and incidentally, this is not an exercise in male bashing. Women are just as prone to this kind of thinking as men, maybe more so.

  97. 97
    LiberalTarian says:

    Asti Says:

    And it’s not as if Cheney hasn’t demonstrated that all the people who complained about the horrors of An Unelected Co-Presidency were barking at the wrong side of the political aisle.

    True, that!

    *Dude*. With all due respect, I can’t even read that sentence for all the double backs, let alone agree with it.

    Incertus (Brian) Says:

    You can pick up your official bong-vibrator on the table to the left.

    Man, I never thought of that! You could make millions!!!

    Ah, the left. So facile, so pragmatic. We just keep giving and giving. *wink*

  98. 98
    The Other Steve says:

    That was in 2005. He couldn’t have voted on it if he wanted to, as he stopped being a Senator in ‘04.

    He voted for the 2000 bill vetoed by Bill Clinton.

    And then again he voted for it in 2001.

    Furthermore, he voted against the Wellstone amendment in 2001 which would have allowed bankruptcy relief for people in debt due to medical bills.

    Yeah, it didn’t really make it until 2005, but these earlier bills weren’t any better. The bankruptcy bill is indirectly responsible for the credit crisis we are suffering today.

  99. 99
    The Other Steve says:

    I am on probation at work (ends in Feb.) because I got into an email spat with a tenure prof over the war.

    Little tip… Never get in a spat with someone at work via email.

    Either do it in person, or via a phone call.

    email leaves a record.

  100. 100
    Cuzco says:

    Agreed. Let’s go back to smoke filled rooms, and only let the party big wigs make a decision.

    There are other options. Check out this Mother Jones article for some alternatives: http://www.motherjones.com/int.....loser.html

  101. 101
    The Other Steve says:

    One of the things I found so fascinating after the 2000 election is how many “democrats” start whining about how unfair elections were.

    But had Gore won, they would have never made a peep.

  102. 102

    Beej, let us not forget the “emotional” tag.

    Oh, and incidentally, this is not an exercise in male bashing. Women are just as prone to this kind of thinking as men, maybe more so.

    Women are worse than men. It drive me CRAZY I tell ya that women do the dirty work.

    I don’t have hopes for this changing in my lifetime, though.

  103. 103
    Brachiator says:

    There are other options. Check out this Mother Jones article for some alternatives…

    William Poundstone, the author interviewed in the Mother Jones article seems so enthralled with voting theories that he floats away. In discussing range voting and other systems whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference, he doesn’t seem to understand that final outcomes matter. In his theoretical system, all outcomes are equal as long as they produce a fair result. But in a real election, even with a preference-based system, there might be a candidate who is so disliked that someone might want to vote “under no circumstance,” but none of his proposals allow for that.

    Here is another example where he just seems to be spectacularly uninformed:

    In the Olympics, they hold up those cards to rate someone’s performance—that’s another example. People are pretty familiar with the idea. Nobody has given a convincing argument that there’s anything seriously wrong with it—the one thing you sometimes hear is it’s complicated, but that’s about it.

    Except of course for the cheating scandals involving the voting in figure skating, boxing and other Olympics sports.

  104. 104

    scroll to preview = friend.

    sorry for the typoos

    (I’ll leave that one.)

  105. 105
    Asti says:

    Dude. With all due respect, I can’t even read that sentence for all the double backs, let alone agree with it.

    That’s Dudette to you, and if you can’t read that, it’s your own problem, not mine.

  106. 106
    Redleg says:

    Here’s another newsflash to correct your faulty memory: most people didn’t “lap-up” Howard Dean’s “anger.” Howard Dean was ultimately skewered because he was seen as too angry- perhaps even deranged. Don’t forget the Dean Scream.

    By the way- I do agree with you about the attacks on Hillary- I think they are based on sexist attitudes against women.

  107. 107
    Brian says:

    I’m suprised by the lack of discussion about Richardon’s sad performance. It really was quite embarrassing seeing him up there and watching the debate come to a grinding, screeching halt whenever he had the chance to blabber on and on about being the Energy Secretary at some point in the past. He would have been out of his depth sitting among the republican clowns.

    On the Hillary issue… I’m one of those who is sick of Bushes and Clintons trading the White House back forth. Even if she was head and shoulder above the rest of the candidates (which she isn’t), I wouldn’t support her on general principles.

    Brian

  108. 108

    That’s Dudette to you

    Rock on.

    For way too long now these BJ types have either 1)assume you are a male when there is no indication of female 2)played a female on the threads (Jen is TZ and don’t let demi fear you other wise.)

    Thanks and good night. Puppies call and all are still available.

  109. 109

    to blabber on and on about being the Energy Secretary at some point in the past

    It’s good thing you don’t listen to Bill Bennett. He manages to mention his sec position four times an hour for three hours every morning.

    And he is on CNN telling us what we should think.

    Please complain about Bill Richardson more.

  110. 110
    Cuzco says:

    In discussing range voting and other systems whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference, he doesn’t seem to understand that final outcomes matter.

    I think he does. The whole point of voting is to give people an opportunity to choose people to represent them. The current system sucks because you are forced to put all your eggs in one basket and in the general election, as we learned in 2000, that choice can have disastrous consequences.

    Imagine how different the world would be today if Nader voters had the option to rank their choices? Say Nader: 10, Gore: 7, Bush 5. They could have voted for who they truely wanted in Nader, but through ranking, their votes wouldn’t have been spoilers for Gore. They would have been able to live with their second choice and the 8 year Bush nightmare would never have happened.

    But in a real election, even with a preference-based system, there might be a candidate who is so disliked that someone might want to vote “under no circumstance,” but none of his proposals allow for that.

    Sure he does, right here:

    “The second best was approval voting, which is the short-form version of range voting. Instead of rating someone on one to five stars, or one to ten, you basically have two ratings—thumbs down and thumbs up—and it’s almost as good.”

    If you change the numbering in range voting to 0 to 10 with the explanation that zero signifies “under no circumstance” that solves the problem.

    Here is another example where he just seems to be spectacularly uninformed:

    “In the Olympics, they hold up those cards to rate someone’s performance—that’s another example. People are pretty familiar with the idea. Nobody has given a convincing argument that there’s anything seriously wrong with it—the one thing you sometimes hear is it’s complicated, but that’s about it.”

    Except of course for the cheating scandals involving the voting in figure skating, boxing and other Olympics sports.

    There’s a tiny sample size with olympic voting. It would be a tad harder to cheat with 150 to 200 million “judges.”

  111. 111
    Nancy Irving says:

    HRC forcefully stated her case, and in fact did exactly what those nitwits in the Luntz group claimed they wanted her to do: she listed *specific bills she pushed through the Senate that effected positive change*.

    Even Josh Marshall is claiming she was “enraged.” Her tone was not anything near enraged, or even emotional.

    Cole is right. What else can this be but bias?

  112. 112
    Cain says:

    You know I’m watching CSPAN right now and Bill’s talking and answering various questions from the audience in New Hampshire.

    Everytime this guy speaks, he just knows how to hit the key points and just seems to have a great understanding about how the world works. When the democrats win the white house they need to put Bill to work. He would actually make a great Secretary of State and throwing him back into the Palestinian/Israel negotiation should be one of his jobs.

    BTW he’s been saying some good stuff about putting the U.S. back on track in leading. One thing that really got to me was when at the last global warming summit in Bali the U.S. was just blocking stuff and one guy came out and basically told the U.S. delegate that if you can’t lead get the hell out of the way. That really did for me on how much we’ve fallen as a moral leader. Same thing with oil dependency, we should be energizing companies spending money instead on Iraq but on new technologies like we did when we committed to putting a man on the moon… *sigh*

    cain

  113. 113
    Xenos says:

    I see this going back to electability. The real winner in Iowa was Edwards. Obama’s charisma will only carry hom so long and Edwards was able to beat HRC. The two most competent people are are still having to fight a socialist with no real agenda.

    Could someone please clarify what the hell is meant by ‘socialism’ in the wingnut lexicon? Hillary-care, whatever the merits, was more Teddy Roosevelt than Franklin, and both Obama and Edwards are proposing programs that are less socialistic than that found in every single other industrialized country we might compare ourselves to.

    The only properly socialist solution to the medical insurance issue is Kucinich’s, which is still less statist than the medical systems in Britain, Canada, and Germany.

  114. 114
    sparky says:

    Um, actually, we can just have a difference of opinion. My perception of something might just be a different perception and not automatically a product of bias. I know this is teh internets but, really, would it hurt that much to be open to that possibility?

    BTW, I agree with the folks above who point out that Clinton reacted badly because people aren’t supporting her like she thinks they ought to. She doesn’t have the mental flexibility to see that times–and her challengers–have changed.

  115. 115
    Cassidy says:

    Interesting enough, the person who would probably be the most effective POTUS is losing out to all the feel good platitudes.

  116. 116
    TheFountainHead says:

    I’m just gonna say it again, cause i slept on it and I woke up still convinced I’m right. America and the MSMs reaction to Hillary’s elevated tone in that clip has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything to do with the fact that because of the type of campaign she has run thus far, she seems to be reacting more to being the loser than as a person defending herself. Fair or unfair, that’s the case, and her womanhood has only ever helped her up to this point, so it’d be pretty outrageous for her or anyone else to come out and play the “You’re mistreating me because I’m a woman!”

    Speaking of outrageous crap from the Clinton camp, Bill said yesterday that the Hillary campaign is at an “exteme disadvantage” in the MSM. Huuuuuhhhh? Hasn’t Hillary learned to put him on a leash yet?

  117. 117
    ThymeZone says:

    Jen is TZ

    Nope. You can write to the blogowners and ask them to review the IP addresses.

    I have no idea who writes Jen. But there are around a dozen regular and prolific spoofers and personas appearing here every day, so there are a lot of possiblities. One poster has probably posted a hundred or more handles here in the last two years. I have posted two that I know of, including this one, and my alter ego hasn’t made an appearance here in a long time.

    And BTW, gender shifting is one of the most popular pastimes for spoofers and personas here. But it’s all in one direction (males posting as females). I don’t know of any females posting as males.

    Make of that what you will.

  118. 118
    caleb says:

    There was nothing angry about the “Dean Scream”. It was impassioned as a football coach would be trying to rally his team after a close defeat. What made it “angry” was the media perception projected onto the masses previously that said Dean was the “Angry” canidate. If you saw the video footage taken from the crowd it was nowhere near what was being portraied in the media. It is why the media went with the soundboard version of Dean instead of the in crowd video footage.

    This Hillary thing is very similar. The media perception projected onto the masses regrading Hillary is that she believes she is “due” this win, it’s a “foregone conclulsion” in her mind. So, with the loss in Iowa, the media is magnifying everything to find that “Dean Scream” moment.

    As far as descriptions of NH as the volvo state and latte this and latte that, Maine, where I live, gets incorrectly tarnished with this as well, mainly because of the Kenebunkport area in the far southern part of the state.

    You can always tell who has actualy been here by their description of the state, which, 95% of the time, they haven’t.

  119. 119
    myiq2xu says:

    I have no idea who writes Jen. But there are around a dozen regular and prolific spoofers and personas appearing here every day, so there are a lot of possiblities. One poster has probably posted a hundred or more handles here in the last two years. I have posted two that I know of, including this one, and my alter ego hasn’t made an appearance here in a long time.

    I used to be schizophrenic but we’re much better now.

  120. 120
    Punchy says:

    This “pound salt” expression cracks me up. Never heard it before this blog. It’s so bad, it’s a dog’s breakfast. Worse than skull-fucking a kitten. Or something.

  121. 121
    TheFountainHead says:

    Worse than skull-fucking a kitten.

    That’s too graphic an image before noon.

  122. 122
    myiq2xu says:

    Ezra Klein has an interesting post about how sHrillary’s debate performance turned into the CW that she had a meltdown.

    I watched that particular passage a couple times and I didn’t see any evidence that she “lost it” or was out of control. The whole “meltdown” scenario seems to be a figment in the minds of the press Heathers.

    But I’m still not voting for her in the primary.

  123. 123
    vanya says:

    As a native of the Lakes Region, let me chime in – the state car of native New Hampshire liberals is the Subaru. The state car of older Native New Hampshire conservatives is a used Oldsmobile, pick up trucks for the younger generation. Volvos are usually driven by transplants from Mass. Outside of a few towns (Portsmouth, Wolfeboro and Peterborough), there is very little that is quaint about New Hampshire – it’s mostly overweight people with bad teeth, muddy roads, shitty strip malls and trees. Go Russel Banks’ “Affliction” for more info. (Actually Banks’ short stories tend to be even more accurate).

  124. 124
    Shinobi says:

    This is all about Hillary being a woman.

    John, Thank you for saying what was in my head.

    You can either be a woman, or you can have a backbone in this society. If you do both your a shrew and a bitch and earn yourself all kinds of disgusting nicknames (Clagina, seriously EW.) Women in this country are just not allowed to get angry. Interesting study on that here:
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....8520070803
    (Link wouldn’t work.)

    She doesn’t even seem that angry to me, she seems like she is responding, spiritedly to another person, and making her point. Men do this all the time in debates and no one accuses them of losing their shit. I think she is making a valid point and frankly I don’t see what’s wrong with a presidential candidate having a little fire now and then.

  125. 125
    myiq2xu says:

    This “pound salt” expression cracks me up. Never heard it before this blog. It’s so bad, it’s a dog’s breakfast. Worse than skull-fucking a kitten. Or something.

    It’s as bad as getting curb-jawed.

  126. 126
    Punchy says:

    We are placing an inordinate amount of power in the electoral process in a bunch of yokels up to their armpits in pig shit and corn in Iowa

    Wow. A guy from assbackwards Worst Virginia, where teeth and deoderant are scarce, is ripping Iowa.

    There’s ignorance, there’s chutzpah, and then there’s John Cole.

  127. 127
    myiq2xu says:

    Wow. A guy from assbackwards Worst Virginia, where teeth and deoderant are scarce, is ripping Iowa.

    There’s ignorance, there’s chutzpah, and then there’s John Cole.

    Well at least in WV they don’t marry their sisters. Just their cousins.

  128. 128
    John Cole says:

    There’s ignorance, there’s chutzpah, and then there’s John Cole.

    I’ve lived in Iowa and West Virginia (as well as several other places). I will take WV any day of the week.

  129. 129
  130. 130
    TheFountainHead says:

    I’ve lived in Iowa and West Virginia (as well as several other places). I will take WV any day of the week.

    Talk about moving up in the world.

  131. 131
    Face says:

    Interesting enough, the person who would probably be the most effective POTUS is losing out to all the feel good platitudes.

    and this is??

  132. 132
    myiq2xu says:

    Talk about moving up in the world.

    From hog farming to Cole mining?

  133. 133

    It´s Mondale vs. Gary Hart once again.

  134. 134
    Punchy says:

    I’ve lived in Iowa and West Virginia (as well as several other places). I will take WV any day of the week.

    I’m sure your full grill, lack of moonshine and meth lab, and a house that doesn’t include rust, a tilt, and a mother-in-law makes you an attractive catch there. Stick with WV. Your presence singlehandedly raises the state’s IQ.

    As for Clinton’s outburst….I thought she looked pissed off. It’s the first debate I’ve watched all year, but I was actually more transfixed by the Republicans just stomping on each other’s nuts the whole nite. Damn that’s an angry bunch.

  135. 135
    TheFountainHead says:

    It´s Mondale vs. Gary Hart once again.

    I don’t think this will sell any better than their last five angles of attack, but I can’t blame them for trying.

  136. 136
    Cyrus says:

    Laertes Says:
    She won’t concede. But she won’t win. After a NH win, Obama’s numbers will climb at HRC’s expense in every one of the Super Tuesday states. He’ll very nearly run the table on her.

    Who has won both Iowa and New Hampshire in a seriously contested primary?

    John Kerry in 2004
    Al Gore in 2000
    George Bush in 1992
    Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976
    Ed Muskie in 1972.

    I think other people mentioned this as well, but what are you talking about? If I’m reading Wikipedia correctly, Bill Clinton got 3 percent in the Iowa caucus in 1992 — Iowa got it wrong there. On the Republican side, Bob Dole won the Iowa caucus in 1988 and GHWB won in 1980. In New Hampshire, Paul Tsongas won the Democratic primary in 1992 and Gary Hart won in 1984. On the Republican side, McCain won in 2000 and Buchanan won in 1996.

    And of all the winners that Iowa and New Hampshire did “pick”, how many of them were incumbents? You count Al Gore in 2000 as a contested election, and yeah, Bill Bradley was in it, but he only got about 20 percent of the delegates. Gore was the vice-president in an administration with high approval ratings; I don’t think Bradley can blame Iowa and New Hampshire for his loss. The incumbency advantage is a smaller problem than two states deciding the presidential election would be. Or it’s arguably a bigger problem, but either way it’s a separate issue from the early voting in some states.

    I’m worried about the potential of the winner getting picked in the early states, or indirect effects like candidates tailoring their message to include support for ethanol subsidies (or whatever; do they still do that?) and other idiosyncrasies of those particular states. And there’s an objection to it on general principles of democracy. But I see very little evidence that Iowa and New Hampshire actually have had a kingmaking effect in recent elections.

  137. 137
    Zifnab says:

    You can either be a woman, or you can have a backbone in this society. If you do both your a shrew and a bitch and earn yourself all kinds of disgusting nicknames (Clagina, seriously EW.) Women in this country are just not allowed to get angry. Interesting study on that here:

    Oh, I wouldn’t go that far. You can always be the Republican Senator from Texas, for instance. Imagine if news pundits started calling Kay Bailey Huchenson a bitch or a lesbian or an evil shrew? Why, that would be a blatant act of hypocrisy by the liberal feminist-loving media, and proof that everyone is out to get the Republicans. Or, god forbid, you were to question whether Senator Dole only got her job because her husband was former Big Dog in the Senate? That would be rank left-wing slander of the first order.

    Nah, this is yet another age old case of IOKIYAR. Republican Female Politicians are inherently intelligent, successful, serious, and in control. Democratic Female Politicians are bra-burning raving lunatics on 24/7 PMS who have selfishly abandoned their families to go attention whoring on national TV at the public expense.

  138. 138
    TheFountainHead says:

    Damn that’s an idiotic angry bunch.

    You’re welcome.

  139. 139
    TheFountainHead says:

    IOKIYAR

    I’m all for acronyms, but WTF?

  140. 140
    Cassidy says:

    and this is??

    Hillary. While she’s not my candidate of choice, I believe that she would be very effective as a POTUS. I see her with a higher standard of professionalism; as in she has a list of things she wants done, and will accomplish those objectives with efficiency and effectiveness.

  141. 141
    myiq2xu says:

    IOKIYAR

    It’s OK If You’re A Repugnant

  142. 142
    myiq2xu says:

    I’m sure your full grill, lack of moonshine and meth lab, and a house that doesn’t include wheels rust, a tilt, and a mother-in-law makes you an attractive catch there.

    Fixt

  143. 143
    TheFountainHead says:

    It’s OK If You’re A Repugnant

    Ah. I was trying to think of words that started with K that would logically go there. Kackle? Klagina?

  144. 144
    Xenos says:

    Hillary. While she’s not my candidate of choice, I believe that she would be very effective as a POTUS.

    She is also about as conservative a Democrat can be with a chance of winning the nomination. Republicans don’t hate her (and Bill, and Al Gore before 2004) because they disagree with her – they hate her because she will disrupt the GOP spoils system.

    Remember the “preppie riot” in Florida? Those guys were fighting for their jobs.

  145. 145
    TheFountainHead says:

    She is also about as conservative a Democrat can be with a chance of winning the nomination.

    Which is one of the reasons I imagine that Cassidy is so enamored of her. That and her good looks.

  146. 146
    Zifnab says:

    Which is one of the reasons I imagine that Cassidy is so enamored of her. That and her good looks.

    According to our media elite, Hillary Clinton has boobs and likes to wear a form-fitting pants suit. So… there you have it.

  147. 147
    myiq2xu says:

    Republicans don’t hate her (and Bill, and Al Gore before 2004) because they disagree with her – they hate her because she will disrupt the GOP spoils system.

    I remember first encountering Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) back in 1992, when it didn’t even have a name yet.

    I kept meeting people (conservatives, but otherwise decent folk) who HATED Bill Clinton with a foaming-at-the-mouth fury. He hadn’t even won the nomination yet but he was HATED!

    It was really weird because they really had no specific reason for their feelings.

    Molly Ivins points out in Who Let the Dogs In? that there were people talking impeachment before Clinton was even inaugurated.

    The more things change, the more they remain the same.

  148. 148
    myiq2xu says:

    pHuckabee is on the reruns of the Colbert Report today.

  149. 149
    myiq2xu says:

    According to our media elite, Hillary Clinton has boobs and likes to wear a form-fitting pants suit.

    KFC is running a Hillary Clinton Special – 2 small breasts, a pair of flabby thighs, and a bunch of left wings.

  150. 150
    grumpy realist says:

    I think what’s turning us off about Hillary (well, aside from her unbelievable ability to talk out of both sides of her mouth at one time. Hey, sister, triangulation is dead, or didn’t you get the memo?) is the impression that she’s in a constant snit-fit because she’s The Anointed One–didn’t you read the newspapers?–and dammit, we should all fall down and vote for her in the primaries because she’s put So Much Hard Work into it.

    It’s a nausea-inducing combination of earnestness, arrogance, entitlement, and self-pity. Then when things start going bad, she falls back on the “but they’re so MEEEAN to me because I’m a girlie!”

    As Bella Abzug would say–grow up, woman. Put a sock in it.

  151. 151
    TheFountainHead says:

    pHuckabee is on the reruns of the Colbert Report today.

    Both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report return to new episodes tonight. No writers though, should be interesting.

  152. 152
    Cassidy says:

    Which is one of the reasons I imagine that Cassidy is so enamored of her.

    As I’ve stated before, I’m voting for Richardson.

    It’s an objective judgment of her personality. I think she would be very effective at the job. I’ sure I’ll disagree with some of her policies, but I can admire the will and assertiveness necessary to get the job done.

  153. 153
    Xenos says:

    As strange as Republican hatred for Hillary is, a similarly mystery is why Obama is so acceptable to Republican and conservative independents. Obama is outside the established racial types, but by marrying into the black community he has neutralized the sexual anxieties that racially ambiguous men can inspire in the weird mental landscape of the conservative white American. That is my working theory for this, so far.

    A vote for Obama does not challenge world-view of these people the way that, say, voting for Harold Ford seems to have done. No doubt there is a conservative think tank dedicated to figuring out how to reverse this phenomenon. I expect that Obama will increasingly stress his background as a child of an upper-middle-class African immigrant in order to defuse an attempt to reclassify him as a scary- descendant- of- black- slaves (a/k/a ‘n’-word).

    No wonder black Americans are ambivalent about Obama.

  154. 154
    Pudentilla says:

    I’m not caucusing for HRC simply on anti-dynastic grounds here in ME. That said, one can’t help note that boyz will be boyz.

    “The clip reminded me of my mother right before she went off on one of her emotionally and physically abusive attacks.

    “she came off as a bitch”

    “I’m still totally surprised that neither she nor her advisors had set upon the idea of having her be extra calm and “presidential” during this period.”

    “My Gawd, the woman was out of control!”

    “An angry woman sees an angry world because her apperance excites derision in others. She can change the world no more than she can change her apperance.”

    “But as TZ said above, when she responded, her voice shifted and became painful to listen to.”

    “Hillary is also seeking to benefit from the weird dime-store romance novel fantasy that she has been co-governor and co-president simply because she was the wife of the president.”

    “I think she sounded defensive and a little whiny – like “Why wont you people believe me?””

    “Fair or unfair, that’s the case, and her womanhood has only ever helped her up to this point, so it’d be pretty outrageous for her or anyone else to come out and play the “You’re mistreating me because I’m a woman!””

    “As for Clinton’s outburst….I thought she looked pissed off.”

    Hippolytus still rules political discourse in the west:

    O Zeus, why have you settled women in the light of the sun, women, this bane mankind find counterfeit?1 If you wished to propagate the human race, it was not from women that you should have given us this. [620] Rather, men should have put down in the temples either bronze or iron or a mass of gold and have bought offspring, each man for a price corresponding to his means, and then dwelt in houses free from the female sex.

    If Obama wins in NH, you fellows can uncross your legs.

  155. 155
    Zifnab says:

    It’s a nausea-inducing combination of earnestness, arrogance, entitlement, and self-pity. Then when things start going bad, she falls back on the “but they’re so MEEEAN to me because I’m a girlie!”

    Yes. I’ve been calling her a Republican for some time. I still don’t see how this is somehow a disqualifier to her candidacy. She was running as Hillary-the-Inevitable on the “Vote For Me And Despair” platform, and it was doing really well until people realized that she wasn’t the only candidate on the ballot. But her policy is steadfast, her resume is respectable, and her political connections are readily apparent. The media does treat her like shit. She takes all sorts of anti-feminist flak. She is getting a raw deal. And I’ve yet to see her bitch about something that didn’t have merit.

    In that sense, she’s distinctly unlike a Republican.

  156. 156
    Cassidy says:

    She was running as Hillary-the-Inevitable

    I think this was more of a media construct than anything else.

  157. 157
    Svensker says:

    And BTW, gender shifting is one of the most popular pastimes for spoofers and personas here. But it’s all in one direction (males posting as females). I don’t know of any females posting as males.

    Sometimes, I pretend to be a female posting as a male. Sometimes the opposite. Just depends on my mood, you know?

  158. 158
    Cassidy says:

    Just depends on my mood, you know?

    Gotta be a chick…

  159. 159
    Sojourner says:

    I emailed this person at that time and said “she came off as a bitch” and apparently I wasn’t the only one who saw it.

    Is “bitch” a description you would apply to a man? If not, here’s another data point for John’s argument.

    I’m no huge fan of Hillary’s but I am profoundly tired of the double standard. Edwards is angry, Hillary’s a bitch. What a backward country the US remains.

  160. 160
    ThymeZone says:

    Is “bitch” a description you would apply to a man?

    Yes, if it’s Cassidy.

    SATSQ volume 133.1.1

  161. 161
    ThymeZone says:

    Is “bitch” a description you would apply to a man?

    Funny, and thought-provoking.

    For pure bitchitude, you could not beat Jeanne Kirkpatrick.

    She always looked and sounded like she had a barbed stick up her ass. But … people took her seriously.

    I mean, way seriously. Even though she was arguably completely full of shit half the time, people always took her seriously.

    So …. there’s a personality thing at work here, maybe?

    As for HRC’s voice, I have said for years (and here, often) that her voice makes me want to saw my leg off without anesthesia. But then so does the voice of Fred Flintstone from Tennessee. So that’s just an aural thing, what can I say?

    But anyway, Hillary’s mien has changed from confident and presidential to strident and annoying, and it ain’t because she’s a woman. It’s because she is getting shitty advice and failing to keep her cool. Whatever label you want to put on that, doesn’t matter. Obama is kicking her ass and she will not recover.

  162. 162

    i really do need to ask, and i have no bias against senator clinton: she and her supporters constantly tout her “experience”; her 35 years of public service. i would graciously point out, that while she has been a commendable senator (i in fact voted for her when i lived in new york) she is only a one-and-a-third term senator. i do not see how she can claim her eight years in the white house as public service, and if she does, what are the exact effects of the work she produced? before that, she worked for years at a prestigious law firm in little rock, arkansas and i am also aware that she served on the board of directors for walmart. are we including this in her “public” service?

    please do not read this as a knock of senator clinton or her record; but to say she has this vast wealth of experience over former senator edwards or senator obama is hyperbolic.

  163. 163
    capelza says:

    Patricia Schaefer (if memory serves, it was 20 some years ago) teared up at some point over something and so wasn’t “presidental”. Barbara Bush called Geraldine Ferraro a bitch.

    It seems we haven’t changed that much. “Came off as a bitch”…pudentilla has already quoted the highlights.

    Thanks for noticing it John.

  164. 164
    sparky says:

    Pudentilla:

    As one of the horribles quoted above (I wrote about her voice), I ask: what exactly is OK to say I don’t like about her? Are you saying that if I don’t like something about her, it’s because I’m male? Or are you saying that because I’m male I can’t criticize her at all?

    PS: What about today’s tearing up? Is that off-limits too?

  165. 165
    John Cole says:

    You are thinking of Pat Schroeder.

    While she did get dinged for crying at one point, that really is not what kept her from the Presidency.

  166. 166

    A vote for Obama does not challenge world-view of these people the way that, say, voting for Harold Ford seems to have done. No doubt there is a conservative think tank dedicated to figuring out how to reverse this phenomenon. I expect that Obama will increasingly stress his background as a child of an upper-middle-class African immigrant in order to defuse an attempt to reclassify him as a scary- descendant- of- black- slaves (a/k/a ‘n’-word).

    Doesn’t this tell you something?

    What’s the number one reason people vote against someone?

  167. 167
    dslak says:

    What’s the number one reason people vote against someone?

    Because Fox has manufactured some story about how the candidate harbors a secret desire to destroy America?

  168. 168
    Krista says:

    But it’s all in one direction (males posting as females). I don’t know of any females posting as males.

    I think you’d be surprised at how many supposedly male posters here are actually female. A lot of women choose masculine or gender-neutral names when commenting on blogs, so that when they’re in an argument with someone, they don’t get the nasty sexual insults, or the well-meaning (but sometimes annoying) “damsel-in-distress” guys coming to the rescue.

  169. 169
    myiq2xu says:

    What’s the number one reason people vote against someone?

    Because J.C. told them to.

  170. 170
    Gus says:

    Am I reading this right? A West Virginia resident is calling Iowans yokels?

  171. 171
    capelza says:

    Thanks John…no wonder I couldn’t find her with google (claims old age).

    True, but I do remember there was quite a bit of “punditry” about her tears. She never impressed me, but I though the “crying” thing as an issue was stupid. Because she cried, she was posited as being too weak to be president…

    On the other hand, Hillary is seen as a “cast iron bitch” (what would be the male counterpart?) or whatever. I’m not a big fan of hers, but there IS a sexist quality to some of the criticism that I find really annoying. Like you, I find myslef defending her just because of some of the attitudes.

  172. 172
    ThymeZone says:

    I think you’d be surprised at how many supposedly male posters here are actually female.

    You’re right, I would be surprised!

    If you know of any, send me the info. Either here, or via email.

  173. 173
    Brachiator says:

    Is “bitch” a description you would apply to a man? If not, here’s another data point for John’s argument.

    I’m pretty sure that the masculine equivalent is a “mitt.”

    I’m no huge fan of Hillary’s but I am profoundly tired of the double standard. Edwards is angry, Hillary’s a bitch. What a backward country the US remains.

    Some people, including myself, thought that Edwards looked more ridiculous than angry when he continuously wailed about how he was going to fight for the middle class. There is less than a double standard than you suggest.

  174. 174

    […] Reformed conservative John Cole, who I know is no fan of Clinton, similarly is sick of it, and pegs the source of the problem right where it should be: Hillary’s a women, and folks can’t stand the idea of a women showing a spine: Quite frankly, I hate to say this, but I think what we are actually seeing is a double-standard here, and the feminists may be right. This is all about Hillary being a woman. John Edwards has been 150 times as angry the whole campaign, and has built his entire campaign around it. Howard Dean was angry, and people lapped it up. Here, Hillary isn’t really angry, just matter-of-fact and frustrated, and people are giving her shit. […]

  175. 175
    Hypatia says:

    Finally someone is pointing out what’s happening to H. Clinton. I’m not her biggest fan, either, but the covert or blatant misogyny of remarks about her by Republicans and Obamaniacs alike that are either ignored or accepted as fair comment has left me stunned.

  176. 176
    Zifnab says:

    What’s the number one reason people vote against someone?

    Because if we don’t, we’ll never find those WMDs?

  177. 177
    Cassidy says:

    Yes, if it’s Cassidy.

    Says the shrill, emotionally hysterical lefty. I detect a great deal of estrogen in your system, TZ. You may claim to be a 60+ man, but I’m betting on a 15 y/o little bitch.

  178. 178
    Randolph Fritz says:

    …the feminists may be right…

    It is amazing how much of recent US politics can be explained as an expression of masculinity doubt.

  179. 179
    Craig Ranapia says:

    Here, Hillary isn’t really angry, just matter-of-fact and frustrated, and people are giving her shit.

    OMG, perhaps I’m hanging out with the wrong kind of feminist but please… I get more ‘shit’ over morning coffee. When part of your pitch is “I’m the only one who can stand up to the vast right wing smear machine” and “I’m ready to be President from Day One” it doesn’t really close the deal to be venting during the primaries.

    And sorry, John, I don’t buy the double standard argument either. I don’t recall Guiliani getting much of a pass in NYC when his (shall we say) rather thin skin got bruised in the rough and tumble of New York politics. And, yes, Calpelzia, I know a few New Yorkers for whom ‘cast iron prick’ would be among the more printable descriptors of Rudy.

  180. 180

    The "Taming of the Shrew" in the Sixteenth Twentieth Twenty-First Century

    History does repeat itself, as I keep pointing out time and again. Yesterday, a reader sent me this article "First Wives Club" by Robin Gerber in the New York Post (emphasis mine, throughout this post): Her husband was president, midway throu…

  181. 181
    ThymeZone says:

    You may claim to be a 60+ man, but I’m betting on a 15 y/o little bitch.

    Wow, are you ever bad at this.

    Okay, the bet is on. We’ll start with $1000, and just let me know who you are the good candidates for holding the money.

    Verification will be by my drivers license, a copy of which will be furnished to the blogowners who can confirm my gender and age of 61.5 years. John Cole knows my real identity so there won’t be a problem with that, unless you don’t trust him.

    Just let me know when you we’re ready to send the money orders!

  182. 182
    ThymeZone says:

    “It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,” Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen said.

    “The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference,” Schoen added in a statement.

    I think we should start calling the preventable deaths the “Republican Government-Uninsured American Death Toll.”

    Thoughts?

  183. 183
    bartkid says:

    >hard work. And that offends people?
    Yes.
    It is the same reason why Americans will do anything to lose weight except eat well and exercise.

  184. 184

    […] He even truncates the remark to remove the second part of the quote, where Obama decries that “sort of gamesmanship.” Look, I believe there has been a good bit of sexism launched at Hillary this campaign, and have said as much. I haven’t seen any of it, however, from Obama and his campaign. […]

  185. 185

    […] on this and other sexism in the campaigns here and here, by non-Hillary supporters even, here.  Katie Couric at CBS says: “One of the great lessons of [Hillary Clinton’s] campaign is […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] on this and other sexism in the campaigns here and here, by non-Hillary supporters even, here.  Katie Couric at CBS says: “One of the great lessons of [Hillary Clinton’s] campaign is […]

  2. […] He even truncates the remark to remove the second part of the quote, where Obama decries that “sort of gamesmanship.” Look, I believe there has been a good bit of sexism launched at Hillary this campaign, and have said as much. I haven’t seen any of it, however, from Obama and his campaign. […]

  3. The "Taming of the Shrew" in the Sixteenth Twentieth Twenty-First Century

    History does repeat itself, as I keep pointing out time and again. Yesterday, a reader sent me this article "First Wives Club" by Robin Gerber in the New York Post (emphasis mine, throughout this post): Her husband was president, midway throu…

  4. […] Reformed conservative John Cole, who I know is no fan of Clinton, similarly is sick of it, and pegs the source of the problem right where it should be: Hillary’s a women, and folks can’t stand the idea of a women showing a spine: Quite frankly, I hate to say this, but I think what we are actually seeing is a double-standard here, and the feminists may be right. This is all about Hillary being a woman. John Edwards has been 150 times as angry the whole campaign, and has built his entire campaign around it. Howard Dean was angry, and people lapped it up. Here, Hillary isn’t really angry, just matter-of-fact and frustrated, and people are giving her shit. […]

Comments are closed.