Blinded By Our Spite

I am reading Sully this morning, and it is kind of amusing trying to watch him grapple with the Obama loss/Clinton win:

Part of me is crushed. But part of me is happy to see two candidates forced to battle it out in a long slog. We find out more that way. They grow more. More people get a say. That’s a good thing. And I should say that although I remain a passionate Obama supporter among the Democrats, I also feel little compunction in recognizing that Clinton did have something of a personal breakthrough in the last few days. The brittle exterior cracked. What was beneath is more human and less calculated. She was forced to explain from the heart why she really wants to win. People responded. As they would.

Yes, women did have a part in the Clinton victory. But it wasn’t just women. It wasn’t just her “tears” like that bitch MoDo is suggesting. And, I am sure there was a backlash- hell, I was talking to another blogger last night about how I could not believe the way Democrats were turning on the Clintons. I could not believe the way the media and allegedly liberal folks had joined with the GOP to make sure Hillary was not allowed to run a campaign. She responds, she is “defensive.” She raises legitimate questions about Obama, she is “attacking.” She responds to stupid questions, she is “shrill” and “angry.”

Seriously- as a long time former Clinton hater myself, I was kind of shocked to see it develop like this. I guess there was some element of liking to stick it to the king, and the Clinton’s have been the king (collectively) for a while now, but I just couldn’t believe that so many Democrats would sign on with the media and the NRO crowd to trash Hillary. But they did.

At any rate, I know this is going to ruffle a lot of feathers, but I think the real reason Clinton won was that she was offering something of substance. Obama is offering lofty rhetoric and “hope.” Clinton has plans. While Clinton’s speeches may not make people swoon and make Kennedy comparisons like Obama, but at some point, this will get old. I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I am hungry, I like the steak and potatoes on the plate in front of me rather than the promise of a multiple course meal named “change.”

I still, at this point, do not know what Obama stands for other than “change” or something “new.” I honestly can not believe he has been able to get away with it this long, and I assure you, he will not in a general election. So that is why, in my opinion, Hillary won. She stands for something- something people can understand and grapple with. Not some lofty rhetoric about change that moistens loins at the American Prospect, but actual policy positions.

*** Update ***

I see we have angered the Obamarmy, and they are all upset that I am claiming Obama does not have “plans.” I am well aware he has a website before you froth some more, folks. I am well aware there are official policy positions all over the website. What I am saying is that he is not selling himself on those policies or positions. He is selling himself on nebulous nonsense like “change” and crap like that. Pro-tip- all the candidates will be a change from this disastrous Bush administration.

I am not trying to “diss” your man Obama, folks, and if he wins the nomination I will vote for him. I am trying to figure out why people switched to Hillary at the last minute. It seems to me there are several factors:

1.) People were unaware Dodd and Biden had dropped out, and their supporters broke for Clinton.
2.) Women voted for Clinton in larger numbers, no doubt in response to the bullshit Clinton has been put through.
3.) Undecided voters were swayed by Clinton in the closing days, perhaps experiencing the noticeable difference between Obama’s stump “hope/change” nonsense and Clinton’s policy discussions.
4.) The young did not vote in the same numbers as they did in Iowa.
5.) Independents saw Obama win in Iowa, and chose to vote Republican and broke for McCain rather than voting Democrat and supporting.

I like Obama just fine, but if you think he is gonna make it through a general election doing nothing but “elevating” you with crap about “change” and “hope,” you are fooling yourself. The party of Atwater and Rove and purple heart band-aids will eat his shit up and spit it out.

And one last thing, I am not going to put up with a bunch of crap from Obama supporters who have never been here before, have never commented, and just assume I am some wild Clinton supporter. I will leave your comments up, but then I will direct you to this site.

*** Update #2 ***

And if any of Hillary’s people pulled this little stunt, you would be rightly freaking the fuck out (I know I voiced my displeasure with that sleaze-bag Mark Penn). But you all are mid-coronation of Obama, so let’s just pretend their campaign is all about hope and nothing negative. Idiots.






357 replies
  1. 1
    Richard Bottoms says:

    She smart AND tough. We could use that around here.

  2. 2

    Why wouldn’t he get away with it in a general election? It’s not like specifics have ever mattered in the past–they sure didn’t for King George the Lesser. If ever there were examples of substance-free campaigns, it’s the two he ran.

  3. 3
    Marcus Wellby says:

    I agree with Richard B. Also, the media/GOP are being easy on Obama now, but wait until the general election! Hillary can take a beating, as this proves. Can Obama? There is certainly new shit to be dug on him, what the hell can be said about the Clintons that we haven’t heard in one way or another already?

  4. 4
    Punchy says:

    At any rate, I know this is going to ruffle a lot of feathers, but I think the real reason Clinton won was that she was offering something of substance.

    Finally, after like forever, Cole nails it. About time, dammit :)

  5. 5
    wvng says:

    Obama has plenty of very substantive policy white papers, but he doesn’t talk a lot about them on the stump. A core Dem problem has always been inability to talk about their substantive policy plans (which they always have) in an engaging way that connects to their audiences. Bill Clinton was very good at making policy real to people’s lives, and I’m sure Obama will be as good once he starts talking about it.

    Which, as you note, he doesn’t spend much time doing yet.

    ReThugs, on the other hand, are masters of the substanceless but focus group polished soundbite. Perfect for our attention deficit country but not very good for governing.

  6. 6
    Xanthippas says:

    Believe it or not, there are actually a lot of people who like Clinton. Shocking, I know, for those of us who are constantly exposed to the rantings of those on the right AND the left who detest her.

  7. 7
    STEVEinSC says:

    The really good thing about this, aside from having more time to assess candidates and thier ideas, is the fragging it did to the Villagers, Talking Heads and Pollsters. The polls were shown to be not only wrong, but dead wrong. We should never, never underestimate the electorate and their capacity to surprise. Last night proved “It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.”

  8. 8
    4tehlulz says:

    I think that MoDo column gave me brain cancer.

  9. 9
    snail says:

    You say that Obama doesn’t offer anything but rhetoric on hope. Have you been to his website? He has sections on all of the pertinent issues (some much more detailed than others). Have you actually heard him deliver a full speech? He touches on most of the major issues of concern to Democratic voters (health care, environment, Iraq, etc.)

    Granted, he doesn’t have as much experience as Hillary (if you include 16 years as a politician’s wife experience), but to claim that he has no substance tells me you haven’t actually looked.

  10. 10
    snail says:

    Apparently wvng beat me to the punch.

  11. 11
    Pb says:

    Obama is offering lofty rhetoric and “hope.” Clinton has plans.

    I call. What does Clinton have a plan for that Obama doesn’t, what is the plan, and why is it somehow better by dint of having a ‘plan’?

  12. 12
    STEVEinSC says:

    No, the “…fat lady…” that was not meant as an allusion to Hillary. Unintended.

  13. 13
    Jen says:

    Well, I think it certainly could be why Hillary won — a NH primary vote. From what I have heard, these folks take their role in this very seriously, and they weigh the issues very seriously, and they also like being ornery. I do not think that the general population is going to approach the general election the same way NH Democratic primary voters do. I guess that if I really believed that substance and issues were primary on voters’ minds, there is no way the guy a majority of us at one time wanted to have a beer with would be nearly into his eighth year of screwing us all up. The NH primary voters knew better than GWB.

  14. 14
    Xanthippas says:

    BTW, I’ve bagged on Sullivan myself for his affliction with CDS, but he at least gives Clinton the benefit of the doubt and presumes she was displaying real emotion in her chat the other day. He still makes way too big a deal out of it and creates something called “Mozart-Salieri Syndrome” in the process, but you have to give him credit where credit is due.

  15. 15
    sparky says:

    i agree with the business about Clinton dislike. i don’t like her, though i don’t think she’d be horrible (usually). but i am sorry to see everyone falling for the Clinton line about specific proposals. all you have to do is look at the stuff Obama has put out, and the specific things he’s done. hell, he has a longer track record as an elected official than she does.

    if you want Clinton rather than Obama, fine. but let’s not pick Clinton on the basis of Clinton soundbites. this tactic is straight out of the Rove playbook–attack the opponent at his strongest point.

  16. 16
    Jake says:

    She responds, she is “defensive.” She raises legitimate questions about Obama, she is “attacking.” She responds to stupid questions, she is “shrill” and “angry.”

    Duh. All women who won’t siddown and shaddup are defensive, aggressive, harpies. You know, Hilary knows it, the American people know it.

    With Obama there seems to be some disagreement. Is he a stealth jihadi or a girly man?

    She stands for something – something people can understand and grapple with. Not some lofty rhetoric about change that moistens loins at the American Prospect, but actual policy positions.

    And if she wins the nomination the GOP will start telling us she’s shrill, aggressive, defensive and boring.

    Oh well. I’m not yippee-ki-ya excited about the choices, in my dream world Chris Dodd was at least in the top three. But in large part because I’m busy clicking my heels over the prospect of a Bush-free White House.

  17. 17
    John Cole says:

    I call. What does Clinton have a plan for that Obama doesn’t, what is the plan, and why is it somehow better by dint of having a ‘plan’?

    Have you even watched any of their speeches?

    I am not talking about what plan is on their website. I am talking about what I have seen of their public appearances- even the little townhall clips you see on the cable news shows. I think WVNG discussed it pretty well.

  18. 18
    cleek says:

    I still, at this point, do not know what Obama stands for other than “change” or something “new.”

    for that, you can only blame yourself. want to know what he stands for? fer fuck’s sake, look it up!

  19. 19
    D-Chance. says:

    This has been a hilarious 12 hours or so. Not so much the primary results, but the reactions among the “experts” and the denizens of Blaghistan. The Bradley Effect. Diebold. Voter fraud (those mysterious trips by the Sec of State delivering “extra ballots”). How could all those polls be so WRONG? The media is in bed with Republicans and wanted Hillary to lose. No, the Republicans helped fix the vote count because they want Hillary to win. Even Glenn Greenwald comes up with a doozy, blaming Matt Drudge for the whole fiasco. And on, and on it goes. The clowns are out and providing great entertainment for the circus-goers today…

  20. 20
    Billy K says:

    Yeah, maybe I’m entranced and swooning for Obama, but the fact is, “plans” mean little. They change; they get changed; they meet insurmountable obstacles. Hillary should know that.

    I hate to say this (I sound like a Republican), but I’m more interested in “character,” whatever that means. I’m interested in what Obama wants to do. The details of that sausage are up to him and his team. I believe he’ll figure out how to do it.

    Hillary may have a schematic for her sausage, but the sausage doesn’t really have a flavor, nor is it possible to even make it.

  21. 21
    Zifnab says:

    I also feel little compunction in recognizing that Clinton did have something of a personal breakthrough in the last few days. The brittle exterior cracked. What was beneath is more human and less calculated. She was forced to explain from the heart why she really wants to win. People responded. As they would.

    I don’t know what Clinton Sully was watching, but I saw a woman who’s campaign was spiraling into an enormous train-wreck. That NH pulled her out of the nose-dive had nothing to do with Clinton’s tears or her affirmation that only Presidents make differences while the all little people give empty protest in the streets.

    Clinton won NH despite her last few days of performances. She won like she should have won after she should have won Iowa. The idea that voters are so fickle as to dive to Hillary’s aid at the first sign of a moist eye is fucking laughable. As Kos among others point out, Clinton has been expected to win NH for the last year.

    People had been postulating about whether candidates could leverage the Iowa win into NH capital with such a short time-frame between primaries. And now it looks like those prophecies are coming home to roost. No. You can’t pick up ground-breaking momentum in less than a week. Public opinion does not turn on a dime. Hillary was gonna win NH because she’d invested years to win NH. This was only an “upset” because the media made it one.

  22. 22
    dougie says:

    What wvng said. and cleek. You’re being lazily visceral, John.

    I am an Obama supporter who happens to be fairly turned off by all the piffle (as The Poor Man calls it) in his stump speeches. But I recognize the difference between a campaign strategy and policy substance. While campaigning on a purely wonk level might delight those of us who are extremely engaged in politics, it is not the way to win an election in America.

  23. 23
    Jen says:

    Bill Clinton was very good at making policy real to people’s lives,

    There’s something to that, and I don’t disagree with it. But Bill had a six point plan for the school lunch program in Lawrence, Kansas in his head. I don’t think he was popular because of that, I think he was popular because he was charismatic, and charming, a decent speaker, and he just connected with people somehow. If the issue is just making policy real to people’s lives, I think Edwards does that better than any of them. Closing arguments are second nature to him. It’s good, but there’s an indefinable quality that Bill has, and that Obama has, that Hillary is missing.

  24. 24
    sparky says:

    what Zifnab said. when the dust settles, everyone will recognize that what happened was the pre-Iowa polling came through again.

    i would be curious to know why the polls got it (apparently) so wrong. i assume it was the undecideds but don’t know that for a fact. anyone?

  25. 25
    Ivan Ivanovich Renko says:

    Don’t forget that a black candidate cannot take the adversarial approach that seems appropriate in this Year Of Our Lord 2008. That would make him look like “an angry black man”– kind of like Hill’s stones (yep, the woman’s got stones, dammit, big granite ones) have gotten her labeled “angry” and “shrill.”

    If a black man is to have ANY hope of getting many white voters on his side, he HAS to project “Magic Negro,” or white Americans will find some reason to reject him.

    The Bradley effect is real, folks. So, the senator from Illinois projects “nice.”

  26. 26
    grumpy realist says:

    I think this was a combination of several effects. Iowa was a whack across Hillary’s nose saying “don’t assume your candidacy for granted.” NH was a whack across Obama’s nose saying “Don’t assume your own coronation, BTW. Great soaring rhetoric–but where’s the beef?” And both of them were whacks across the nose to Edwards, saying: “You’re coming across as a populist, white, male. Duh. We’ve seen this Wonder Bread before. What else you got?”

    And on the Republican side, it’s simply: “HEEELP! Where’s the candidate that will bring us back together?!”

  27. 27
    Mary says:

    I am an Obama supporter who happens to be fairly turned off by all the piffle (as The Poor Man calls it) in his stump speeches.

    I haven’t been able to load The Poor Man’s site for weeks. Has anyone else been able to get it?

  28. 28
    Jen says:

    i would be curious to know why the polls got it (apparently) so wrong. i assume it was the undecideds but don’t know that for a fact. anyone?

    I still can’t figure out why there hasn’t been one mention, that I can find, of the old CW that people will vote for a black candidate less than they say they vote for a black candidate. I am not saying that’s true, I just haven’t seen it discussed and I find that weird because I know it’s been discussed in other elections.

  29. 29
    dougie says:

    For what it’s worth, I dislike Hillary both personally and professionally and just a week ago was cheering for her to come in third. But this week I felt empathetic for her as she was ravaged by the press. Did you see Tweety pinch her cheek? She should have kicked him in the dick.

  30. 30
    myiq2xu says:

    Consider this: Bill Clinton is at his best when he’s the underdog. Back in November 1994 they were writing Bill’s obituary and talking about Newt Gingrich as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Two years later Bill cruised to a reelection victory.

    If Hillary is anything like her husband, don’t ever count her out.

    Inspiring speeches are nice, but policy wonks get shit done.

  31. 31
    John S. says:

    If the issue is just making policy real to people’s lives, I think Edwards does that better than any of them.

    I agree.

    I forget what blog it was (maybe Ezra Klein) that said that even though Oprah is backing Obama, Edwards is the most like Oprah. He is very good at connecting with people, in a talk-show host sort of way. This is one of the reasons the villagers in the media depsise him, because they see it as a cheap trick, even though they lap up McCain’s bullshit wholeheartedly (the irony – it burns).

    Glenn Greenwald pointed out that it was Edwards who was in fact the only person ‘surging’ in the polls over the last week, but no media outlet even gave that a whisper. They hate Edwards more than anyone. Probably because his populist message ruffles their elitist feathers.

  32. 32
    myiq2xu says:

    I still can’t figure out why there hasn’t been one mention, that I can find, of the old CW that people will vote for a black candidate less than they say they vote for a black candidate.

    There’s been lots of mentions. Google “Bradley Effect” and/or “Wilder Effect.”

  33. 33
    cleek says:

    I still can’t figure out why there hasn’t been one mention, that I can find, of the old CW that people will vote for a black candidate less than they say they vote for a black candidate.

    here’s Gary Langer, head of ABC News polling:

    But we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis. There will be a lot of claims about what happened – about respondents who reputedly lied, about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests. That may be so. It also may be a smokescreen – a convenient foil for pollsters who’d rather fault their respondents than own up to other possibilities – such as their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling.

    There have been previous races that misstated support for black candidates in biracial races. But most of those were long ago, and there have been plenty of polls in biracial races that were accurate. (For more on past problems with polls in biracial races, see this blog I wrote for Freakonomics last May.) And there was no overstatement of Obama in Iowa polls.

    of course, in the Iowa caucus, any of this private racism is going to get crushed by the fact that you’re not actually voting in private.

  34. 34
    John S. says:

    If Hillary is anything like her husband, don’t ever count her out.

    Hence all the ‘comeback kid’ stuff.

    That was how Bill was branded when he rebounded after coming in second in the NH primary in 1992. And even though the Democratic party are dicks and stripped Florida of all our delegates, I can’t wait to see who comes out on top in three weeks here. We’re going to have some major influence ahead of Super Tuesday – delegates or not.

  35. 35
    Punchy says:

    but I saw a woman who’s campaign was spiraling into an enormous train-wreck.

    I call shenanigans. She lost Iowa. So that’s an enormous train-wreck?

    Damn, the Hill Haters are out in force. Had no idea others were so objectionable to experience, fortitude, and brains. And boobs.

  36. 36
    alphie says:

    Sullivan is a Republican.

    He is part of “the NRO crowd.”

  37. 37
    myiq2xu says:

    Did you see Tweety pinch her cheek? She should have kicked him in the dick.

    She’s getting older and it’s hard for to see tiny things and small print.

    Seriously though, I saw that clip and it made me wonder if there was something between those two. Tweety acted like he has a crush on her. He got all red in the face when they played that clip on MSNBC last night.

  38. 38
    Justin says:

    Nah, you’re wrong. You’re buying into the media spin again.

    They both have substantive positions.

    And Hilary’s position is she wants to keep us in Iraq and bomb Iran. That’s enough for me. I’m voting for Obama… or Edwards.

  39. 39
    myiq2xu says:

    Hence all the ‘comeback kid’ stuff.

    Molly Ivins compared Bill Clinton to one of those inflatable punching bags for kids. They’re weighted with sand at the bottom, and no matter how hard you hit them they just pop back up again.

  40. 40
    Billy K says:

    what Zifnab said. when the dust settles, everyone will recognize that what happened was the pre-Iowa polling came through again.

    Except the pre-Iowa polling had her winning by a larger margin. So perhaps Obama actually did pick up some “momentum?” Did he actually gain on her by 4-5 points?

  41. 41
    sparky says:

    the ABC link was pretty good. i guess it will take a few days to crunch the numbers. in the meantime, we can get lots o theories! diebold! 9/11! tears! Matthews!
    whatever.

    and, i suppose it could be nothing, in a sense. the actual number of voters is pretty small–approx 7000, apparently. who knows–maybe the Paulites are Obama supporters.

  42. 42
    Billy K says:

    If Hillary is anything like her husband, don’t ever count her out.

    She’s not.

  43. 43
    dougie says:

    John S –

    Don’t worry, I think Florida and Michigan will be plenty relevant. Iowa and NH are influential purely for the momentum and press, because they also contribute fuck all for delegates. So why would FL and MI be irrelevant? I don’t get that argument.

    And my condolences on living in Florida, the taint of the United States.

  44. 44
    Jen says:

    Punchy, Lindsay Lohan and now Hillary? Do you need to meet more women, honey?

    Thanks, other guys, I didn’t know it was called the Bradley / Wilder effect and idiotically, it hadn’t occurred to me that the Iowa caucusing is more public.

  45. 45
    Pb says:

    Ok John, why don’t we pick something substantive and check it out. Here’s the transcript for the last debate. What’s Obama saying?

    What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001.

    Oh, the lofty rhetoric. Ok, let’s skip past that for now… next…

    Let me just add one thing, though. On the broader issue of nuclear proliferation, this is something that I’ve worked on since I’ve been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials.

    Yeah, you’re right, I’m wrong–I guess he doesn’t talk about plans or experience, just lofty rhetoric…

  46. 46
    PK says:

    I don’t know why Clinton won, but then I don’t know why George Bush won twice either. But experience does not count for anything if you are betray your core values. I think Hillary’s vote for the Iraq war and her Iran vote were because she wants to be president more than she wants to do the right thing for the country. Anyone who voted for the Iraq war is not fit to be president. What is the use of all the grit and determination and strength if she did not use it when it was needed! So she has the balls to take on republican dirty tricks! Big deal! If the people can be fooled by republica dirty tricks again after 8 years they deserve another republican president.
    Experience does not mean much if you govern by shrewd political calculation alone. Where did Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld’s experience get us?
    Obama may not be experienced, but he was smart enough to realise the folly of the Iraq war and speak out against it when everyone else was either too chicken or too delusional.
    The imression I get from Hillary is that she is in it for the power and the glory, the worst reasons of all!
    l

  47. 47
    4tehlulz says:

    Did you see Tweety pinch her cheek?

    Wait, wut? Are you fucking serious? (Streaming is blocked here, so I can’t see for myself).

  48. 48
    Wilfred says:

    Maybe Clinton stole the election. Gasp.

    Reading this thread reminds me of the story of Narcissus and Echo (Clinton and Mathews) It’s always about HER to some people, one way or the other, a reasonable definition of narcissism.

    I oppose her because of her stance on the issue that matters most to me and support Obama on the real possibility that he may do something different about that issue. Period.

    Assigning nonsense reasons to people who don’t like Clinton for her policies is to live within the Clinton narcissist field inhabited by most political commentators and all Democratic Party apparatchiks. It’s bullshit.

  49. 49
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    From the MoDo emission:

    One reporter who covers security issues cringed. “We are at war,” he said. “Is this how she’ll talk to Kim Jong-il?”

    This guy “covers security issues”? Really?

    No wonder your paper sucks, MoDo. Welcome to irrelevance.
    .

  50. 50
    Zifnab says:

    but I saw a woman who’s campaign was spiraling into an enormous train-wreck.

    I call shenanigans. She lost Iowa. So that’s an enormous train-wreck?

    She lost Iowa, then proceeded to jump between moist eyed empathy, where’s-the-beef wonkishness, and terr’rists ‘r comin’ Cheneyism. Iowa itself was a blow. Her reaction to Iowa was the real factor, however. Hillary doesn’t know how to operate as a “come-from-behind” candidate, and the last two days put that notably on display. If she’d had another week to yap her yap, she’d be digging the same verbal ditch half the Republicans currently find themselves in. Close back-to-back primaries worked to her advantage and gave her something to rebound off of, but for about 24 hours there, she was looking really bad.

  51. 51
    myiq2xu says:

    She’s not.

    Keep believing that.

  52. 52
    LiberalTarian says:

    I am happy HRC won. The time for showing how you are different from the other party is during the primaries, and if she had lost I’m not sure all the candidates would still be bringing their best game. This is also a good time to educate the public about why policy matters.

    Show us why the Democrats are going to do a good job getting the country back on the right course, and why the Republicans have neither sail nor rudder nor crew to do the job. Our ship of state is listing, and it is scary as hell to sit powerlessly below deck. Restoration of US prosperity will depend not only on good ideas, but back-breaking effort and determination, and the Democrats need to demonstrate that they are the ones who have the work ethic to set this ship aright.

  53. 53
    4jkb4ia says:

    It is not simply white papers. On Saturday night I was watching the Stillers and cleaning up the pots. I could not do a third thing such as turn on the PC and annoy John. (Classic game?) In the debates I have read transcripts of Obama may not have a plan, but he is able to think through issues and get to the core of what is important. Although experience and knowledge are important themes for Hillary, she cannot squish Obama like a bug in a debate based on wonkishness as Kerry was able to do to Edwards.

  54. 54
    sparky says:

    Billy K–
    you’re right; i’d forgotten about that. a slow increase in Obama support is the simple explanation. but it’s not the fun one. that’s the problem with all this instant analysis. tastes great but an hour later we forget what was the cw an hour ago.

    because i don’t like Clinton–leaving aside anything else, permanent bases in Iraq and bombing Iran are more than enough for me–i was too ready to write her off. and, it appears that the Edwards gambit didn’t work. i’m torn, because while i think his presence drags everyone leftward, i assume his support would otherwise go to Obama.

  55. 55
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    the media and allegedly liberal folks had joined with the GOP to make sure Hillary was not allowed to run a campaign. She responds, she is “defensive.” She raises legitimate questions about Obama, she is “attacking.” She responds to stupid questions, she is “shrill” and “angry.”

    I don’t support Hillary, but she is pulling the sheet off of the Teeny-Peeny brigade.
    .

  56. 56
    4tehlulz says:

    For all the hang ringing over this, it’s probably for the better for the eventual Democratic nominee. I prefer that the GOP have to scatter their vitriol attacks on the Democrats instead of focusing on a single target.

  57. 57
    Chris says:

    I wonder when and if any of the other Democratic candidates are going to broach the rather uncomfortable subject that First Lady isn’t a cabinet position. I’m not saying she doesn’t have any worthwhile experience, but compared to Obama and Edwards I’m not seeing this wide gulf that allows her to run as the experience candidate.

    Also, I still can’t get over the exit polling that said half of her voters would have rather voted for her husband. If there’s a case to be made that President Clinton II would be some great feminist victory, I’m not seeing it.

  58. 58
    4jkb4ia says:

    I like the story of older women arising as one and telling the sexist media to stuff it. It is flattering to bloggers.

  59. 59
    sparky says:

    on a different note, i’m in Florida too, but i have a hard time thinking that a weird non-primary primary will matter. other than to the spinners, who can say whatever they want since no delegates will be awarded.

  60. 60
    Shochu John says:

    Not to accuse you of spitting out Hillary Clinton talking points or anything, John, but this post sounds like it was written by a Clinton surrogate that I may or may not have seen on the cable news shows yesterday. You first write, “At any rate, I know this is going to ruffle a lot of feathers, but I think the real reason Clinton won was that she was offering something of substance.” and when pressed, state, “I am not talking about what plan is on their website. I am talking about what I have seen of their public appearances- even the little townhall clips you see on the cable news shows.”

    Ah, so it’s not that Obama lacks substance, it’s that he insufficintly dicusses the 19 point plans on the campaign trail. This seem like more an issue of campaigning style than a genuine objection to the substance of the candidate. That’s fine, but it is more aptly cast as a mere strategic disagreement.

    Full diclsoure, I am a Hillary hater, my reasons are as follows:
    1. No candidate who voted for the war should ever be elected to public office again. That’s called accountability.
    2. Even if Hillary were a great candidate, the Bush/Clinton dynasties offend me deeply. I thought that, at least pretextually, we chose the best candidate to be President we could find. Not just the nearest relative of a previous president. In what kind of countries is power passed down dynastic lines? I do believe those are monarchies and third world kleptocracies.
    3. Watching Bill and Hill yesterday reminded me of why I dislike them. Come on, John, think back to your old Republican days. There are genuine reasons to dislike the Clintons. The lies, for example? As in when Bill was on the campaign trial accusing Obama of flip flopping on Iraq for failing to criticise the pro war Kerry at his nomination in 2004? Bill knows full well that such was not a position change, yet he disingenuously uses it because it will help him and his wife win. I remember the 2004 convention and the tightrope Obama had to walk on the war. Slamming him for doing what was good for the Democratic party? Dishonest AND sleazy.
    4. And then there’s the maternalism. Case in point, Hillary’s crusade against Grand Theft Auto, which, incidentially, is a great series, but thanks, mommy, for making it a federal issue. By the by, this is not a gender-based cricism, if it were a man doing the same thing, I would call it paternalism and be just as offended. This is also not a single policy issue disagreement, it’s an entire notion of the proper function of government.

    I would stay home before voting for Hillary in the general were it not for the marginally slimmer chance that she will not start a war.

  61. 61
    srv says:

    If Diebold says she won, that’s good enough for me. They are the vote Deciderer for America.

    I can’t read Sullivan anymore. Show me a woman he says anything good about, and she’ll look like Margaret Thatcher.

  62. 62
    Wilfred says:

    Our ship of state is listing, and it is scary as hell to sit powerlessly below deck. Restoration of US prosperity will depend not only on good ideas, but back-breaking effort and determination, and the Democrats need to demonstrate that they are the ones who have the work ethic to set this ship aright.

    He said stirringly.

  63. 63
    cleek says:

    I like the story of older women arising as one and telling the sexist media to stuff it. It is flattering to bloggers.

    it’s a nice story; but i think it’s bullshit, since as far as i know, there hasn’t been any polling to even suggest that’s what happened.

  64. 64
    grumpy realist says:

    I think if we break down the voting, the main surge that took Hillary over the top was her support by women. Even if a lot of them did like Obama, I think there was also a desire to vote for Hillary just in order to send a big 2 x 4 across the face of every sneering pundit, pollster, and reporter. How many of them have, during the course of their professional lives, received the sort of pile-on and sneering that Hillary received: “She’s a woman, she’s too emotional, she’s a lightweight, she can’t hack it…”

    As a way of sending a big FU to the (male) establishment it couldn’t have been bettered.

  65. 65
    Jen says:

    At the end of the day, none of us knows why NH did what it did and I think there’s some projection of the explanation that makes the most sense to us, personally, as a reason. Maybe there will be some follow up polling that will be illuminating, but maybe not. So while we’re projecting reasons, my personal favorite is that NH just likes screwing with us. Oh, you like Obama, do you, entire country, well take that! Not enough to say, vote for Gravel, but enough to throw a monkey wrench into things.

  66. 66
    Ed Drone says:

    dougie Says:

    For what it’s worth, I dislike Hillary both personally and professionally and just a week ago was cheering for her to come in third. But this week I felt empathetic for her as she was ravaged by the press. Did you see Tweety pinch her cheek? She should have kicked him in the dick.

    … and given him a bloody nose? The man is a walking dick — anywhere you hit him, you’d be hitting dick. He certainly has a thing about the Clintons — CDS in full-blown form — and it shows.

    What got me was the enormous sigh of relief on the faces of all the pustulent purveyers of pundocrity when Hillary’s win insured another week or more of a real contest in this year’s primary season. You could see their spirits revive by the minute as the returns came in. Their paychecks and perks and, above all, their air-time, are riding on this. The horse-race aspect has already been commented on at length, and all this did is make it obvious that the horses have only rounded the first turn and are heading into the backstretch. No one has torn up his tickets yet (except the few longshot-backers), and everyone shows up for work tomorrow, confident that another week’s check will be in the mail.

  67. 67
    Punchy says:

    then proceeded to jump between moist eyed empathy

    Oh fuck that. I saw the vid. There was no crying. No tears at all, actually, that I could see. She got choked up thinking about the relevance and importance of this race and her contribution to it. BFD. You bitch that she acts as a robot (no emotion, calculating), then bitch when she does show emotion. unfuckingreal.

  68. 68
    John Cole says:

    You first write, “At any rate, I know this is going to ruffle a lot of feathers, but I think the real reason Clinton won was that she was offering something of substance.” and when pressed, state, “I am not talking about what plan is on their website. I am talking about what I have seen of their public appearances- even the little townhall clips you see on the cable news shows.”

    Ah, so it’s not that Obama lacks substance, it’s that he insufficintly dicusses the 19 point plans on the campaign trail. This seem like more an issue of campaigning style than a genuine objection to the substance of the candidate. That’s fine, but it is more aptly cast as a mere strategic disagreement.

    I am trying to explain why Hillary won yesterday,and I think it has a lot to do with voters wanting to hear more than lofty rhetoric about change (and if you want to know what I really think on the issues, check my website! Really, I have a plan! But let’s get back to talking about flowery things, like the potential of this country and a new direction and how change is necessary and blah blah blah fucking shoot me).

  69. 69

    I mocked a possible Sullivan meltdown (in another thread) if Hillary won. Well, I am the one with egg on my face. For all of his Clinton insanity Andrew was very gracious and took the high road.

    Obama is offering lofty rhetoric and “hope.”

    Go to his campaign website. He has a comprehensive list of issues and his proposed solutions. I’m not sure how specific you expect him to be, but if you go through the list of issues and read what he has written its pretty clear he has thought through the issues and proposes what he would do.

    Hillary can be as specific as she likes, but the president does not get a vote (except the veto.) From what I can tell she would send her proposal to the Congress and hope like hell that when, or if, it gets through the process it still looks like something she would sign. Obama is a consensus builder. He sits down with legislators and fashions a bill that is palatable to all involved then has it put to a vote.

    Which way is the best way to succeed?

  70. 70
    Zifnab says:

    I am happy HRC won. The time for showing how you are different from the other party is during the primaries, and if she had lost I’m not sure all the candidates would still be bringing their best game. This is also a good time to educate the public about why policy matters.

    If Hillary had collapsed, Edwards would have stepped up to fill the void. That is, honestly, what I was banking on. But Edwards performed underwhelmingly in NH. South Carolina is his real firewall. If he can’t make it there, he can’t make it anywhere. I would be happy to see this as a three-candidate race right through Super Tuesday, however.

    I wonder when and if any of the other Democratic candidates are going to broach the rather uncomfortable subject that First Lady isn’t a cabinet position. I’m not saying she doesn’t have any worthwhile experience, but compared to Obama and Edwards I’m not seeing this wide gulf that allows her to run as the experience candidate.

    You have been woefully misinformed. Perhaps you have totally forgotten about “HillaryCare” circa ’93, but it wasn’t Bill leading the charge on health care reform nearly as much as his wife. The position of First Lady is regularly used to powerful effect in politics as the effeminate extension of the Presidency itself. And the First Lady can talk about domestic abuse or cervical cancer in a way that her husband just can’t.

  71. 71
    LiberalTarian says:

    The question I’d like to see someone ask HRC is if she’ll give Joe Leiberman a position of authority in her administration. I couldn’t stomach that, not for a second. Maybe it’s a question someone should ask Obama, too. I really, really, really hate Joe Leiberman. Of course, he did come out for McCain, so maybe he’s toast already.

  72. 72
    John Cole says:

    Go to his campaign website.

    There seems to be some disconnect here. I am well aware Obama has “plans” for things on his website. I give those “plans” the same amount of credibility I give all political website “plans” during an election year.

    I am talking about the voters that Obama had to woo in the past few days in personal appearances. Hillary talked policy and specifics. Obama talked about change. Which one won?

    Now it may be I am basing that on an inaccurate perception based on what I have seen in the news and on their post election speeches.

  73. 73
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    (small unimportant note: There are two “Chris”es, I’m changing my handle to differentiate. I’m the one who won’t STFU)

    I have to address something:

    The media is in bed with Republicans and wanted Hillary to lose.

    Stop oversimplifying. The media and the republicans have become similar, yes, mainly because the republicans have become an ad hoc PR firm for themselves. But the media running this show are not entirely republican-aligned.

    Mostly, they’re ratings-aligned, and they will, on average, choose to pump the story that earns them the most ratings over time. Right now, that means keeping the hated ones alive until super tuesday, and then they burn out on minutia while gearing up for the Final Round.

    Stop saying the media wants Hillary to lose. Their machinations lie elsewhere.

  74. 74
    Teak111 says:

    Obama has a Kennedy complex and doesn’t strike me as seasoned enough to be president. As stated above, we at least know Hill can take it and dish it. Lofty rhetoric is nice but presidents gotta move mountains not sing from them. I see hill as a liberal Marget Thatcher, tough, smart, organized, with a set of realistic policy ideas. Imagine if your boss was Hill, you probably would be working right now rather then goofing off in the comments section of political blogs. Funny, as John becomes a Dem, I feel myself becoming more repug. Obama is too idealistic, too liberal for me. I don’t feel like we can immediately withdraw from Iraq now (an Obama position).

  75. 75
    Zifnab says:

    I am trying to explain why Hillary won yesterday,and I think it has a lot to do with voters wanting to hear more than lofty rhetoric about change (and if you want to know what ireally think on the issues, check my website! Really, I have a plan! But let’s get back to talking about flowery things, like the potential of this country and a new direction and how change is necessary and blah blah blah fucking shoot me).

    Oh gag, John. Hillary’s plan involves another 8 years in Iraq, a health care plan written by corporate lobbyists, and Mark Penn. I’ve read Hillary’s plan. It’s a bad plan. Why you would side with bad policy on TV over good policy you have to read on the internet is totally beyond me.

  76. 76
    Chris says:

    I see hill as a liberal Marget Thatcher, tough, smart, organized, with a set of realistic policy ideas.

    Half the people who votes for Maggie probably weren’t voting for Denis Thatcher by proxy. Sorry, but I really can’t let that go. Very embarassing.

  77. 77
    Zifnab says:

    Also worth noting, Obama lost by 2 points. That translates to a couple thousand people. Not exactly a landslide. Sure, it wasn’t the 2-6 point win he was expecting, but the idea that people just woke up yesterday and said, “My god, Obama doesn’t actually have a plan!”, ripped off their bumper stickers, and pulled the lever for Hillary is just silly. The polling failed to find the magic people who would actually predict the election. NH didn’t just turn on a dime.

  78. 78
    wvng says:

    I’m spitting angry right now. This is intolerable. From Horse’s Mouth, here is what Tweety said this morning. And he still has a job:

    Last night, Matthews said: “I give her a lot of personal credit; I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again.”

    But by this morning Matthews had already forgotten his newfound respect for her. He said: “The reason she’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front-runner, is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on the merits…”
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/

  79. 79
    richard says:

    Obama has plenty of policy but what gets the attention is the hope and inspiration stuff.

    I never hated Hillary, but after last night, I could feel my distaste for her begin to grow. I never realized how in-my-bones exhausted I am with her and her husband. I want them to go away, leave the scene.

    Obama is no savior, but enough already. Hillary voted for the war, never stood up and truly led when we needed her to say ‘wait – how much will it cost, what about insurgencies, what about the reasons we didn’t go in in the first place.’ She could’ve been a leader then, and wasn’t. Every step of the way she calculated and calculated, and I’ve had it. She whittled away her beliefs for a centrist persona that could gain her the presidency and I am nauseated with her. Didn’t she even support the ban on flag burning? Christ, where is her integrity?

    I do not trust the gov’t to deal with universal health care, either.

    I don’t believe she has the courage to remove the troops, either. She needs, as a woman, as a Dem, and as “Hillary”, to look tough to the Right. I don’t trust she has the will to buck these forces. She needs that second term, after all.

    I’m tired of the American political dynasties of Bush/Gore/Clinton. Get someone else in there. Strange, I didn’t even follow politics in the 90’s at all. I never trusted Bill Clinton, but I voted for him in 92 because I didn’t like 41.

    I didn’t vote in 96 or 00. Voted for Kerry. Hillary will keep the country polarized and stuck, Mitch McConnell will torpedo her legislation for the sport of it as best he can, and gain folk hero status for it. Rush and OReilly will be in hog heaven.

    Bush, Cheney, Addington et al, they’ve worn me down. Hillary is more of the same, from our side. I don’t think she’s a uniter either.

    I’m sick of our government. Disgusted with our choices.

  80. 80
    myiq2xu says:

    My biggest gripe about Obama is that he seemed to be running as if he already had won the nomination.

    He makes me feel as if he is taking us moonbat DFH’s for granted and is courting “moderates.”

    I don’t want a Democrat who is running as Republican-lite.

    BTW – That’s also my feeling about Hillary. The electorate is moving to the left (finally) and we need a candidate that is a true progressive. Carpe diem!

  81. 81
    TheFountainHead says:

    Also, I still can’t get over the exit polling that said half of her voters would have rather voted for her husband. If there’s a case to be made that President Clinton II would be some great feminist victory, I’m not seeing it.

    Yeah, that little tidbit rocked me back a bit, I mean, I knew voters were at least on some effervescent level connecting Hillary’s campaign to Bill’s presidency, but I had no idea they’d straight up rather vote for him!

  82. 82
    Shochu John says:

    I am trying to explain why Hillary won yesterday,and I think it has a lot to do with voters wanting to hear more than lofty rhetoric about change

    Fair enough. In that case I just disagree. As Matt Yglesias suggests, it’s not that Obama’s support waned relative to the polls, it’s that Hillary surged amongst the undecideds. Those who are undecided at the last minute tend to be the low information voters, who are unlikely to base their votes on substance, or, for that matter, its absense. Now, they may base their votes on the narrative of a lack of substance on the part of Obama coming out of the Clinton camp, but such people would really have no idea whether Obama has any substantial ideas or not because they have not really been paying attention.

    I think more likely, however, the late deciders based it on her emotional moment or the pants suit she was wearing on election day or whatever various and sundry things late deciders use to pick a candidate.

  83. 83

    I am talking about the voters that Obama had to woo in the past few days in personal appearances. Hillary talked policy and specifics. Obama talked about change. Which one won?

    As has been pointed out in a few other places, Clinton had a lead in New Hampshire only until the last couple of days-she’d been putting a lot more into New Hampshire than in Iowa, and Obama had done the opposite, so this win for Clinton in NH is really only a surprise because the media has cast it as one. What it looks like happened is that Obama’s Iowa surge got him closer, but not over the top. As for the polls, who knows how they were being weighted? Those five days between Iowa and New Hampshire just didn’t seem to be enough to get Obama over the top.

  84. 84
    Jon H says:

    “She stands for something-”

    What, other than war with Iran?

  85. 85
    Billy K says:

    She’s not.

    Keep believing th

    at.

    Bill: Charismatic politician with the ability to inspire and lead matched only by his understanding of policy and determination.

    Hillary: Not that.

  86. 86
    Pb says:

    Also worth noting, Obama lost by 2 points.

    And by zero delegates, go figure.

  87. 87
    Jake says:

    Yeah, that little tidbit rocked me back a bit, I mean, I knew voters were at least on some effervescent level connecting Hillary’s campaign to Bill’s presidency, but I had no idea they’d straight up rather vote for him!

    I only glanced at a story about that and took it to mean a third of all Democratic voters polled. Does anyone have a link?

    A link to a poll asking the same question re: Bush would be a bonus.

  88. 88
    Dreggas says:

    I have to say it’s interesting that all the pre-voting poll results were spot on for every other candidate/race but Clinton/Obama. Even more interesting is that they had edwards with 17%, they had Obama with 37%, both came to pass but somehow Hillary surged, in under 24 hours, to 39%? That is odd but I am also cynical enough to believe polls lie and things can change on a moments notice.

    That being said, Obama is going to win. This is not over and if anything this has fired people up in other primary states and makes us all relevant again. Pre-yesterday we were all thinking it would be over with a coronation like it was with Kerry in ’04 and we were wrong. It’s a race now and if anything, having Clinton around should fire up more democrats to give her the shivving she so badly deserves.

    Also how the hell is this much of a comeback? She won by 2 percentage points…wow…6-8000 votes. Gimme a break it’s not a come back it’s a blip on the radar.

    What I’d love to see after SC and Nevada is Edwards drop out and join Obama as a running mate throwing his support to Obama. After all if you look at the results from last night Clinton barely eeked out a win and the reality is more people voted for the other candidates.

    Oh well, it’s a race, Obama seems to have Nevada with the endorsements he’s received and things only get more interesting between now and feb. 5.

  89. 89
    Cain says:

    Hillary may have a schematic for her sausage, but the sausage doesn’t really have a flavor, nor is it possible to even make it.

    Can we leave Bill out of this?

    cain

  90. 90
    Zifnab says:

    He said: “The reason she’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front-runner, is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on the merits…”

    How does that even make sense?
    New Yorker 1: “Well, I could see myself voting for alot of candidates right now. Maybe Bloomburg if he runs. Maybe Forbes. Maybe Giuliani.”
    New Yorker 2: “I think I’m going to go with Hillary Clinton. Her husband banged an intern in the White House.”
    New Yorker 1: “By god, you’re right. That makes her an ideal candidate on the domestic front. It’s really nice to have a Senator who’s been cuckold on national TV.”
    New Yorker 2: “After reading the Ken Starr Report, I’ve honestly been waiting for this day. Hillary really is my top pick.”
    New Yorker 3: “Do you think Monica took it in the butt?”
    New Yorker 4: “Who knows, but if we elected Hillary as Senator, I’m sure someone will find that out for us.”
    All New Yorkers: “Horray!”

  91. 91
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    “She stands for something-”

    What, other than war with Iran?

    A ban on cigar smoking in the White House.

    /ducks ballistic rotten fruit

    I’m still going with Sully’s reader. A win for Obama would’ve been a solid endorsement of his nomination, and the people aren’t that stupid, so they gave it to Hillary. Now whoever convinces us they’re the best will win.

    At least that’s what I tell myself while I rock myself to sleep, in the corner, in the fetal position.

  92. 92
    Zifnab says:

    Also how the hell is this much of a comeback? She won by 2 percentage points…wow…6-8000 votes. Gimme a break it’s not a come back it’s a blip on the radar.

    Keep in mind that she was 2-6 points behind in the polls when she won with a 2 point lead. That’s anywhere from a 4-10 point swing. In a tight race like this, its more than enough to earn the title “comeback kid”, especially when the tagline looks great on a news prompter or gussied up into a super cool graphic.

  93. 93
    Punchy says:

    Imagine if your boss was Hill, you probably would be working right now rather then goofing off in the comments section of political blogs.

    On second thought, go Obama!

  94. 94
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    It just occurred to me that Hillary has serious support among really old, crotchety women, and it was really warm yesterday.

    It could just be explained away by arthritis.

  95. 95
    FAP says:

    I’m a moderate NE republican. I’d vote for Obama but I’d walk barefoot over broken glass to vote AGAINST Hillary.

    I’d happily vote McCain but I’d find a way to hold my nose and even vote for Romney if Hillary was the nominee. If the Huckster is the Repub nom and he’s against Hillary…. I’d write Bloomberg in.

    Last night was a great night for the Republican Party. It was their first glimmer of a possible November win.

    Now if the race were Obama\McCain that would be interesting!

  96. 96
    Billy K says:

    Now if the race were ObamaMcCain that would be interesting!

    If you find it interesting to watch McCain buried under a landslide, then YES!

  97. 97
    Dreggas says:

    Zifnab Says:

    Also how the hell is this much of a comeback? She won by 2 percentage points…wow…6-8000 votes. Gimme a break it’s not a come back it’s a blip on the radar.

    Keep in mind that she was 2-6 points behind in the polls when she won with a 2 point lead. That’s anywhere from a 4-10 point swing. In a tight race like this, its more than enough to earn the title “comeback kid”, especially when the tagline looks great on a news prompter or gussied up into a super cool graphic.

    And makes me want to vomit even more, especially insinuating she is even remotely like her husband.

  98. 98
    Jim says:

    John, I love your site, I like the way you right, and I’ll keep coming here often everyday, but your initial point just doesn’t make sense. Hillary didn’t offer any real substance in her stump speeches either. She simply touted her “experience” and the fact that talking about change wasn’t the same as effecting change. She didn’t have a substantive discussion with the voters about her policy issues – candidates rarely do in their stump speeches because its boring as hell. The steak and potatoes usually comes in policy papers and on websites. Which, btw, raises another point. Guys who cook with crockpots are not “steak and potatoes” kind of guys.

  99. 99
    Jen says:

    Gotta go…there are election-themed SuperPokes in Facebook… it’s either that or productive work…

  100. 100
    Zifnab says:

    I’m a moderate NE republican. I’d vote for Obama but I’d walk barefoot over broken glass to vote AGAINST Hillary.

    Well, then you are retarded. Policy-wise, Clinton is the bigger conservative. You might as well claim you’d support Howard Dean but walk across broken glass to vote against Kerry.

    And given how your political judgement has given us 8 years of Bush, kindly suck off.

  101. 101
    MJ says:

    wvng I didn’t think anybody paid any attention to Matthews any more.

  102. 102
    myiq2xu says:

    Now that Dodd and Biden have dropped out, HRC is my third choice. Gravel was funny and quirky, but I never seriously considered him, and Kucinich was interesting but seems a little flaky. Something about Richardson makes me feel he’s not quite up to the job, although he would make a fine Cabinet secretary or even a VP.

    I would happily vote for any of the top four Democrats over any of the GOP contenders.

  103. 103
    Sojourner says:

    It just occurred to me that Hillary has serious support among really old, crotchety women, and it was really warm yesterday.

    It could just be explained away by arthritis.

    I’m no fan of Hillary’s but it’s this kind of bullshit that made me cheer when she won last night. Keep the Hillary bashing going, keep the sexist crap going, use the word “bitch” at every opportunity, and Hillary will be in the WH in no time.

    Did it ever occur to you guys that women really do get profoundly tired of your shit?

  104. 104
    myiq2xu says:

    John, I love your site, I like the way you right, and I’ll keep coming here often everyday,

    We’re leftists here, so if you’re gonna fluff the big dog you gotta give the rest of us a little sumptin-sumptin too!

  105. 105
    Jim says:

    By the way, I’m still in a stupor over last night. I can’t believe I typed “right” when I meant “write.” Geez, it’s only New Hampshire and my brain is already fried.

  106. 106
    myiq2xu says:

    my brain is already fried.

    Well then, you’ll fit right in!

  107. 107
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    I’m no fan of Hillary’s but it’s this kind of bullshit that made me cheer when she won last night. Keep the Hillary bashing going, keep the sexist crap going, use the word “bitch” at every opportunity, and Hillary will be in the WH in no time.

    I wasn’t trying to be an ass; I’m serious. There are some serious iron-core women out there who took the long road through suffrage. They’re all up for Hillary, but because of age, the average NH day would be hard on them.

    Warm day, they came out in numbers, straightforward Hillary boost. I don’t see what’s so insulting about that.

  108. 108
    4jkb4ia says:

    The NYT has a voter who supports John.

    “We went to hear both of them speak this weekend and we stayed up until 3 a.m. last night listening to their speeches again on C-Span,” Ms. Florom said of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. “We like them both.”
    “But in the end, she was the one bringing up the real issues about the middle class like college loans. His speeches felt like pop rallies.”

    Older women were a good constituency for Clinton in all the polls. One event may not have switched them.

  109. 109
    Dreggas says:

    Did it ever occur to you guys that women really do get profoundly tired of your shit?

    So only women have the right to call other women a bitch?

    She comes off as and always has come off as a stone cold bitch, during Bill’s time in office it always appeared that she had bills nuts in a jar that she carried with her. That’s the impression that people get and they equate that with being a bitch.

    I have no problem with strong women, I have no problem with confident, assertive women hell I try to date them because I LIKE that quality in a woman but there is a difference between being assertive and being domineering. Hillary comes off as domineering, as someone who knows what’s best for me not taking my opinion into account and shoving her “ideas” down my throat.

    It’s like her healthcare plan, yeah it’s a good thing to have health insurance but mandating that people who can’t afford it have to get it otherwise they face a fine is bullshit. It’s do what I say or I am gonna spank you for it nanny bullshit.

    So yes, Hillary clinton strikes me as a selfish, self-centered, domineering manipulative bitch that would bite the heads off of small animals on nat’l television if it polled well. And if that’s not the real hillary and there is someone not born of privelege and without an aura of being “entitled” underneath that then she should fire whoever is shaping her image because they’re doing a piss poor job.

  110. 110
    Dreggas says:

    Oh and one big difference between Hillary and Obama; the former talks AT you, the latter talks TO you.

  111. 111
    Punchy says:

    What I’d love to see after SC and Nevada is Edwards drop out and join Obama as a running mate throwing his support to Obama. After all if you look at the results from last night Clinton barely eeked out a win and the reality is more people voted for the other candidates.

    Yes, Obizzle + Eds >>>>>>> Clagizzle

    That ends the primary race, if and when JE throws the Southern vote to Osama.

  112. 112
    Cassidy says:

    So only women have the right to call other women a bitch?

    Welcome to modern feminism.

  113. 113
    Horselover Fat says:

    Obama refuses to take Social Security privatization off the table.

    Obama agrees with all the GOP guys that health care mandates are a bad idea.

    To the extent he differentiates himself from the other Dems on policy, he leaves me markedly less than enthused.

    Also, he keeps using GOP talking points and “frames” (Lakoff) when talking about stuff, which only will help the GOP to obstruct and preserve the status quo.

    Maybe he should stick to the inspiring generalities and do less damage.

  114. 114
    Cassidy says:

    What I’d love to see after SC and Nevada is Edwards drop out and join Obama as a running mate throwing his support to Obama. After all if you look at the results from last night Clinton barely eeked out a win and the reality is more people voted for the other candidates.

    I’m hoping for an Obama/ HRC and Richardson ticket. That’d be nice.

  115. 115
    Billy K says:

    my brain is already fried.

    Well then, you’ll fit right in!

    Apparently you didn’t catch his subtle dis of Crock Pots. AFAIC, Jiim gets a “hrmph.”

    Well, then you are retarded. Policy-wise, Clinton is the bigger conservative.

    Zifnab has a point. I hate to say this, but I think she’s Bush’s true heir.

  116. 116
    Bupalos says:

    Looking at the facts, you have to say that yes, there was a major change in the last 24 hours (10 different polls cannot be off all in the same direction by the same wide amount). You either have to deny that change, or suppose that somehow the “style versus substance” peg that you want to hang your hat on only emerged in the last 24 hours. And basically only affected women. How is that?

    I find that unconvincing. It seems obvious to me that women simply spearheaded a backlash against the over-the-top, misogynistic beat down that the failing underdog Hilly had to endure in the last news cycle. This was punctuated by the tears. Democrats love and underdog, and didn’t want to put this one down yet.

    I think the whole “emotional catharsis” thing will work exactly once. But we’ll see.

  117. 117
    TheFountainHead says:

    Oh gag, John. Hillary’s plan involves another 8 years in Iraq, a health care plan written by corporate lobbyists, and Mark Penn. I’ve read Hillary’s plan. It’s a bad plan. Why you would side with bad policy on TV over good policy you have to read on the internet is totally beyond me.

    We agree again.

  118. 118
    Ivan Ivanovich Renko says:

    I have to say it’s interesting that all the pre-voting poll results were spot on for every other candidate/race but Clinton/Obama. Even more interesting is that they had edwards with 17%, they had Obama with 37%, both came to pass but somehow Hillary surged, in under 24 hours, to 39%? That is odd but I am also cynical enough to believe polls lie and things can change on a moments notice.

    Occam’s Razor sez Bradley Effect.

  119. 119
    Sojourner says:

    So only women have the right to call other women a bitch?

    Frankly, yeah. Some words are like that. The N word being another one. There are words that my gay friends use that I would never use.

    But it’s not just that word. Check out the reference in a previous post on this thread that another advantage of Hillary as a candidate is that she has breasts.

    Come on, people. That’s the kind of crap I would expect on a right-wing armchair macho blog, not on one that’s supposed to have some minimum level of intelligence behind it.

  120. 120
    Dreggas says:

    Obama agrees with all the GOP guys that health care mandates are a bad idea.

    Healthcare mandates ARE a bad fucking idea. Telling people that can’t afford health insurance that they have to buy health insurance from the private insurance industry is as bad as the gimmick that is auto insurance. You have to have it or you get fined, she’s trying to do the same thing with Healthcare.

    Further I have not heard Obama once say we should privatize social security. In fact from what I have heard of his proposals he would undo bush’s tax cuts and raise the cap on income for social sec. taxing purposes.

  121. 121
    Billy K says:

    Is Tim F. OK? Last I heard about him involved a hospital or something, and I haven’t seen him post in a while.

  122. 122

    wvng I didn’t think anybody paid any attention to Matthews any more.

    Especially when he’s a day late. Talk radio yesterday ‘Rudy got cancer so she only had to run against a boob to win the seat.’ Add to that the same sentiment on the intertubes yesterday about how Jeri Ryan gave Obama his senate seat.

    ho-hum

  123. 123
    Zifnab says:

    There are words that my gay friends use that I would never use.

    Santorum knows no bounds. Use it freely.

  124. 124
    Horselover Fat says:

    Dregas at 12:39…

    Do you seriously think a health care plan with mandates won’t include a mechanism for them to be affordable for everyone?

    How else do you get coverage availability for people with, for example, Type 1 diabetes. I used to be “job-locked” because my wife had that.

    Objecting to mandates is what the GOP guys do.

  125. 125
    Bombadil says:

    Did it ever occur to you guys that women really do get profoundly tired of your shit?

    Not just women.

  126. 126
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Frankly, yeah. Some words are like that. The N word being another one. There are words that my gay friends use that I would never use.

    But it’s not just that word. Check out the reference in a previous post on this thread that another advantage of Hillary as a candidate is that she has breasts.

    Come on, people. That’s the kind of crap I would expect on a right-wing armchair macho blog, not on one that’s supposed to have some minimum level of intelligence behind it.

    Frankly, you’re being silly. Not only did you perceive my post to say that when it didn’t, but restricting the use of that word makes women weaker.

    Women have to learn to stand up to it. In fact, if Hillary got heckled with shouts of “Bitch!”, and then owned the word for herself, I’d give her a point or two for that.

    It’s only when your opponent uses the word and you stand up to it, that you win. This shit where you bounce it between friends is hiding from the issue: some rednecks don’t like women.

  127. 127
    Horselover Fat says:

    Obama hasn’t advocated SS privatization, but he refuses to rule it out. And, he is the only Dem who is pimping the GOP claim that SS is in trouble.

  128. 128
    Cassidy says:

    Frankly, yeah.

    Seems like a bit of reverse discrimination. What’s the point of fighting for “equality” and then turn around and try to deny it? Wearing a skirt isn’t verbal body armor.

  129. 129
    Zifnab says:

    Healthcare mandates ARE a bad fucking idea. Telling people that can’t afford health insurance that they have to buy health insurance from the private insurance industry is as bad as the gimmick that is auto insurance. You have to have it or you get fined, she’s trying to do the same thing with Healthcare.

    It’s not quite that bad. The lowest income brackets would be given public free-access health care. It’s the middle-income folks who would – as always – get squeezed. People who weren’t deserving enough, the Frost Family Demographic with their granite counter tops, would be forced into the private insurance niche.

    Private Insurance is a bad system, and unfortunately it looks like only Edwards has the balls to take the bull by the horns and push for full single-payer health care. That’s one of the key platforms that continues to channel him my support.

    Further I have not heard Obama once say we should privatize social security. In fact from what I have heard of his proposals he would undo bush’s tax cuts and raise the cap on income for social sec. taxing purposes.

    And cheers to that. The $90k cap on Social Security has generally been bullshit plugged by the plutocrats as “fair”. After all, when “I’ve got mine, Jack” you can bugger off. Why should rich people have to pay to keep their impoverished minimum wage geriatric former employees off the street?

  130. 130
    TheFountainHead says:

    Dregas at 12:39…

    Do you seriously think a health care plan with mandates won’t include a mechanism for them to be affordable for everyone?

    How else do you get coverage availability for people with, for example, Type 1 diabetes. I used to be “job-locked” because my wife had that.

    Objecting to mandates is what the GOP guys do.

    Yes, because we all know that insurance companies will gladly reduce their profit margins.

    You’re tragically misinformed.

  131. 131
    Cassidy says:

    Women have to learn to stand up to it.

    I’m a bitch, I’m a lover
    I’m a child, I’m a mother
    I’m a sinner, I’m a saint
    I do not feel ashamed
    I’m your hell, I’m your dream
    I’m nothing in between
    You know you wouldn’t want it any other way

    I’m a bitch, I’m a tease
    I’m a goddess on my knees
    When you hurt, when you suffer
    I’m your angel undercover
    I’ve been numb, I’m revived
    Can’t say I’m not alive
    You know I wouldn’t want it any other way

    Had to be done. Sorry.

  132. 132
    Pb says:

    another advantage of Hillary as a candidate is that she has breasts

    In an odd way, that might have helped her, sort of like how Chris Matthews being an idiot might have helped her more recently.

  133. 133
    sashal says:

    I’m actually glad she won the New Hampshire primary just to shut some of these pundits/”journalists” up. Who knows if Clinton’s tears brought her more votes, but it’s just as likely that the unfair media coverage gave her just as many “sympathy votes” as that one thirty second clip. If commentators are upset about voters casting their vote for Clinton supposedly based off her tears, then they should probably quit covering personality based politics and start covering the issues.

  134. 134
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Had to be done. Sorry.

    Ahh damn you. You’re a medic, right? Didn’t you take the Hippocratic Oath? Do no harm?

    now I’m going to have that stuck in my head all day.

  135. 135
    TheFountainHead says:

    Yeah, I could kill Matthews with my bare hands just for taking up that much space on my screen.

  136. 136
    Brachiator says:

    Seriously- as a long time former Clinton hater myself, I was kind of shocked to see it develop like this. I guess there was some element of liking to stick it to the king, and the Clinton’s have been the king (collectively) for a while now….

    But that’s just it. Hillary is not the king (or queen). She is the wife of a former president, who is ludicrously suggesting that somehow she has been co-governor and co-president. It is just odd that her spurious claims of “35 years of experience” is sticking when it is nothing more than a fairytale, to use a term which her husband has attempted to stick onto the Obama campaign.

    In point of plain fact, Obama’s and Clinton’s real experience is similar, with a slight nod going to Obama for having actually held more elective offices.

    At any rate, I know this is going to ruffle a lot of feathers, but I think the real reason Clinton won was that she was offering something of substance. Obama is offering lofty rhetoric and “hope.” Clinton has plans.

    Actually, Hillary has not offered any real plans, but has sounded like a dour headmaster promising that she is going to work hard and that she will be ready from “Day One.” But ready to do what? Working hard at what? Whether one likes this or not is a matter of preference, but she sounds like a policy wonk, a drudge, and suggests that she has little imagination or flexibility. I much prefer people who are much more nimble and who understand that working SMART is far more effective than working hard.

    Obama is offering lofty rhetoric and “hope.” Clinton has plans. While Clinton’s speeches may not make people swoon and make Kennedy comparisons like Obama, but at some point, this will get old.

    Lincoln, Gettysburg Address. FDR, fireside chats. Churchill, addresses to the British people. JFK, RKF, pick your speech. MLK, letter from a Birmingham Jail. Yeah, that inspiration stuff gets old. Or it can help rally a nation when it is needed.

    Hillary’s problem is not that she is “defensive,” “shrill,” or “angry,” but that her only operating modes are variation of “what about me?” and “shut up while I am trying to tell you what you should be doing.” She not only has a tin-ear with respect to political empathy, but foolishly dismisses the idea that this might be anything other than a weakness. In this, she reminds me of Richard Nixon, a capable technician as a president, even oddly compassionate due to his Quaker background, but so out of touch with himself that he ultimately doomed his presidency.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I am hungry, I like the steak and potatoes on the plate in front of me rather than the promise of a multiple course meal named “change.”

    Again, this is a matter of taste. Bland food for bland people. Hillary is offering you steak and potatoes every day for the four years of her presidency. And when you get tired of that, she might offer you potatoes and steak. And if you dare ask for something else, she will likely snarl at you, “What? You ungrateful wretch, why aren’t you happy with what I’m offering you? Don’t you know how hard I work to give you steak and potatoes?”

    I still, at this point, do not know what Obama stands for other than “change” or something “new.”

    We don’t know what Hillary stands for either, especially as she attempts to distract us into believing that her husband’s record is somehow her own as well. It is telling that no debate moderator has asked her to detail her specific contributions to any of her husband’s policies, or has asked her to spell out her disagreements with any prior Clinton Administration policy or action. At least here we would have something tangible to review. Instead, we get this fanfiction of Hillary and Bill in a mind meld which has magically made her the most presidential candidate ever.

    I honestly can not believe he has been able to get away with it this long, and I assure you, he will not in a general election.

    This is a fair point. Isn’t it ironic, then, to recall that Bill Clinton had to jettison a lot of his detailed plans once he became president (BTU tax, anyone?) and was successful largely because of his ability to be flexible and to co-opt the Republicans, and to find workable solutions instead of hewing stolidly to a fixed vision of what policy was supposed to be.

    So that is why, in my opinion, Hillary won. She stands for something- something people can understand and grapple with. Not some lofty rhetoric about change that moistens loins at the American Prospect, but actual policy positions.

    Seems to me more that Hillary has succeeded because of the most primitive aspect of our animal nature. As the mate of a former alpha male, some people are automatically deferring to her authority, even though it is based much more on her prior status than on her actual accomplishments.

  137. 137
    Cassidy says:

    Didn’t you take the Hippocratic Oath?

    Nope. :)

  138. 138
    Billy K says:

    Yeah, I could kill Matthews with my bare hands just for HIS HEAD taking up that much space on my screen.

    Fixination accomplished.

  139. 139
    TR says:

    I can’t stand Clinton, but I can’t stand the media morons even more. Seeing the look of sadness on their faces after this … priceless.

    Fuck you, Chris Matthews. Fuck. You.

  140. 140
    Chris says:

    Dag, Brachiator gets my endorsement for awesome post.

  141. 141
    Cassidy says:

    but I can’t stand the media morons even more.

    This whole “Clinton aura” is a media construct. I don’t want to vote for her, but it pisses me off to see the media make shit up just for the story quality.

  142. 142
    richard says:

    Obama has plenty of policy but what gets the attention is the hope and inspiration stuff.

    I never hated Hillary, but after last night, I could feel my distaste for her begin to grow. I never realized how in-my-bones exhausted I am with her and her husband. I want them to go away, leave the scene.

    Obama is no savior, but enough already. Hillary voted for the war, never stood up and truly led when we needed her to say ‘wait – how much will it cost, what about insurgencies, what about the reasons we didn’t go in in the first place.’ She could’ve been a leader then, and wasn’t. Every step of the way she calculated and calculated, and I’ve had it. She whittled away her beliefs for a centrist persona that could gain her the presidency and I am nauseated with her. Didn’t she even support the ban on flag burning? Christ, where is her integrity?

    I do not trust the gov’t to deal with universal health care, either.

    I don’t believe she has the courage to remove the troops, either. She needs, as a woman, as a Dem, and as “Hillary”, to look tough to the Right. I don’t trust she has the will to buck these forces. She needs that second term, after all.

    I’m tired of the American political dynasties of Bush/Gore/Clinton. Get someone else in there. Strange, I didn’t even follow politics in the 90’s at all. I never trusted Bill Clinton, but I voted for him in 92 because I didn’t like 41.

    I didn’t vote in 96 or 00. Voted for Kerry. Hillary will keep the country polarized and stuck, Mitch McConnell will torpedo her legislation for the sport of it as best he can, and gain folk hero status for it. Rush and OReilly will be in hog heaven.

    Bush, Cheney, Addington et al, they’ve worn me down. Hillary is more of the same, from our side. I don’t think she’s a uniter either.

  143. 143
    Tony J says:

    I see hill as a liberal Marget Thatcher

    Jeebus. H. Funking. Cripes.

    So that’s what it feels like to be kicked in the junk by the Ultimate Oxymoron of Cognitive Dissonance.

    It’s a painful and reality-altering experience, I can tell you.

    Shuffles off in wide-stance. Shaking his head and staring to hiccup.

  144. 144
    PSL says:

    Obama and Clinton both have plans. The world isn’t lacking great plans. The world is lacking political will to make any of them happen. It is lacking great leaders that can inspire and mobilize a majority to make any of those plans a reality.

    The ability to build a coalition is what Obama has and Clinton lacks. While he speaks about “uniting Democrats, Independents and Republicans to work together on the nation’s and the world’s problems,” She speaks about “beating Repulicans.”

    It doesn’t matter how good her plans are if she is too polarizing (and uninspiring) to build the political will to make any of them happen.

    All you have to do is listen to Obama and you know he has the ability to unite people to accomplish any of a number of great plans. That ability is what differentiates a great leader from the rest of us wonks.

  145. 145
    TheFountainHead says:

    I see hill as a liberal Marget Thatcher
    Jeebus. H. Funking. Cripes.

    So that’s what it feels like to be kicked in the junk by the Ultimate Oxymoron of Cognitive Dissonance.

    It’s a painful and reality-altering experience, I can tell you.

    Shuffles off in wide-stance. Shaking his head and staring to hiccup.

    You sir, win teh intarnets.

  146. 146
    John S. says:

    I’m hoping for an Obama/ HRC and Richardson ticket.

    Keep on hoping.

    I know you have a hard-on for the guy, but Richardson isn’t going to factor into anybody’s ticket. And at this point, I can’t really see Obama and Clinton on a ticket together.

    My hunch is that ‘always a bridesmaid, never a bride’ Edwards is going to get the VP nod from either Clinton or Obama. In the case of Clinton, he adds some of that change and progressive spice that Obama is riding on. In the case of Obama, he ratchets up Obama’s change and progressive spice spice a notch with his populism.

  147. 147
    Jake says:

    So only women have the right to call other women a bitch?

    Anyone has the “right” to call anyone anything they like. If people respond by telling them to fuck off and die, that too is their right.

  148. 148
    Robert Johnston says:

    Ok John, why don’t we pick something substantive and check it out. Here’s the transcript for the last debate. What’s Duck saying?

    What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001.

    Oh, the lofty rhetoric. Ok, let’s skip past that for now… next…

    Actually, empty lofty rhetoric is exactly what that is. There’s nothing in that language that anyone could disagree with, no concrete policy plan about how to actually do something in conjunction with Pakistan about Al Qaeda.

    Let me just add one thing, though. On the broader issue of nuclear proliferation, this is something that I’ve worked on since I’ve been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials.

    Yeah, you’re right, I’m wrong—I guess he doesn’t talk about plans or experience, just lofty rhetoric…

    In this case he just lies. Near as I can tell all Obama did was sign on as cosponsor on a bill that died without ever coming up for a floor vote and a few other bills that never made it out of committee. Obama doesn’t appear to have done anything much to actually fight for this legislation, and the legislation didn’t pass. The only broad antiproliferation law to actually pass Congress or even get a floor vote while Obama’s been there is the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, a bill on which Clinton, not Obama was a cosponsor, and which Obama seems not to have played any role at all in passing. Obama also seems to be trying to take “credit” for inserting language into Senate Appropriations Report that never actually made its way into law. http://obama.senate.gov/press/...../print.php.

    Introducing legislation just so you can say you introduced something that sounds good without actually fighting for the legislation is the prototypical example of elevating rhetoric over policy substance. Senators cosponsor legislation all the time; they never get down to the nitty gritty of real policy work until they’re dealing with legislation that they actually fight for. Nonproliferation is a lofty and good goal, and it’s a fine thing that Obama shares it as a goal, but it’s an issue on which he’s shown no real leadership. Obama merely engaged in bipartisan chatting with Lugar that went nowhere and got nothing passed into law.

  149. 149
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    John Kerry’s website had a lot of detailed proposals. He and Edwards gave policy speech after policy speech.

    Then, Jabba the Crowley went on duh Tee-Vee and told us Kerry drank green tea, which means he can’t be preznit.

    DO YOU THINK CLINTON, OBAMA, AND EDWARDS DIDN’T NOTICE THIS?

    Substance doesn’t mean shit. It’s all about buzz. That’s the only way to hack the media and get them to carry a positive message about you.
    .

  150. 150
    Tsulagi says:

    Good post, John.

    My checkbook closed a little while back and it’s going to remain closed dependent upon the Dems actions in Congress during this year, not the promise of future fluff jobs offered up on the campaign trail.

  151. 151
    Jamey says:

    Sully is a simple-minded shitstain who is entertained seriously by the American media because of his plummy accent and the charming contradiction of his being gay while standing behind those whose life work it is to take the pillow out of his mouth.

    A personally libertine, wealthy fiscal conservative and cultural libertarian.

    About as scarce as sombreros on Cinco de Mayo.

  152. 152
    grumpy realist says:

    Some comments made elsewhere about how this might have been due to a reverse-Bradley for Hillary.

    Also: The Tweety effect: (”where the misogyny of a talking head in the MSM [in this case MSNBC’s Chris Matthews] so enrages a demographic that they go out and vote in a manner that will put egg on the face of the talking head”

    Note that Obama actually got about the same outright percentage as predicted from decided people. It was the fact that the “undecideds” broke so heavily for Hillary that put her over the top.

  153. 153
    capelza says:

    Caidence (fmr. Chris)….you seem to have glided over the whole old women as crotchedy bit when Sojourner called you on your incredibly bullshit remark.

    You weren’t just slamming Hillary, but women…you know what..fuck you. I say this as a crotchedy old woman who hates the heat and is a bit stiff in the bones maybe. That you can’t see that what you said was crap…

    Yeah, Hillary won because of the cranky, menopausal crowd…because we all know that really old women hate the heat, it makes them tetched and they are so incapacitated by their age and afflictions that they can’t think straight.

  154. 154
    Jamey says:

    I still, at this point, do not know what Obama stands for other than “change” or something “new.” I honestly can not believe he has been able to get away with it this long, and I assure you, he will not in a general election. So that is why, in my opinion, Hillary won. She stands for something- something people can understand and grapple with. Not some lofty rhetoric about change that moistens loins at the American Prospect, but actual policy positions.

    John:

    Obama’s got electrolytes. He mutilates thirst.

  155. 155
    TheFountainHead says:

    Substance doesn’t mean shit. It’s all about buzz. That’s the only way to hack the media and get them to carry a positive message about you.

    I couldn’t agree more. Most Americans could tell you how many branches of congress there are, let alone understand any of it’s nuance!! And for those of us that give a shit, their policy thoughts are on their website. We’re electing a face and voice for our country, not their policies. If that’s what we were doing then all of the candidates who have been forced to drop out would still be in this race!

  156. 156
    Bombadil says:

    Cassidy Says:

    Frankly, yeah.

    Seems like a bit of reverse discrimination. What’s the point of fighting for “equality” and then turn around and try to deny it? Wearing a skirt isn’t verbal body armor.

    Well, then, if you’re all there for fighting for equality, you might want to go up to the first African American you come across and use the word “nigger”. You might find that white skin isn’t verbal body armor, either.

  157. 157
    Krista says:

    For what it’s worth, I dislike Hillary both personally and professionally and just a week ago was cheering for her to come in third. But this week I felt empathetic for her as she was ravaged by the press.

    Just my own opinion, FWIW, but I don’t think that sentiments like yours can be discounted as a reason for the results last night. I prefer Obama to Hillary as well, but when the media was calling out the death knells to her campaign, my visceral reaction was, “Come on! It’s just one freaking primary, and now the media’s telling us it’s all over?” The media was basically telling all of the other states, including New Hampshire, that their opinion won’t matter. And when you announce an inevitability, there’s no faster way for people to work towards the opposite result, just to regain their sense of control over the process. So I don’t think last night was a vote against Obama, or even so much a vote for Hillary, as it was a statement about the process itself.

  158. 158
    Cassidy says:

    Keep on hoping.

    Not so fast! He’s non-polarizing. He’s smart with a good track record. He’s [somewhat] known to the public through the debates. And he’s not part of the 3 car pile-up at the top.

    I could see any one of them asking him along as VP.

  159. 159
    Punchy says:

    I’m hoping for an Obama/ HRC and Richardson ticket

    Color me confused.

  160. 160
    capelza says:

    Krista is most likely correct I think.

    The little bit I saw of the “pundits” was that Clinton was “over”. As if every other state that had a primary, or any voter with an actual opinion did not matter anymore. Oh yeah? Watch this…

  161. 161
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    You might find that white skin isn’t verbal body armor, either.

    I wouldn’t be expecting a verbal assault if I did that.

  162. 162

    At this Ron Paul site:

    http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

    there is a breakdown of hand-counted versus machine-counted votes. On the Democratic side Obama beats Clinton with hand-counted. Of the votes processed by machine, Clinton skews 4.6% higher than her hand-counted percentage, and EVERY OTHER Democrat skews lower on machine, with Obama getting the worst of it. If anyone believes that Obama holds a definitive advantage with the older, more rural New Hampshirites versus Clinton, I’ve got an election to sell you.

    I suppose that someone could develop a theory that late-breaking feminists prefer machines over hands. But all polls showed big movement in just the opposite direction, from Clinton to Obama. Obama’s internal polls showed a 14-point lead, Clinton’s polls showed Obama with an 11-point lead. In order to believe the results you have to believe that the shift either never happened (although the polls were accurate for everything but Clinton/Obama) or that the voters were bouncing wildly back and forth in the last 24 hours.

    There was much chatter on the internet and talk shows yesterday and today about this being a movement of feminists to Clinton because of several issues: the “Iron My Shirt Bitch” sign (which struck me as credible as if they were handing out Fair Play For Cuba pamphlets); Gloria Steinem’s NY Times op-ed on Monday (I blogged here:
    http://southofheaven.typepad.c.....-then.html

    on Steinem’s employment history); Obama being rude to Clinton at the debate; a questioner being rude to Clinton.

    I think this false narrative (in part advanced by Steinem) prior to the vote count, suggests to me that this result did not depend on how people voted so much as how the votes were counted.

    Diebold.

  163. 163
    Cassidy says:

    Well, then, if you’re all there for fighting for equality, you might want to go up to the first African American you come across and use the word “nigger”. You might find that white skin isn’t verbal body armor, either.

    Shorter: It’s okay for me and not for thee…

  164. 164
    Ed Drone says:

    It occurs to me to offer, gratis, a line for Hillary, the first time she’s called a “bitch” at a speech or event:

    “Bitch? Me? No, I’ll tell you who’s a bitch. Payback is a bitch! Not me!”

    Just trying to be helpful.

    Ed

  165. 165
    Cassidy says:

    I suppose that someone could develop a theory that late-breaking feminists prefer machines over hands.

    This is too easy…

    Color me confused.

    I like Richardson, but I’m realistic about the primary. Out of the front runners, I’d prefer Obama and HRC (in that order) and I’m hoping one of them will take on Richardson as VP. Clear that up any?

  166. 166
    Pb says:

    Robert Johnston,

    1. Duck?

    2. Read the whole thing.

    3. Some background for you:

    The committee passed S. 2566, The Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006 by unanimous consent on May 26, 2006. The legislation authored by Chairman Lugar and Senator Obama enhances: (1) U.S. cooperation with foreign governments to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world; and (2) the United States’ ability to provide assistance to foreign governments aimed at helping them detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

    The legislation, which garnered 26 co-sponsors (including 8 committee members), sought to energize U.S. programs to secure lightweight anti-aircraft missiles. As many as 750,000 man-portable air defense systems exist worldwide and more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. In addition, loose stocks of small arms and other weapons help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and provide the means for attacks on peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize war-torn societies. In Iraq, unsecured stockpiles of artillery shells and ammunition have been reconfigured into improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have become an effective weapon for insurgents. The initiative was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. The legislation was signed into law on January 11, 2007, as a part of H.R. 6060, the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006.

    Compare and contrast with your earlier conclusion:

    In this case he just lies.

    Was that just poor research skills on your part, or do we have an actual case of Obama Derangement Syndrome on our hands?

  167. 167
    Cain says:

    I’d like to waterboard Matthews while playing the crackling laugh of Clinton in the background continously. That ass needs to shut the fuck up and do his damn job.

    cain

  168. 168
    myiq2xu says:

    The ability to build a coalition is what Obama has and Clinton lacks.

    Can you cite examples?

    The Clintons are about as conservative as any Democratic candidates we’ve seen since George Wallace, but they were unable to get much done during Bill’s eight years in office.

    Why? Not because they were too liberal, but because Newt, Tom, Trent and the rest of the GOP boys dug in their heels for purely partisan reasons. The elephants were talking impeachment before Bill even was sworn in.

    Whenever they agreed with GOP demands on legislation, the Repugnants came up with more demands, constantly moving the goalposts.

    How is Obama going to change that? With pretty speeches? Dream on.

  169. 169
    TheFountainHead says:

    Diebold.

    I keep seeing this brought up in various places, i think even at TPM, I assume this is the name of those voting machines? Is there anything to this? I plead ignorance on this.

  170. 170
    Tsulagi says:

    You weren’t just slamming Hillary, but women…you know what..fuck you. I say this as a crotchedy old woman who hates the heat and is a bit stiff in the bones maybe. That you can’t see that what you said was crap…

    Yeah, Hillary won because of the cranky, menopausal crowd…because we all know that really old women hate the heat, it makes them tetched and they are so incapacitated by their age and afflictions that they can’t think straight.

    Well, geez, capelza, did you ever think of getting totally juiced up on that female replacement hormone stuff so you could be less crotchedy toward us male deciders?

    /looks for the Dragon Skin

  171. 171
    Face says:

    I suppose that someone could develop a theory that late-breaking feminists prefer machines over hands.

    there’s a wicked funny arthritis joke in there somewhere….

  172. 172
    myiq2xu says:

    I keep seeing this brought up in various places, i think even at TPM, I assume this is the name of those voting machines? Is there anything to this? I plead ignorance on this.

    Diebold – Because elections are too important to be left to chance.

  173. 173
    Cassidy says:

    I suppose that someone could develop a theory that late-breaking feminists prefer machines over hands.

    From the Vandals:

    Sex is not a weapon sex is not a toy you should buy a vibrator
    And bring yourself some joy

    Jaime Paxton:

    THE VIBRATOR SONG

    Me and my friends can’t get no dick. We’ve tried surfers, punks and red-neck hicks. But I need something with more power… something to fertilize my flower.

    When I’m alone and it’s getting later I break out my multi-speed vibrator.
    It’s my vibrator.

    You might laugh or even think it’s funny, but when I need lovin’ I break out my battery-operated buddy. I need something that will move me… something to make me feel fine… and downright groovy.

    When I’m alone and it’s getting later I break out my multi-speed vibrator.
    It’s my vibrator.

    Now, some guys say they can go all night. But sometimes they just can’t get it right. That’s when I reach over into my special drawer… and I show him what a man is made for.

    When I’m alone and it’s getting later I break out my multi-speed vibrator.
    It’s my vibrator. My vibrator, my vibrator, I break out my multi-speed vibrator. It’s my vibrator. It’s my vibrator.

    My vibrator.

  174. 174
    capelza says:

    Tsulagi..first off..never took the replacement hormones, they are a bad business..and contrary to some people’s opinions being post menopausal is quite pleasant…and for those that don’t know me, I’m only 51, not “really old”.

    I suppose I should be gateful that the former Chris didn’t bring up females voters with PMS…somehow I guess that’s progress.

  175. 175
    myiq2xu says:

    Yeah, Hillary won because of the cranky, menopausal crowd…because we all know that really old women hate the heat, it makes them tetched and they are so incapacitated by their age and afflictions that they can’t think straight.

    Look up the origin of the word “hysterical” and you’ll see it comes from a Greek word meaning “from the womb.”

    The Greeks thought women were crazy because they had a uterus.

    Now I ain’t saying they were right, but them Greeks were pretty smart fellas.

  176. 176
    Krista says:

    Well, geez, capelza, did you ever think of getting totally juiced up on that female replacement hormone stuff so you could be less crotchedy toward us male deciders?

    Oh…dude. You did NOT just say that.

    /ducks behind furniture to avoid the shrapnel, but peeks around it so that she doesn’t miss anything.

  177. 177
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    Quick thought….

    Wouldn’t Ron Paul be more popular with the R crowd if he insisted everyone (and the ballots) refer to him as “Ronnie”?

    Speaking of names, why does nearly everyone refer to the woman by her first name, but the men by their last?

  178. 178
    grumpy realist says:

    Yeah, go read the threads over at WashingtonMonthly. If they’re characteristic, the sniggering “Boys Only” club attitude of the MSM and the other candidates vis-a-vis Hillary really, really pissed a lot of people off, both female and male. Hell, after reading Tweety’s latest idiocy I wish I could vote for Hillary in all states.

  179. 179
    capelza says:

    myiq2xu…thety may have been “pretty smart fellas” but it didn’t stop them from committing political suicide in countless wars that wasted them and so allowing the Macedonians to come on down and take over hence rendering them to the shadows for the rest of history as a political entity.

    Maybe if they had listened to those “hysterical” women a bit more, they might have lasted. Are you familiar with “Lysistrata”?

  180. 180
    cleek says:

    Speaking of names, why does nearly everyone refer to the woman by her first name, but the men by their last?

    i do it because “Clinton” = “Bill Clinton”, for me. “Hillary” distinguishes her from Bill.

  181. 181
    John S. says:

    Not so fast! He’s non-polarizing. He’s smart with a good track record. He’s [somewhat] known to the public through the debates. And he’s not part of the 3 car pile-up at the top.

    Well, here’s why I think he doesn’t work in either scenarion:

    Clinton/Richardson

    This will bore voters to tears. They are both entrenched in their pasts, when voters seem to be looking towards the future. Too many bullet point policy memos here, and not enough pizazz. This might as well be a Kerry/Bradley ticket, and would probably fare just as well in an election.

    Richardson will make a good cabinet memeber, but that’s about all I see in his future.

    Obama/Richardson

    While it might seem like a good fit to have someone with Richardson’s record offset Obama’s perceived inexperience, Obama strikes me as an ‘all-in’ sort of candidate. If he wins the nomination based on youth and desire for change, there is no reason to offset that with Richardson.

  182. 182
    Pb says:

    Ok, this headline struck me as funny.

    Bush: Iran threatening world peace

    World peace? OMG, Bush’s worst nightmare!

  183. 183
    Cassidy says:

    Speaking of names, why does nearly everyone refer to the woman by her first name, but the men by their last?

    It’s better than bitch?

  184. 184
    Jake says:

    I keep seeing this brought up in various places, i think even at TPM, I assume this is the name of those voting machines? Is there anything to this? I plead ignorance on this.

    Because HRC won in NH (not the entire election mind you, just fucking NH) it is proof that she teamed up with the evil GOPerlords of Live Free or DieVote and stole the win from Obama.

  185. 185
    TheFountainHead says:

    Are you familiar with “Lysistrata”?

    Written by a Greek male, as a comedy. Not taking his side, just saying…

  186. 186
    John S. says:

    Are you familiar with “Lysistrata”?

    The curse of being an all-seeing oracle is that nobody listens to you. It’s a role played by many literary characters throughout the ages, most recently in the Harry Potter novels by professor Trelawney.

  187. 187
    Tony J says:

    And FWIW, I’m glad the Democratic race is still an ongoing thing, since that allows more time for you people to decide what you want out of the next four to eight years. Given that, come November, the Dems are going to control two of the three branches of government, the only race in town that matters is the one for the Democratic nomination.

    Which, I suppose, answers the question of why so many posters on this site are opposed to The Candidate Who I Don’t Support, whoever that may be. They know that 2008 represents, and so this Primary season is very much an opportunity to push the country various degrees of Left towards the rational Centre.

    A lot of people here seem to think that the Clinton Years, while made mythologically idyllic by disasters of the Bush Years that followed, were actually characterised more by a rightward tilt that made it possible for Bush to run as a ‘Conservative Clinton’ back in 2000. After all, what was ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ other than an attempt to paint Bush as just another Clintonian triangulator, only on the Republican ticket? In other words, they don’t like Hillary because they look at her advisors, they look at her votes, they look at the people (Murdoch, I’m looking at you) she’s cosying up to. They believe that she really wants to run as the Democratic version of Bush – same general policy, only with added competance, and you get to ram a Clinton down the necks of the wingnuts who thought they’d won the war back in 2000.

    True or not, that’s what some people think.

    And while Obama sounds like the real deal when he’s at a rostrum, there are a lot of people who fear his talk of bipartisanship and collective responsibility are euphemisms for letting the Republicans off the hook for the crimes they’ve committed under Bush’s regime. Its one thing to look forward to a future of change, it’s another thing entirely to accept that this means writing off the last thirty years as something you just have to get over.

    Then there’s the people who prefer Edwards, or Kucinich, or anyone who actually talks about the way America really needs some genuine change in the how and why of national identity, not just a vague tinkering around the edges before stepping back, a la Fonzie, and giving the country a great big “Heyyyyyy” of ‘let’s get back to the business of business’. They don’t like either of the front-runners, they don’t like what it means for the Democratic Party, and the country as a whole.

    Speaking as an inhabitant of a country where the party of ‘The Left’ long ago sold out to the idea that they could only win by becoming more Thatcherite than the heirs of Thatcher, count yourselves fucking lucky that you’ve got a real chance to effect real change. It’s only a question of what you change into.

    And therin endeth the rant.

  188. 188
    myiq2xu says:

    Are you familiar with “Lysistrata”?

    Written by a Greek male, as a comedy. Not taking his side, just saying

    Didn’t that have sumptin to do with the Isle of Lesbos?

    Hee hee, I said lesbos!

  189. 189
    Zifnab says:

    Yeah, I kinda had an itch of wtf-Diebold in the back of my head as I watched the poll numbers come in. It’s possible that there were voter shenanigans, but I’ll put forward another postulate. Rich counties can afford electronic voting machines. Poor counties can’t. Rich counties went for the monied establishment candidate. Poor counties went to the monied rabble rousing populist.

    I’m not writing off Diebold as a factor, and I would be more than happy to see a paper trail we could recount. But I’d need a little more evidence before I started sharpening my pitchfork and breaking out the good torches.

  190. 190
    Jen says:

    O/T if you are in a Hillary funk (Funklary?) — the Sadly, No link and discussion of the tags on Doughy Pantload’s book — I absolutely dare you to read all of those Amazon tags without cracking up at work. Do close the door. Cube dwellers, I got nothin’, except maybe find a cutesy video of a hamster or something for cover.

  191. 191
    The Other Andrew says:

    The problem with Obama isn’t that he isn’t substantive, it’s that he’s *too* substantive.

    George W. Bush is the perfect template for a President, in the sense that he’s an emtpy suit controlled by the people the party actually represents–the tax-cutting social darwinists, the fundies, and the hawks. (The rise of the xenophobes, and his failure to represent them, has caused and is causing him serious problems.) The policies he’s enacted have been a disaster for America, but he enacted exactly the policies his party wanted. In that sense, he’s been very effective. But what are the chances of a Democrat doing the same thing? Pretty small, unless it’s a centrist issue. Whereas Bush will go to the mat on something crazy like Schiavo or SS privatization.

    If a Republican candidate has some personality trait or belief that goes against a major party platform, they quickly hide it, recant it, or go as far as they can the other way. The Democrats don’t have that. Our candidates refuse to let go of their own personalities and beliefs, and they’re about as far from mainstream Democratic thought as you can get. Hillary is a corporate hawk, and Obama is stuck in a “let’s all hold hands” mentality that would’ve worked in 2000, but looks horribly naive now. The right yelled at Huckabee about immigration, and he groveled and begged for forgiveness. The left yelled at Hillary about Iraq, and she voted for the Iran resolution.

    America may need a leader, but political parties need a puppet-like frontman that looks and sounds like a leader. The major candidates on the right are begging for support from their base, the major candidates on the left are taking the base for granted and worshiping at the altar of Broder. I’d love to get an actual strong leader who believed what the party believes, but I don’t see one out there, and I don’t think we should just sit around and hope that one shows up.

    Obama has the optimism and charisma that every political frontman needs, and, despite the fact that you have to look them up online, he does indeed have in-depth policy positions. It’s just too bad that they’re more representative of him than the people he’s trying to represent. That said, I still think he has the best shot of the Big 3, so I hope he wins the nom.

    Speaking of three…there are a ton of groups/interests on the left, and it’s too bad we can’t combine them into three big ones, who in turn could funnel their support into a frontman. I’m sure there are some common-interest connections between the various groups. The right has (fill in the blank) conservatives, we have “interest groups”–both are interest groups, but we get more grief, as they aren’t big enough within the party. We need to figure out how to better define liberalism and its various subsets, so future politicians will know who to cater to.

  192. 192
    Dreggas says:

    Horselover Fat Says:

    Dregas at 12:39…

    Do you seriously think a health care plan with mandates won’t include a mechanism for them to be affordable for everyone?

    How else do you get coverage availability for people with, for example, Type 1 diabetes. I used to be “job-locked” because my wife had that.

    Objecting to mandates is what the GOP guys do.

    Shorter Horselover Fat, sure you can hardly afford the healthcare premiums you pay now but we’re gonna mandate that you get health insurance because we know what’s best for you and if it costs too much, oh well.

    Further, for added insult to injury, you will have to choose from Cigna, Blue Cross etc. who will happily deny you the medical treatment you need because it is in their best interest not yours.

    Nanny State Meet Corporations, Corporations meet Nanny State now go fuck over the middle class some more.

  193. 193
    Bombadil says:

    Cassidy Says:

    Well, then, if you’re all there for fighting for equality, you might want to go up to the first African American you come across and use the word “nigger”. You might find that white skin isn’t verbal body armor, either.

    Shorter: It’s okay for me and not for thee…

    Does that mean you plan to “fight for ‘equality'” in all cases, and start throwing around words like “bitch”, “nigger” or “queer”, since if “they” can use the word, then I can too? You think that would be considered “okay for you” then?

    When blacks use “nigger” between themselves, when women use “bitch” between themselves, when gays use “queer” between themselves, yes, it’s okay. When whites use the word “nigger”, men use the word “bitch” and straights use the word “queer”, no, it’s not okay. It’s insulting, and it’s offensive. That’s the way it is. Get over it.

    If your vocabulary is so limited that you can’t come up with a legitimate reason for not voting for HRC other than, “She’s a bitch”, then you’ve already lost. And if you even have to use that as one of your reasons, you’ve still lost.

  194. 194
    Krista says:

    Maybe if they had listened to those “hysterical” women a bit more, they might have lasted. Are you familiar with “Lysistrata”?

    No, but it sounds intriguing.

  195. 195
    TheFountainHead says:

    So the Diebold thing is just a conspiracy theory that the machines are rigged?

  196. 196
    Jen says:

    Queer is verboten? Isn’t there a whole subset of English departments now called Queer Theory? Do we have to call it Gay Theory? That sounds worse. Can we get Michael D. to arbitrate this one…?

  197. 197
    Jamey says:

    I still have some shit that needs ironing.

    Wonder if Erick at RedState will do it for $25 bucks donated to the redesign fund.

  198. 198
    capelza says:

    John S…ae you thinking of Cassandra? Though I suppose witholding sex could be considered a kind of oracle.

    Yeah it was written by a man, ans was seen as a joke, but again, too bad..as I said, Greece men, the uterine free fellas still managed to destroy themselves. That’s why I brought up “Lysistrata”…making fun of women and their lack of whatever. It’s an old game.

    I was over at Hit & Run/Reason…even those seasoned Hillary haters see the sexism. And the craziness of the coverage and the responses to her.

  199. 199
    Tony J says:

    You sir, win teh intarnets.

    I am so hoping that that’s a good thing.

  200. 200
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    i do it because “Clinton” = “Bill Clinton”, for me. “Hillary” distinguishes her from Bill.

    And this confusion happens because Bill is running, too? I don’t recall anyone calling Bush Jr. “George” in 2000, despite his dad having the same moniker.

    This thread is halirious. 2 of 50 states in, and people are apoplectic already. Blood pressure meds are selling like Pez, apparently.

  201. 201

    I took a survey of the office.

    Everybody says “Clinton would make a good President”, even people who previously had some reservations about her.

  202. 202
    Duane says:

    JC, you’ve got a long history of being wrong so it’s no surprise to read your latest. Maybe instead of rushing out bullshit for the sake of being a contrarian you could, ya know, actually take a few minutes to learn the facts and use those facts as the basis for actual analysis.

    I guess you can take the boy out of the Republicans but it’s a little harder to get the Republican out of the boy.

  203. 203
    Cassidy says:

    Does that mean you plan to “fight for ‘equality’” in all cases, and start throwing around words like “bitch”, “nigger” or “queer”, since if “they” can use the word, then I can too? You think that would be considered “okay for you” then?

    Yes. Equality is exactly that. Regardless of race, color, creed, gender, sexual preference, clothing brand worn, etc., etc., etc. I treat everyone equally and will not gingerly step around the fragile remains of people because they are perpetually offended.

    When blacks use “nigger” between themselves, when women use “bitch” between themselves, when gays use “queer” between themselves, yes, it’s okay. When whites use the word “nigger”, men use the word “bitch” and straights use the word “queer”, no, it’s not okay. It’s insulting, and it’s offensive. That’s the way it is. Get over it.

    No. It’s not okay. Equality is not graded on a sliding scale. It’s either all in, or all out. You don’t get little perks because you’re a minority.

    If your vocabulary is so limited that you can’t come up with a legitimate reason for not voting for HRC other than, “She’s a bitch”, then you’ve already lost. And if you even have to use that as one of your reasons, you’ve still lost.

    You’re projecting. I never said that. You can actually find a place, in this here thread, that says I wouldn’t mind a Hillary win…she’s just not my first choice. In another thread, you’ll find where I’ve said I think she would be a highly effective POTUS and admire her professional attitude.

  204. 204
    Dreggas says:

    Hmmm queer a dirty word? Maybe only to the thin skinned after all it has a lot of meanings. And sorry but if a woman acts like a bitch I’d call her on it. “Bitch” has nowhere near the power that the N word has, not even close, bitch wasn’t used to “oppress” a woman. In fact I’d be just as quick to say a man was being a bitch as well, simply because men can act just as bitchy as women. Nice try in comparing though.

  205. 205
    Ninerdave says:

    Obama rulez, the rest drool.

  206. 206
    Bombadil says:

    And this confusion happens because Bill is running, too? I don’t recall anyone calling Bush Jr. “George” in 2000, despite his dad having the same moniker.

    No. He was refered to as “W” (pronounced dubya) to differentiate him from his father. Alternatively, the father was refered to as “Bush I”. And yes, that was to avoid confusing the two.

  207. 207
    Punchy says:

    TOA and Tony J going head-to-head for the Best Al Maviva

  208. 208
    rawshark says:

    Further, for added insult to injury, you will have to choose from Cigna, Blue Cross etc. who will happily deny you the medical treatment you need because it is in their best interest not yours.

    You mean like classifying corrective jaw surgery as a cosmetic procedure so they don’t have to cover it?

  209. 209
    Jen says:

    I don’t recall anyone calling Bush Jr. “George” in 2000, despite his dad having the same moniker.

    Uh, “despite”? They’re both George Bushes. Using either “George” or “Bush” would be confusing. Hence all the “W”, “Dubya”, “Shrub”, “43”, etc., etc.

    I will also point out that HRC uses “Hillary” on her campaign signs.

  210. 210
    Bombadil says:

    I look forward to seeing how Dreggas and Cassidy fare the next time they walk up to a group of blacks and start throwing “nigger” into the conversation. Or maybe they can start casually refering to the “bitch who runs accounting” or “the queer in personnel” and see how long they last at their jobs.

    All in the name of “equality”, of course.

  211. 211
    Jon H says:

    “Maybe if they had listened to those “hysterical” women a bit more, they might have lasted. Are you familiar with “Lysistrata”?”

    Oh please. Clinton’s the most hawkish Democratic candidate, her advisors are the cream of the liberal hawk establishment.

    But, hey, who cares if Hillary sends troops into Iran – American women will be doing a minority of the dying, old women won’t do any of the dying, and old women won’t be paying off the Bush/Clinton war deficits for very long.

    Why should they care? Why not make a frivolous girl-power vote?

  212. 212
    rawshark says:

    Everybody says “Clinton would make a good President”

    Since when is competence relevant? I thought we elected people we want to drink beer with and that we don’t need superman as president as long as he surrounds himself with competent people? Did I miss a memo?

  213. 213
    Dreggas says:

    rawshark Says:

    Further, for added insult to injury, you will have to choose from Cigna, Blue Cross etc. who will happily deny you the medical treatment you need because it is in their best interest not yours.

    You mean like classifying corrective jaw surgery as a cosmetic procedure so they don’t have to cover it?

    Or saying you don’t really need that other lung because their investors might get pissed. If Clinton learned one thing from her fight for “Hillarycare” it’s that you have to kiss the ass of the insurance industry and mandates do just that.

    Just look at car insurance. You get fined if you don’t have it so you are forced to have it. Difference is Health insurance costs a helluva lot more.

  214. 214
    4tehlulz says:

    I am so hoping that that’s a good thing.

    Not really. They’re only redeemable at 4chan.

    This thread is halirious. 2 of 50 states in, and people are apoplectic already.

    This thread is mild. Here, we blame ballot position for HRC’s win.

  215. 215
    Zifnab says:

    So the Diebold thing is just a conspiracy theory that the machines are rigged?

    Basically, yes.

  216. 216
    myiq2xu says:

    Speaking of three…there are a ton of groups/interests on the left, and it’s too bad we can’t combine them into three big ones, who in turn could funnel their support into a frontman. I’m sure there are some common-interest connections between the various groups.

    Everybody is an interest group. To be more accurate, each of us belongs to several interest groups, and depending on what’s going on (nationally and in our own lives) we prioritize those interests.

    Occupation
    Union vs non-union
    Health care insured vs non insured
    Homeowner vs renter
    Religion
    Male vs female
    Parent vs no kids
    Married vs single
    Straight vs gay/lesbian
    Economic status
    Urban vs suburban vs rural
    etc.

  217. 217
    Dreggas says:

    Bombadil Says:

    I look forward to seeing how Dreggas and Cassidy fare the next time they walk up to a group of blacks and start throwing “nigger” into the conversation. Or maybe they can start casually refering to the “bitch who runs accounting” or “the queer in personnel” and see how long they last at their jobs.

    All in the name of “equality”, of course.

    Uh re-read my post, I quite plainly say that the N word is completely different but nice attempt at twisting my words into what you wish to hear. Bitch != the N word period. It has nowhere near the connotations that the N word has. Nice try, again but I’m not buying it. Please read…slowly next time.

  218. 218
    Punchy says:

    Stay classy, Jess Jax Jr….from TPM:

    …there were tears that melted the Granite State. And those are tears that Mrs. Clinton cried on that day, clearly moved voters. She somehow connected with those voters.
    But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama

    Shorter Obama’s camp–unless the bitch cries over every refugee in Darfur, the bitch is insincere and a playah.

  219. 219
    Horselover Fat says:

    Dreggas at 2:18

    I have NO worries, I am on Medicare now, plus I have a Medicare Supplement. So I am set for good.

    I just care about the poor schlubs who are now job-locked the way I used to be. Mandates are the ONLY way to get everyone in, instead of having the insurance companies cherry-pick.

    And, I do know how sucky it is to be on Blue Shield or Kaiser or whatever, but only from talking to my brother.

  220. 220
    Bombadil says:

    Uh re-read my post, I quite plainly say that the N word is completely different but nice attempt at twisting my words into what you wish to hear. Bitch != the N word period. It has nowhere near the connotations that the N word has. Nice try, again but I’m not buying it. Please read…slowly next time.

    Fine. But you will let us know what “the bitch who runs accounting” thinks of your characterization, won’t you?

  221. 221
    TheFountainHead says:

    Ugh, the biggest mistake Obama made thus far was courting the Jacksons.

  222. 222
    Jon H says:

    ” Mandates are the ONLY way to get everyone in, instead of having the insurance companies cherry-pick.”

    Putting a mandate on consumers doesn’t do anything to make the insurance companies insure people.

    If there isn’t a mandate on Kaiser, etc, then we’re likely to see “subprime insurance” companies arise to fleece the sick who have to get insurance or else be fined.

  223. 223
    LiberalTarian says:

    Wilfred Says:

    Our ship of state is listing, and it is scary as hell to sit powerlessly below deck. Restoration of US prosperity will depend not only on good ideas, but back-breaking effort and determination, and the Democrats need to demonstrate that they are the ones who have the work ethic to set this ship aright.

    He said stirringly.

    Should be, “She said stirringly.”

    Yeah, I get a little caught up in the moment.

  224. 224
    capelza says:

    John S… I wanted Dodd! Not a big Hillary Clinton fan.

    My comments about the ancient Greek world were in response to a specific poster. And the sexiesm I see. I can not tell you how that pisses me off, even using the word “sexism” because I am not one of the “women’s studies” crowd (I still laugh when I remember that at Kos..I was on his side).

    But damn, it has gotten ridiculous and some of you don’t even see it. It’s so apparant. And did I read that Chris Matthews actually pinched her on the cheek? I hope I read that wrong, but for fuck’s sake…how about a package grab on Obama?

  225. 225
    Jen says:

    Well, the bitch who reads Balloon juice is tired of this argument. Context is important. Next discussion, interesting link, snarkity snark snark? I’ll give you a topic: Doritos are not in the same family as Cheetos, because I like Doritos and they endorsed Stephen Colbert’s campaign. Counterpoint, they are made by Frito-Lay.

    Okay, the work avoidance is just getting silly at this point. Sorry, all.

  226. 226
    Rudi says:

    LOL – The NRO and Doughboy have gone nuts. The JG now blogs at NRO under LiberalFascism and it ain’t no joke.
    http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.....atire.html
    http://bp0.blogger.com/_cHfiC-1_5uk/R4UUM8ZKmqI/AAAAAAAAALQ/Tff5YOxIlFc/s400/blog_header_liberal-fascism.jpg
    The above links includes the graphic featured at NRO’s LF, so use the link but don’t go over to NRO.

  227. 227
    ThymeZone says:

    To me all of this is blah blah blah. To me it all hinges on one thing: Do we want the White House and Democratic Party to be ruled by the Clintons, or by somebody new?

    I have always preferred the latter, if I can get it. And with Obama, I think I can get it. Therefore, I was not happy to see HRC win NH, but I don’t think it’s her race at this point.

    As for the woman vote / tears thing, meh. I have little sympathy for, or confidence in, the women’s vote if things like that are a big factor. People said they voted for Bush because he seemed like a guy you could have a beer with. (Actually, I think it was that he was a guy you HAD had a beer with, and closed down the bar, and drove home drunk, but who’s quibbling?)

    Now are they going to say that they’ll vote for Hillary because she has a soft, human side? That’s about as much of an asshole version of citizenship as saying that one would NOT vote for her because she looked weak on Monday. Two sides of the same totally bullshit coin.

    Politics is about changing reality. I want a new reality, one that has the Clintons in the White House only in the photo albums, in the past, way past. I want new direction, and Obama appears to me to be the guy that can provide it. Plus, I just like him. Clinton’s voice makes me suicidal.
    Her policy views seem stuck in 1992. She is a conduit to the old Dem power structure that I have little use for.

    Go Obama, go go go. Campaign your ass off and win this thing. Forget New Hampshire. It’s a goofy place. John McCain, for crissakes? He’d be the oldest president ever elected, right? Talk about being stuck in the fucking past.

  228. 228
    Cassidy says:

    I look forward to seeing how Dreggas and Cassidy fare the next time they walk up to a group of blacks and start throwing “nigger” into the conversation. Or maybe they can start casually refering to the “bitch who runs accounting” or “the queer in personnel” and see how long they last at their jobs.

    Just want to make sure I understand. Are you seriously perpetuating language and beliefs that continually divide the American Public?

  229. 229
    LiberalTarian says:

    And, for what it is worth, my ex-husband was the biggest bitch *ever*. Pretty sure he had no ovaries.

    He called me a bitch to make me submissive, I call him a bitch because he bitched and moaned and cried like one of those spoiled little girls on “My Sweet 16.”

    I agree with the Texan–men who are afraid of strong women have lifetime memberships in the teeny peeny club.

  230. 230
    TheFountainHead says:

    Politics is about changing reality. I want a new reality, one that has the Clintons in the White House only in the photo albums, in the past, way past. I want new direction, and Obama appears to me to be the guy that can provide it. Plus, I just like him. Clinton’s voice makes me suicidal.
    Her policy views seem stuck in 1992. She is a conduit to the old Dem power structure that I have little use for.

    And now TZ and I agree, again. This thread is just turning my whole day around, I’m feeling better already.

  231. 231
    Jake says:

    Bombadil Says:

    I look forward to seeing how Dreggas and Cassidy fare the next time they walk up to a group of blacks and start throwing “nigger” into the conversation. Or maybe they can start casually refering to the “bitch who runs accounting” or “the queer in personnel” and see how long they last at their jobs.

    Only bigots would oppress them by objecting to their language.

  232. 232

    LOL – The NRO and Doughboy have gone nuts. The JG now blogs at NRO under LiberalFascism and it ain’t no joke.

    Oh, I assure you, he may not think it’s a joke.

    But it is.

  233. 233

    To me all of this is blah blah blah. To me it all hinges on one thing: Do we want the White House and Democratic Party to be ruled by the Clintons, or by somebody new?

    John McCain?

  234. 234
    ThymeZone says:

    And now TZ and I agree, again.

    You are on the road to BJ Perdition, my friend.

  235. 235
    Bombadil says:

    Just want to make sure I understand. Are you seriously perpetuating language and beliefs that continually divide the American Public?

    Gee, as long as we’re clarifying here, are you seriously thinking that everyone is going to come together as one if we call each other “bitch”, “nigger” or “queer”?

    Tell you what, let’s do an experiment. I won’t use any of those words, and you use them all the time, with everyone you encounter. Let’s see who turns out to be more ‘divisive’, shall we?

  236. 236
    Duane says:

    John McCain, for crissakes? He’d be the oldest president ever elected, right?

    On the bright side, we wouldn’t have to be worried about him sneaking off to get his knob jobbed. He’d either be sleeping in his favorite chair or lining up for the early bird dinner special.

  237. 237

    But it wasn’t just women. It wasn’t just her “tears” like that bitch MoDo is suggesting.

    And here I thought it was because Hillary refused to wear earth tones.

  238. 238
    Punchy says:

    Holy shit, there’s TZ. I was just going to issue an ABP for your absence. About damn time.

  239. 239
    Cassidy says:

    Only bigots would oppress them by objecting to their language.

    Please explain.

  240. 240
    Jen says:

    I think Jonah summed up his reason for writing this book pretty well all by himself:

    Anyway, I could go on linking to negative and positive reviews — and I will! But not right now. That should give you a sense of the way the reception is shaping up for now. The more important thing is for you to buy the book. Buy it now.

  241. 241

    On the bright side, we wouldn’t have to be worried about him sneaking off to get his knob jobbed. He’d either be sleeping in his favorite chair or lining up for the early bird dinner special.

    Think of all the money that could be saved with our President getting AARP discounts on flights and hotel rooms.

  242. 242
    Cassidy says:

    Gee, as long as we’re clarifying here, are you seriously thinking that everyone is going to come together as one if we call each other “bitch”, “nigger” or “queer”?

    For one, I don’t use racist language, as a general rule. It has little to do with how it makes people feel, but more about my opposition to racism.

    Secondly, if you continue to perpetuate “words” as defining a person(s), then you’re doing nothing to solve the problem. Words only have meaning if you let them. If I were to call you a queer, bitchy nigger, you have two options: 1) get offended because you have let one of those words define you, or 2) let it roll off because they have no power over you.

  243. 243
    Robert Johnston says:

    ” Mandates are the ONLY way to get everyone in, instead of having the insurance companies cherry-pick.”

    Putting a mandate on consumers doesn’t do anything to make the insurance companies insure people.

    If there isn’t a mandate on Kaiser, etc, then we’re likely to see “subprime insurance” companies arise to fleece the sick who have to get insurance or else be fined.

    All the Democratic plans would impose mandatory issue rules–insurance companies must offer reasonably comprehensive policies to all comers, regardless of preexisting conditions–and control consumer costs through some combination, differing from plan to plan, of subsidies, premium caps, and community rating protections.

  244. 244
    grumpy realist says:

    Cassidy, it’s an “in-group” vs. “out-group” thing. Language considered derogatory is often picked up by the group it is used against and “re-branded” as a way to remove the sting from the derogatory term. Hence “bitch” being rebranded by feminists as “strong woman who won’t take guff from anyone.” It gets to be the equivalent of an inside joke.

    As someone from the outside, your use of the term carries the original derogatory meaning, sad to say. Which is why if *you* use the term you get considered a total asshole but a member of the in-group using the term will not automatically be so tagged.

    Here endeth the semantics lesson.

  245. 245
    John S. says:

    capelza-

    I may be mixing up my Greek literary figures, since it has been a while since college. But I get what you are driving at and I’m on the same page.

    Not much of a Hillary fan myself, and it has zero to do with her gender. I personally liked Dodd, too, but with him out I’m throwing my support behind Edwards in the Florida primary.

  246. 246

    Secondly, if you continue to perpetuate “words” as defining a person(s), then you’re doing nothing to solve the problem. Words only have meaning if you let them. If I were to call you a queer, bitchy nigger, you have two options: 1) get offended because you have let one of those words define you, or 2) let it roll off because they have no power over you.

    It’d be easier, and more fun, if I just kicked your ass.

  247. 247
    eric says:

    i keep seeing people say that Obama has no substance, and I suppose this is falling on deaf ears, but he actually has a website with policy papers on it. But that shit makes for lousy speeches, at least to people who don’t have the time or attention span to read that stuff carefully. doesn’t anyone think that the idea that he’s an empty box is due as well to the media’s narrative driven horseshit? It’s true enough that he gets a relatively free ride as far as his history goes (wait until the actual race begins), but i think this is as much a part of the MSM bullshit narrative as the Clinton = Wicked Witch thing is.

  248. 248
    John S. says:

    Language considered derogatory is often picked up by the group it is used against and “re-branded” as a way to remove the sting from the derogatory term.

    Funny, but I have never seen this tactic adopted by Jews. When I was a teenager, a few friends of mine used to attempt to call each other ‘kike’ or ‘sheeney’ in a hip-hop sort of way, but it never really stuck. Co-opting a pejorative term is just something that I don’t see happening amongst my people. Maybe it works for blacks or feminists, but it never really worked for us.

  249. 249
    Cassidy says:

    Cassidy, it’s an “in-group” vs. “out-group” thing. Language considered derogatory is often picked up by the group it is used against and “re-branded” as a way to remove the sting from the derogatory term. Hence “bitch” being rebranded by feminists as “strong woman who won’t take guff from anyone.” It gets to be the equivalent of an inside joke.

    As someone from the outside, your use of the term carries the original derogatory meaning, sad to say. Which is why if you use the term you get considered a total asshole but a member of the in-group using the term will not automatically be so tagged.

    Here endeth the semantics lesson.

    I hear you and understand you, and that is the most retarded thing I’ve heard this week. Just on principle, I’m gonna have to refer to every woman as a bitch now, just because I can.

    Why is it us “bigoted” Southern, white men can let terms like cracker and whatnot roll off us, but bitches get their panties wadded up over the word bitch.

  250. 250
    Cassidy says:

    It’d be easier, and more fun, if I just kicked your ass.

    Internet bravado…it’s so cute…you queer.

  251. 251
    Bombadil says:

    For one, I don’t use racist language, as a general rule. It has little to do with how it makes people feel, but more about my opposition to racism.

    Secondly, if you continue to perpetuate “words” as defining a person(s), then you’re doing nothing to solve the problem. Words only have meaning if you let them. If I were to call you a queer, bitchy nigger, you have two options: 1) get offended because you have let one of those words define you, or 2) let it roll off because they have no power over you.

    FWIW, I agree with you. At that’s all well and good, from the recipient’s side. How the recipient reacts to being called a “bitch” is only part of it. My point, such as it is, would be that if you need to use a derogatory term that’s gender specific, it says quite a bit about you. You say you don’t use racist language because you’re opposed to racism. By that logic, you must approve of sexism, if you feel it’s okay to use sexist language.

    Why do you hate women?

  252. 252
    Bombadil says:

    Cassidy Says:

    It’d be easier, and more fun, if I just kicked your ass.

    Internet bravado…it’s so cute…you queer.

    OK, that made me laugh.

  253. 253
    Face says:

    Just on principle, I’m gonna have to refer to every woman as a bitch now, just because I can

    Lord…PLEASE…have Cassidy’s mom call tonite.

  254. 254
    4tehlulz says:

    Funny, but I have never seen this tactic adopted by Jews.

    You have now.

  255. 255
    Bombadil says:

    Why is it us “bigoted” Southern, white men can let terms like cracker and whatnot roll off us, but bitches get their panties wadded up over the word bitch.

    You got me there. I hate being called a whatnot.

    [Again, someone calling you “cracker” is saying more about themselves than they are about you.]

  256. 256
    Cassidy says:

    Why do you hate women?

    Dude/ Dudette, I offend equally. I’ve called men bitches and other such things. When a woman is a bitch, she’s being a bitch. When a guy is a being a dick, he’s a dick. So on and so on.

    And actually, I am sexist, not in a prejudicial way, but sexist nonetheless. There are fundamental differences in men and women, with some exceptions. So instead of all this bland equality shit, we should as a society encourage playing to strengths. That’s not some “women in the kitchen, home ec” crap. But instead, an acceptance that we are not, nor ever will be built biologically equal, so instead we should allow people to grow as their gender without force feeding some social engineering.

  257. 257
    Cassidy says:

    Again, someone calling you “cracker” is saying more about themselves than they are about you.

    I look at it the other way. It’s how I react that says a lot about me. I am comfortable in my skin as a Southern, white male, who likes guns, sex with women, tobacco, beer, fishing, camping, etc. I like being a guy and all the things that come with it. So for someone to call me a cracker and have me react, says I’m uncomfortable with who I am. Screw the other person. I don’t care what they think.

    My brother is queer. I mean we’re talking “Flame On!”, queer. Love the kid and he’s okay with it. Being called names doesn’t bother him. He laughs.

  258. 258
    Bombadil says:

    Dude/ Dudette, I offend equally. I’ve called men bitches and other such things. When a woman is a bitch, she’s being a bitch. When a guy is a being a dick, he’s a dick. So on and so on.

    Oh, man, why didn’t you stop there?

    And actually, I am sexist, not in a prejudicial way, but sexist nonetheless. There are fundamental differences in men and women, with some exceptions. So instead of all this bland equality shit, we should as a society encourage playing to strengths. That’s not some “women in the kitchen, home ec” crap. But instead, an acceptance that we are not, nor ever will be built biologically equal, so instead we should allow people to grow as their gender without force feeding some social engineering.

    Just what the fuck is the difference between a pair of testicles and a pair of ovaries that makes biologically unequal? Different in function, yes, I’ll buy that — but unequal? And what the hell does “grow as their gender” mean?

  259. 259
    ThymeZone says:

    we are not, nor ever will be built biologically equal,

    You got that right. The women are superior. They can make a kid, raise the kids, and still end up living longer than we do.

    No wonder we have to call them “bitches” to try to keep them down.

  260. 260
    Cassidy says:

    Being called names doesn’t bother him. He laughs.

    And this is the heart of it. When you let other people’s words define you, you’ve let them control you. You’ve let them control how you feel and how you feel about yourself. That’s not the kind of society I want to live in. So this “in-group” thing actually does more damage than good. They’ve internally defined themselves as something negative. Maybe that takes the sting away, but in the end, it’s still negative.

  261. 261
    Steve M says:

    I haven’t scrolled through all of the comments, but I agree with Sullivan when he says that while Obama could be a problem for the Republicans in a general election, Clinton will unite them unlike any of their own candidates. It sucks, but judging from personal observation, this is true. I teach at a small rural school in Florida, traditionally Conservative, even Christian conservative (we open faculty meetings with prayers to the Lord, for example, and my students sometimes ask why I’m not Christian (I’m Catholic), and this is a public school). When we discussed the election, there intense negative commentary on Hillary, and these kids really reflect their parents. The commentary on Barack, however, was far different and couple of the Clinton haters suggested that they could support Obama.
    I know anecdotes are not the same as data, but it is a snapshot of where the Democrats will be in a national election if the nominate Clinton. IMHO, of course.

  262. 262
    John S. says:

    You have now.

    I get Heeb magazine, and it’s pretty damn funny, but the term ‘heeb’ isn’t exactly a pejorative – it is merely shorthand for ‘hebrew’. I suppose some people might find it offensive (and technically it is classified as thus), but it doesn’t rank up there with something like ‘nigger’. To me it is no more offensive than Ebony would be.

    Find me a publication called Kike or Mocky (published by Jews) and then maybe we can talk.

  263. 263
    Bombadil says:

    My brother is queer. I mean we’re talking “Flame On!”, queer. Love the kid and he’s okay with it. Being called names doesn’t bother him. He laughs.

    If having people refer to him as “faggot” or “queer” or suchlike really doesn’t bother him, he’s the first, no matter how much he may laugh.

    And if you think it’s OK for people to call your brother names strictly based on his sexuality, there’s a piece missing out of your heart.

  264. 264
    Cassidy says:

    Just what the fuck is the difference between a pair of testicles and a pair of ovaries that makes biologically unequal? Different in function, yes, I’ll buy that—but unequal?

    Two different organs for one. Okay, example time. Men are physically stronger, we know this. Women are smarter (at least in my experience). Women can perpetuate the species. Guys can’t. Guys can reach the top shelf of the cabinet and start the campfire. We’re very different creatures and in many things we are not equal. I don’t see those as negatives. I think the differences are their for a reason, so that both genders have a place in our long term evolution.

    Either way, I don’t mean unequal, as in superior/ inferior, but fundamentally different and complimenting. I hope that makes more sense. For the record, I consider the female to be the superior sex, which leads into your next question.

    And what the hell does “grow as their gender” mean?

    Feminism has always been about being equal to and just like men. To me, that’s not a very high bar for success. Why would you want to be just like us? We’re fairly simple organisms.

    Instead, I think women should be encouraged to be women, instead of a dude in a skirt.

    No wonder we have to call them “bitches” to try to keep them down.

    Well, I personally was joking. But, bitch…dick…same thing in my book.

  265. 265
    Cassidy says:

    And if you think it’s OK for people to call your brother names strictly based on his sexuality, there’s a piece missing out of your heart.

    Never said that. That’s a whole ‘nother game. But, if I was with him in public, I’d let him be a man and follow his lead. If he took it well and handled it himself, then good for him. He isn’t going to have big brother to kick ass all the time.

  266. 266
    John S. says:

    Well, perhaps I was wrong after all. After consulting the Dictionary of Ethnic Bias, it seems the terms ‘heeb’ and ‘yid’ along with ‘kike’ and ‘hymie’ were in fact used as rather offensive terms beginning in the early 20th century.

    Apparently, we have co-opted some of the pejorative terms for our very own to take some of the sting out of them. In fact, we did such a good job that I was blissfully unaware of their previous connotation.

    Well done fellow heebs!

  267. 267
    Krista says:

    Why? Because some women refer to each other that way amongst themselves and nobody gets offended? That’s just silly. “Bitch” is not some universal feminist code word. If some strange woman called me a bitch, I would most certainly be offended by that, as would most of the women I know. So it’s not as though women can freely call each other “bitch” with impunity, while getting angry at anybody else who uses the word.

    Some women, tired of being called “bitch” when they’re just being assertive and forceful (you know, like men are encouraged to be), have tried to take back the word. As in, “Okay, so I can’t stand up for myself without being called a bitch? Fine then. I’m a bitch. Deal with it.” Unfortunately, for a lot of women, especially in business or politics, the choices are to be an assertive “bitch” or an ineffective “lady”. I guess they figure that being called a bitch is the price that they will have to pay for getting the job done and being successful.

    The key isn’t calling every woman you meet a bitch (not unless your goal is to get punched out, anyway). The key is to eliminate these idiotic gender or race-specific insults. A jerk is a jerk is a jerk. An asshole is an asshole is an asshole. Why should someone’s race or gender be part of the insult?

  268. 268
    Bombadil says:

    Either way, I don’t mean unequal, as in superior/ inferior, but fundamentally different and complimenting. I hope that makes more sense.

    Yes, that does make more sense, thanks.

    Feminism has always been about being equal to and just like men. To me, that’s not a very high bar for success. Why would you want to be just like us? We’re fairly simple organisms.

    “Equal to”, yes. “Just like”, not so much. Feminism has never been about making women “just like” men. Feminism has been about having equal opportunities and not having obstacles put in the way strictly based on gender.

    And, by the way, my daughters can reach the top shelf and light their own campfires. In fact, with the exception of directly impregnating a woman, I can’t think of a single thing that my daughters would be incapable of doing that a man wouldn’t be able to do. And before you get into the realm of feats of strength, a friend of mine still holds the shotput record at her college (a record she set in the mid ’90s) and I know plenty of guys who wouldn’t be able to throw half that far.

  269. 269
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Just came back from lunch, so this might be late…

    Cassidy Says:

    And actually, I am sexist, not in a prejudicial way, but sexist nonetheless. There are fundamental differences in men and women, with some exceptions. So instead of all this bland equality shit, we should as a society encourage playing to strengths. That’s not some “women in the kitchen, home ec” crap. But instead, an acceptance that we are not, nor ever will be built biologically equal, so instead we should allow people to grow as their gender without force feeding some social engineering.

    I just want to clarify, I think the word Cassidy wants is “equivalent”. “Equals” is a value issue, “Equivalent” an identity issue. Assuming a fair world, the male sex will be equal to the female sex, but not equivalent to the female sex.

    Cassidy is trying to say “they aren’t the same, don’t treat them as such. Just focus on the good stuff”

  270. 270
    capelza says:

    Guys can reach the top shelf of the cabinet and start the campfire.

    And gals can’t? Man I am using that one the next time I go camping. Though since I brought the wedge and axe to the marriage i doubt I’ll get away with it.

  271. 271
    Krista says:

    Guys can reach the top shelf of the cabinet and start the campfire.

    Two of my very good female friends, who are 5’10 and 6’1 respectively, and who are both Girl Scout leaders, would probably beg to differ with you.

    Then again, you DID say women are smarter. Who am I to complain about you proving it?

  272. 272
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Bombadil Says:

    And if you think it’s OK for people to call your brother names strictly based on his sexuality, there’s a piece missing out of your heart.

    Words only hurt if you hear them. Really.

    It’s cruel to do that to a person that’s in the middle of a change and unprepared, yes. It should be ok to joke about a stable gay dude’s gayness, but you should keep your mouth shut around a questioning 13 year old.

    But still, after you’re comfortable with who you are, words don’t do shit. My ex was bi, her friends gay, all comfortable. Nobody was concerned about “faggot” being tossed around at will.

  273. 273
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Krista Says:

    Guys can reach the top shelf of the cabinet and start the campfire.

    Two of my very good female friends, who are 5’10 and 6’1 respectively, and who are both Girl Scout leaders, would probably beg to differ with you.

    Then again, you DID say women are smarter.

    Proof of hypothetical intelligent: high heels.

  274. 274
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Proof of hypothetical intelligent intelligence

    … oh, and mastery of grammar.

  275. 275
    Bombadil says:

    It’s cruel to do that to a person that’s in the middle of a change and unprepared, yes. It should be ok to joke about a stable gay dude’s gayness, but you should keep your mouth shut around a questioning 13 year old.

    Fixed.

  276. 276
    Cassidy says:

    Cassidy is trying to say “they aren’t the same, don’t treat them as such. Just focus on the good stuff”

    That works.

    And, by the way, my daughters can reach the top shelf and light their own campfires.

    I was mostly being facetious; inject a little humor. Overall, men and women are different and we should stop encouraging them to be the same.

    Feminism has never been about making women “just like” men.

    In the beginning sure, but this is what it has become.

    Feminism has been about having equal opportunities and not having obstacles put in the way strictly based on gender.

    It’s also become about having obstacles removed just based on gender. This is where the equality thing comes in. Professional women would be pissed if they were treated strictly as equal as the men at work.

  277. 277
    Cassidy says:

    And gals can’t? Man I am using that one the next time I go camping. Though since I brought the wedge and axe to the marriage i doubt I’ll get away with it.

    Two of my very good female friends, who are 5’10 and 6’1 respectively, and who are both Girl Scout leaders, would probably beg to differ with you.

    The humor was too subtle. I apologize. I’ll feminize the joke next time…ba da bump!

  278. 278
    Bombadil says:

    It’s also become about having obstacles removed just based on gender. This is where the equality thing comes in. Professional women would be pissed if they were treated strictly as equal as the men at work.

    I’d love to see the poll data you have to back up that assertion.

  279. 279
    tBone says:

    An asshole is an asshole is an asshole.

    Hillary Clinton is a big asshole.

    (It’s OK, I’m an asshole too.)

  280. 280
    Jake says:

    Please explain.

    It’s a guy thing, you wouldn’t understand.

  281. 281
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Bombadil Says:

    It’s cruel to do that to a person that’s in the middle of a change and unprepared, yes. It should be ok to joke about a stable gay dude’s gayness, but you should keep your mouth shut around a questioning 13 year old.

    Fixed.

    First, that’s the lamest retort ever. Try backing it up.

    Second, if words can affect you, how do you ever go out and get anything progressive done?

    You’re obviously living in an environment where it’s reasonable to expect that people get along so well that ad hominems are not allowed. This would be VERY eutopic.

    Out in the world, there are so many conflicting cultures which don’t agree but still have to team up and work together, and we use our words not only to cooperate but to show discomfort, even if it’s based in bigotry or ignorance.

    I can’t imagine that you’re seriously expecting that we should be able to fix these disagreements in less than a millenium.

    And it’s always ok to defend your values for the sake of the little guy (or if you are the little guy), but you have to be ready to accept that people are going to disagree with you, not close off your world and expect everything is hunky dory.

    Engaging people, ESPECIALLY bigots and losers, is a requirement for social progress.

  282. 282
    Face says:

    I’ll buy that—but unequal?

    Come on, ladies, admit you’re being obtuse here. He means biologically. Men are stronger. Mostly faster. Bigger. More impulsive. Women are smarter, friendlier, better at make me some pie (ha! j/k). Of course these are generalizations, and of course, you can find me a girl who runs a 4.3 40 and one who weighs 400 bills, but in general, there are biological differences that lead to physiological differences that lead to differences in different skill sets.

  283. 283
    John says:

    Obama has presented plenty of “meat,” but he is out to do much more than that with his campaign, so it’s easy to lose site of it. Sometimes the big idea, especially when delivered so powerfully, overshadows the nitty gritty.
    And the Clintons have successfully planted the “no substance” meme in much of the electorate and pundit class. Looks like it’s reached Mr. Balloon Juice too.

  284. 284
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    And it’s always ok to defend your values for the sake of the little guy (or if you are the little guy), but you have to be ready to accept that people are going to disagree with you, not close off your world and expect everything is hunky dory.

    Addendum: By telling a person “No, you’re wrong, don’t ever use that word to label someone, etc.” you’re closing off conversation, thus closing off contact. All conversations are two-way; you can’t close them off to your benefit.

    /there, that’s better.

  285. 285
    Cassidy says:

    Come on, ladies, admit you’re being obtuse here. He means biologically. Men are stronger. Mostly faster. Bigger. More impulsive. Women are smarter, friendlier, better at make me some pie (ha! j/k). Of course these are generalizations, and of course, you can find me a girl who runs a 4.3 40 and one who weighs 400 bills, but in general, there are biological differences that lead to physiological differences that lead to differences in different skill sets.

    And instead of promoting gender neutrality, our society would be much better if we encouraged overall gender growth, without the prejudices of the past.

  286. 286
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Face Says:

    I’ll buy that—but unequal?

    Come on, ladies, admit you’re being obtuse here. He means biologically. Men are stronger. Mostly faster. Bigger. More impulsive. Women are smarter, friendlier, better at make me some pie (ha! j/k). Of course these are generalizations, and of course, you can find me a girl who runs a 4.3 40 and one who weighs 400 bills, but in general, there are biological differences that lead to physiological differences that lead to differences in different skill sets.

    To expand on equals/equivalent: it would be reasonable to push the idea that all those qualities on each side would tabulate to be equal (in value). Just not equivalent (in semantics/identity).

  287. 287
    Marko says:

    What is this – a Kanye West song? “smarter, friendlier, better,…” This is about personality and overall package, not if they can fireman’s carry you off a battlefield. Fittobepres.com has a pretty good ratings system for this that I like. In the end though it all comes down to emotional attachment and not any rational argument.

  288. 288
    capelza says:

    Face..men are stronger, upper body strength.

    Here, I work (most retired) in the commercial fishing industry. You’d think that men would be the better ones becaue of their strength (and in king crabbing, yeah, they are). Yet, the honest skippers in other fisheries will tell that women make better crew members because they are (generally) more smart and careful.

    And still, to this day, women are a rarity in the fisheries, becuase of overt sexism and the idea that men will unable to control themsleves with that fetching babe on the backdeck all covered in clunky raingear with fish gurry dripping down her face. Or that when another crewman causes a boat accident, a big bow crushing one, everyone immediately assumes it was the woman, even though it wasn’t her fault. (Yeah, I’m bitter about that one). Or that because she is paid more, it just has to be because she slept with the skipper and not because she was the better crewman.

    So yes, skill sets are different (to a degree exaggerated by those who wish to excuse discrimination) but most jobs denied to women can be done with those very same different skill sets.

  289. 289
    Robert Johnston says:

    eric Says:

    i keep seeing people say that Duck has no substance, and I suppose this is falling on deaf ears, but he actually has a website with policy papers on it. But that shit makes for lousy speeches, at least to people who don’t have the time or attention span to read that stuff carefully. doesn’t anyone think that the idea that he’s an empty box is due as well to the media’s narrative driven horseshit?

    Every time Obama tries to talk policy details, he flubs it. Obama’s clearly uncomfortable talking policy, and the places where he’s tried to draw policy differences with the other Democrats have shown that it’s not just a problem talking. Obama simply doesn’t understand, for example, the economics of health insurance or the economics of Social Security. Everything about him screams that he leaves policy details to staff and advisers because he’s not really conversant in them. And while in depth policy wonkishness doesn’t make for the best general audience speeches, it’s necessary for asking and answering specific substantive questions and it’s something that enables a President to avoid being a slave to advisers and ideology.

    Policy snippets and talking points on a website don’t make for a candidate who cares about and understands policy. Geroge W. Bush had ’em, Huckabee has ’em, Ron Paul has ’em, and so do Obama and every other candidate running. Attention to and care for the details is what matters, and Clinton and Edwards are several cuts above Obama on that point. Obama might be a fine President at another point in history when he’s inheriting a functioning policy apparatus from a solid Democratic President and not facing major policy crises, but that time isn’t now. The policy apparatuses of the executive branch and the administrative state have been decimated by Bush, and we need a President who truly cares about the details of policy formation in order to fix this.

  290. 290
    Punchy says:

    but in general, there are biological differences that lead to physiological differences that lead to differences in different skill sets.

    Can I get this translated into English?

  291. 291
    tBone says:

    that fetching babe on the backdeck all covered in clunky raingear with fish gurry dripping down her face.

    I’ll . . . I’ll be in my bunk.

  292. 292
    Cassidy says:

    Can I get this translated into English?

    Cassidy is trying to say “they aren’t the same, don’t treat them as such. Just focus on the good stuff”

  293. 293
    Cassidy says:

    And still, to this day, women are a rarity in the fisheries,

    Call me crazy, but is being covered in fish crap really progress?

  294. 294
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    John, using a term like ‘moisten loins’ when discussing Hillary induces mental images that can only be eradicated with an ice pick in the forehead.

    Bad John, BAD!

    I expected Hillary to win Iowa, and I expected her to win by a large margin in NH. Neither happened, and IMO Obama winning in Iowa took away what should have been a landslide for Hillary in NH. If we the public were surprised by Obama winning Iowa like he did, you can bet the Democratic party powers that be were totally stunned. It is clear that Hillary is their gal, and the disarray in the Hillary campaign in the last week shows that what was going on was totally unexpected.

    If Edwards was not in the race, Obama would be wiping the floor with Hillary right now. When Edwards drops out, I believe that Obama will benefit far more than Hillary would. I think Edwards supporters are more in line with Obama than they are with Hillary.

    I wish the Democrats would dump the Super Delegates crap. That was a move to stop McGovern and to wrest control of the selection process from the primaries. In other words, it allows the powers that be in the Democratic party to give the primary a swift kick in the direction the party wants it to go. Kind of like an insurance policy for the party to use in case things are not going the way that the party wants it to (e.g. McGovern). The party gets the last word, not the people.

    How Democratic, NOT

    Regarding the outcome of the NH primary, when I don my 5.8 GHz tin-foil hat (with titanium remote control!) I see the possibility of the MSM and party apparatus putting out the ‘Hillary is gonna lose NH’ meme so that when she did win they could get the ‘Inevitable Hillary! Express’ back on the rails. She has been revitalized!, is human!, breathes!, people love her! and on and on and on. She was supposed to have NH wrapped up and she just squeaked by with the help of Edwards.

    I don’t want Hillary, Edwards or Obama to drop out. Duke it out to the end, best one wins. If Hillary wins the primary contests, unless something extraordinary happens I have no plan to vote for her. It has nothing to do with hate, but rather I do not like many of her policies and positions. If she was a he, I would feel the same way. I would like to see a woman become president, just not Hillary. Also, we have gone through 15 years of hearing the MSM and the right bitch, moan and groan about Clinton 24/7. It is long past time to break that unholy trinity apart. Please? For the sake of our children? ;)

    Dodd was my guy (unless Gore jumped in), but I would have no problem voting for Obama. People can say that they don’t know what he stands for (mostly because they are not being spoon fed their favorite flavor of Candidate Soundbites and they are too lazy to actually go read and learn), but that pales in comparison to what we do know that Hillary stands for.

  295. 295
    myiq2xu says:

    instead of having the insurance companies cherry-pick.

    Do we want to use the term “cherry-pick” in a thread that discusses sexism?

  296. 296
    Cain says:

    And still, to this day, women are a rarity in the fisheries, becuase of overt sexism and the idea that men will unable to control themsleves with that fetching babe on the backdeck all covered in clunky raingear with fish gurry dripping down her face. Or that when another

    Right, but we know that they are probably wearing lingerie underneath and we can just see it in our minds eye, stripping out of those wet raingear… woohoo. I gotta go. Be back in 5 minutes.

    cain

  297. 297
    Jess says:

    I don’t mean unequal, as in superior/ inferior, but fundamentally different and complimenting.

    If you compare averages–size, longevity, hairiness, etc.–there are clear differences between men and women. But if you consider the broad range of potential characteristics within each gender, and the huge overlap between the men and women, the notion of different and complementary (not complimentary) beings doesn’t hold up so well. The reason why I resist the idea of essential male/female difference is that it denies our individual differences as well as our common humanity. Yes, there are differences–the question is how relevant are they? To what degree is biology destiny? What’s the point of focusing on gender stereotypes, rather than on individual potential?

  298. 298
    myiq2xu says:

    Come on, ladies, admit you’re being obtuse here. He means biologically. Men are stronger. Mostly faster. Bigger. More impulsive. Women are smarter, friendlier, better at make me some pie (ha! j/k). Of course these are generalizations, and of course, you can find me a girl who runs a 4.3 40 and one who weighs 400 bills, but in general, there are biological differences that lead to physiological differences that lead to differences in different skill sets.

    Those differences cover a range with a significant overlap.

    Men tend to be bigger and stronger, but some women are taller and stronger than some men. Most blacks and caucasians are taller than most asians too, but what does that mean? Outside of competitive sports, fastest and strongest are not necessarily relevent.

    The United States did not beat the Japanese in WWII because of the relative size and strength of our soldiers compared to theirs.

    If there are minimal physical requirements to perform a job, then size and strength are relevant criteria. But once those minimal requirements are met (if they exist) then the rest is just trivia.

  299. 299
    Pb says:

    Regarding gender differences, the brains of men and women really are wired differently:

    In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the networking of – or connections between – these processing centers.

    This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility. These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests.

  300. 300
    Stephen says:

    In 1960, Nixon’s policy position on Quemoy and Matsu was far superior to Kennedy’s, who was full of “New Frontier” lofty rhetoric, some of it (literally) lunacy.

  301. 301
    Horselover Fat says:

    “These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests.”

    The equivalent overall performance is designed into the tests by the way the tests are weighted.

  302. 302
    Sojourner says:

    Frankly, you’re being silly. Not only did you perceive my post to say that when it didn’t, but restricting the use of that word makes women weaker.

    Women have to learn to stand up to it. In fact, if Hillary got heckled with shouts of “Bitch!”, and then owned the word for herself, I’d give her a point or two for that.

    Ah, yes, the infamous “Girls have to play by the boys’ rules” argument.

    Nah. I’ll pass on that. I’d much rather get in the boy’s face and embarass him for being an ass.

    I have never wanted to be a boy and that has not changed as I’ve become an old, crotchety, arthritic broad.

  303. 303
    Zifnab says:

    In 1960, Nixon’s policy position on Quemoy and Matsu was far superior to Kennedy’s, who was full of “New Frontier” lofty rhetoric, some of it (literally) lunacy.

    You know who else was a policy wonk? Hitler. Guy didn’t just have a plan, he had a final solution. So think about that before you pull the lever for Hillary. She’s just like Hitler.

  304. 304
    Sojourner says:

    Welcome to modern feminism.

    Are you going to accuse me of burning my bra next?

    It’s simpler than that. As a woman, I don’t feel the need to let pass unchallenged the misogynist arguments that guys like to pass off as debate.

  305. 305
    Shygetz says:

    Not just weighted, but the items are specifically chosen to minimize gender-based performance differences. Gender bias is a big no-no in most psychometric circles.

  306. 306
    Dreggas says:

    Bombadil Says:

    Fine. But you will let us know what “the bitch who runs accounting” thinks of your characterization, won’t you?

    If she was a bitch I would, however she’s not. However I can give you plenty of examples both male and female if you’d like. For example one ex I had who was supposedly assertive etc. was really a domineering bitch who was an alcoholic and mentally abusive.

    Then there was the ex before that who was also a bitch, she stole property from me and cheated on me.

    Then there was a boyfriend who was a major bitch. Nope no discrimination when it comes to that one.

  307. 307

    1.) Obama will lose on the ‘mandate’ issue. Krugman will see to that.

    2.) Both Edwards’ and Clinton’s plan allow people to opt-in to Medicare. So there is no ‘forcing people to pay for health insurance they can’t afford. See point 1. It’s a right-wing talking point.

    3.) SS is not in ‘crisis’. Of the books spending on Iraq is the ‘crisis’. *and massive fraud and waste*

    4.) All three candidates plan on maintaining the US embassy in Iraq. Clinton is no more ‘hawkish’ than Obama or Edwards in this regard.

    5.) No Dem is preemptively bombing Iran.

    6.) Bill S.970. Know it, love it. Obama was for kyl-lieberman before he was against it.

    7.) Not going to touch the race or gender stuff with a 10,000 ft. pole.

  308. 308

    It’s also become about having obstacles removed just based on gender. This is where the equality thing comes in. Professional women would be pissed if they were treated strictly as equal as the men at work.

    They’d probably like it if they got paid equally, though.

    Female Neurosurgeons = $337,031 (median annual salary)
    Male Neurosurgeons = $487,000

    Female Civil Engineers = $61,000
    Male Civil Engineers = $78,000

  309. 309
    Face says:

    Men tend to be bigger and stronger, but some women are taller and stronger than some men. Most blacks and caucasians are taller than most asians too, but what does that mean? Outside of competitive sports, fastest and strongest are not necessarily relevent.

    I never brought up relevency. I merely said there were innate biological differences. “Tend” is a great softener for the real word, “are”, in a general sense. Average body weights, muscle mass, % muscle per kg mass, etc. Your anecdotal expressions of “some women are bigger” are just that–anecdotal outliers.

    Interestingly, then you add:

    If there are minimal physical requirements to perform a job, then size and strength are relevant criteria. But once those minimal requirements are met (if they exist) then the rest is just trivia.

    So physical differences do matter. Can you at the very least admit your gender is not well suited for the NFL? Can I at least get that concession?

  310. 310
    Karen says:

    How lazy of you–Senator Obama has plans, on healthcare, taxes, Iraq, environment, fuel, etc, just like Senator Clinton. Just because he’s a great speaker and she isn’t doesn’t equal no plans. Do it little research–you don’t have to go far just check his web site. I guesss that would be too much like right. Sad!

  311. 311
    Dreggas says:

    capelza Says:

    Face..men are stronger, upper body strength.

    Here, I work (most retired) in the commercial fishing industry. You’d think that men would be the better ones becaue of their strength (and in king crabbing, yeah, they are). Yet, the honest skippers in other fisheries will tell that women make better crew members because they are (generally) more smart and careful.

    And still, to this day, women are a rarity in the fisheries, becuase of overt sexism and the idea that men will unable to control themsleves with that fetching babe on the backdeck all covered in clunky raingear with fish gurry dripping down her face. Or that when another crewman causes a boat accident, a big bow crushing one, everyone immediately assumes it was the woman, even though it wasn’t her fault. (Yeah, I’m bitter about that one). Or that because she is paid more, it just has to be because she slept with the skipper and not because she was the better crewman.

    See now this is sexist too, after all no matter the gender anyone who ASSUME’s that a man can’t control his sexual instincts or himself is stereotyping the man in question. Of course this is mainly men doing it to themselves.

  312. 312
    Phoebe says:

    Have you looked at his website? Also: fuck you, you lazy parrotting candyass.

  313. 313
    Bombadil says:

    I wonder how often, during the course of her presidency, Hillary Clinton would be called upon to reach for something on the top shelf, or light a campfire.

  314. 314
    Will says:

    Is it steak and potatoes being offered by Hillary, or a GUARANTEED LOSS in November? What is it, 50% of all likely voters BEGIN the conversation saying they would never, ever in a million years vote for her? And while many of those may be Republicans, they are Republicans who are seriously considering voting for Barack: a Democrat MORE liberal than Hillary. Seriously, I don’t see where any Democrat feels any allegiance to this pro-war, pro-corporate hack.

  315. 315
    Zifnab says:

    They’d probably like it if they got paid equally, though.

    Female Neurosurgeons = $337,031 (median annual salary)
    Male Neurosurgeons = $487,000

    Female Civil Engineers = $61,000
    Male Civil Engineers = $78,000

    Good luck on that hurdle. Check the general workforce numbers. There are more men than women in business generally. Men promote their buddies. It’s a good ‘ole boy’s club, sure enough. But while you can legislate away some of the more egregious violations, the only way to overcome the income gap at the end of the day is more female upper management types hiring and promoting more of their own ilk.

  316. 316
    KevinA says:

    First things first, memo to Chris Matthews (I say this as an Obamite who hoped NH would euthanize the Bush-Clinton era): YOU’RE NOT HELPING! For God’s sake, shut up! Yes, you may actually have a point, but you’re just asking for a Sisterhood revolt sweeping HRC to the nomination.

    That said, bravo Brachiator. John, if you suppose we’re in fairly normal, status quo time, then HRC is a fine nominee. Many of us see the country at a remarkable low ebb. We’d like to believe, on a civic level, in something greater than ourselves or our narrow constituencies. Barack Obama does that for me. Hillary Clinton does not.

    Oh, BTW, anyone who says “He’s too idealistic,” should stop calling themselves “liberals.”

  317. 317
    Brachiator says:

    Robert Johnston –

    Every time Obama tries to talk policy details, he flubs it. Obama’s clearly uncomfortable talking policy, and the places where he’s tried to draw policy differences with the other Democrats have shown that it’s not just a problem talking. Obama simply doesn’t understand, for example, the economics of health insurance or the economics of Social Security.

    I just don’t see any evidence of this. Further, you kinda confuse a couple of different things here since a president could have a great understanding of the “economics of health insurance” and still not be able to draft any competent policy proposals, or be able to get Congress to pass any legislation reflecting that policy.

    But this also reminds me of one of Bill Clinton’s failings as detailed in Bob Woodward’s “The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House.”

    The most memorable outburst in “The Agenda” comes when Mr. Clinton is told that his economic package cannot both meet Congress’s well-known spending caps and keep its ambitious investment plans. Some of his anger can be attributed to his staff’s insufficient warnings. But some of it can’t: “The President began to yell and shout questions. How? Why? When? . . . Slamming his fist down on the end of his chair, Clinton let loose a torrent of rage and frustration. He said he felt blindsided. This was totally inconsistent with what he had been told. Why hadn’t they ever had a serious discussion about the caps? . . . The President turned red in the face. Why didn’t they tell me? he asked.”

    Or this…

    Most surprising of all, perhaps, is Vice President Al Gore’s political skill. He alone seemed to see the opportunity for Mr. Clinton back in early 1993 to cut a fresh figure as a deficit slayer and clearly establish his New Democrat credentials. He’s a team player who doesn’t always live up to his nice-guy image: “I want to know if you’re going to screw us,” Mr. Woodward tells us the Vice President demanded of Senator John Breaux at one point. And a by now often cited moment one day in the Oval Office is indeed wonderful. Mr. Clinton, lamenting “the endless compromises and delays” besetting the economic plan, turns to Mr. Gore: ” ‘What can I do?’ he asked the Vice President. ‘You can get with the goddamn program!’ Gore answered tersely, his own exasperation boiling over.” By the end of this book, the reader is left with the tantalizing thought of what might have been had the ticket been Gore-Clinton and not the other way around. …

    Hmmm. Would you like to suggest that Bill Clinton was uncomfortable with policy, or that he simply didn’t understand policy?

    I was initially impressed during the New Hampshire debate when Hillary Clinton rolled off a lot of policy considerations that might impact a hypothetical pre-emptive strike against Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But for me, the five points she rolled off came across like a brilliant school exercise, ending with a zinger about failed Bush Administration policies, but she didn’t clearly spell out WHAT SHE WOULD DO, and worse, she demonstrated absolutely no consideration of Pakistan’s possible policy objectives. You can policy wonk all day long, but if you don’t comprehend the motives of your allies and adversaries, you still end up being an ineffective president.

    Bottom line is that I am not seeing any clear disadvantage with respect to Obama, nor any clear advantage with respect to Clinton or any other presidential contender. And those who want to make a grasp of policy an especially important criterion for being president have a poor grasp of historical precedent.

  318. 318
    Darkness says:

    Brachiator Says:

    But that’s just it. Hillary is not the king (or queen). She is the wife of a former president, who is ludicrously suggesting that somehow she has been co-governor and co-president. It is just odd that her spurious claims of “35 years of experience” is sticking when it is nothing more than a fairytale, to use a term which her husband has attempted to stick onto the Obama campaign.

    Okay, I’m late to the party, but I just have to point something out. Hillary is either one of: a) she’s not qualified because she was just hanging around with an elected person (and possibly sleeping with him); or b) she’s more of the same dynasty; but she can’t be both. I predict that in the weeks after she’s elected she’ll change her name back to Rodham.

    And Lysistrata by Aristophanes is an amazingly amusing play, ESPECIALLY considering how old it is and how different you keep expecting the author to assume you are as a viewer/reader. In summary, the women stop a war by denying the men sex.

  319. 319
    Dylan says:

    Thanks for the NSFW link, asshat ;-)

  320. 320
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    If a woman is mean and nasty, she is often called a bitch. If a guy is mean and nasty, he is often called a son of a bitch.

    Us guys sure are great at passing the buck, eh?

    ;)

  321. 321
    myiq2xu says:

    Too bad this thread is dead or I would tell y’all why men are smarter than women. Another time.

    BTW – Jeebus John, did you run over Obama’s dog or something? You sure pissed off a bunch a people I never seen here before.

  322. 322
    tBone says:

    I like Obama just fine, but if you think he is gonna make it through a general election doing nothing but “elevating” you with crap about “change” and “hope,” you are fooling yourself. The party of Atwater and Rove and purple heart band-aids will eat his shit up and spit it out.

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. Yeah, policy-wonkery did such a great job of insulating Gore and Kerrey from the Purple Heart Band-Aids Brigade, right?

    Maybe NH voters did prefer Hillary’s focus on policy over Obama’s optimistic rhetoric. Guess what? NH primary voters != general election voters.

  323. 323
    anon says:

    Shorter John Cole: Obama needs to talk about specifics. Clinton offers concrete plans which appeals to some voters.

    Shorter Obama backer response: Obama has plans and Clinton is boring and uninspiring. Plans dont matter if you cant implement them.

    Both are talking past the other. I agree with Cole, Obama needs to toss in some more wonkiness to appeal to voters who want at least some of that. He doesnt have to out program or outplan Clinton, he just has to speak about it enough to defuse the bulk of the Clinton talking point. I also agree that Clinton’s all wonk all the time persona doesn’t count for anything doesn’t count for much because she can actually turn independents and republicans against things just by talking about them.

    As for Clinton, the media is not going to suddenly start liking her and being nice to her. And the pity card is going to wear old fast. So why someone would vote for her because the media is being unfair is beyond me when its going to cripple her in office. And the Clinton’s have earned a good portion of that dislike the hard way.

  324. 324
    capelza says:

    Call me crazy, but is being covered in fish crap really progress?

    Yeah, it is. I wanted to be on the ocean, I love it there, I can make very good money and have long periods of time off.

    Being stuck in an office is soul destroying for me.

  325. 325
    Kevin says:

    You are the idiot, my friend. His argument of change isn’t about just a change from Bush. His argument of change is about a change from the mindset infesting our political system. Can he deliver? I believe so. He can communicate and inspire a hell of a lot better than you can.

  326. 326
    George B. says:

    Good luck on that hurdle. Check the general workforce numbers. There are more men than women in business generally. Men promote their buddies. It’s a good ‘ole boy’s club, sure enough. But while you can legislate away some of the more egregious violations, the only way to overcome the income gap at the end of the day is more female upper management types hiring and promoting more of their own ilk.

    The point seems to be that women aren’t treated equally in the workforce area that matters most- pay. That’s even after other factors like job selection, maternity leave, etc. are taken into consideration. Women are second-class citizens of the professional world. It seems like that was brought up as a refutation of this:

    It’s also become about having obstacles removed just based on gender. This is where the equality thing comes in. Professional women would be pissed if they were treated strictly as equal as the men at work.

    The whys and wherefores notwithstanding.

  327. 327
    sakitume says:

    John, you are correct insofar as Obama has not in the past four weeks tried to sell himself with wonky details. But throughout 2007 he bored audiences with specifics.

    On Dec. 3, for example, Obama “outlined a plan that would prevent credit card companies from raising interest rates without giving consumers the chance to opt out of the agreement. Obama’s plan would ban rate increases on past debt. It would also prevent credit card companies from charging interest on transaction fees.”

    In July in DC, Obama specified how he would tackle poverty at a fundamental, root level. And so said the Washington Post:

    Although Obama offered some of the same proposals as Edwards, such as a transitional jobs program and an expanded earned-income tax credit, he presented a sharply different overall objective: fixing inner-city areas so they become places where families have a shot at prospering, without having to move.

    As an example, he cited the Harlem Children’s Zone, an initiative that seeks to improve one section of that New York neighborhood with an array of services, including prenatal counseling, early childhood education and free medical services. Obama urged replicating the program in 20 cities, which he estimated would cost a few billion dollars a year. “If poverty is a disease that infects the entire community in the form of unemployment and violence, failing schools and broken homes, then we can’t just treat those symptoms in isolation,” he said. “We have to heal that entire community.”

    OK, here’s another example of Obama going all wonky in front of family farmers in Iowa back in August:

    [Obama said], “I’m reminded that the test of leadership isn’t what you say, it’s what you do. Voting records matter… I’ve always stood for tougher environmental regulations and local control over whether CAFOs can be built in your neighborhoods and that’s why we need to limit EQIP funding to giant CAFOs so they are forced to pay for their own pollution. And that’s what I’ll do as President.”… In addition to talking about rural values and CAFOs, Obama also spoke about the importance of country-of-origin labeling (COOL), payment limitations, renewable energy, and labeling foods that have been genetically modified. Each of these issues are important to a significant portion of the audience present and the thousands of family farmers and activists that work on food and progressive agricultural issues across the state.

    Oh, and he talked policy detail during debates, too, and the Iowa Independent noted back in August that “Obama pulled points for talking about capping subsidies to large ag-business to help the family farm. His was the most specific agriculture answer” among all the candidates that night.

    Just because you haven’t paid attention doesn’t mean Obama hasn’t sold himself on wonky specifics; although if your argument is that he should resume doing so, I would agree up to a point.

  328. 328
    Pb says:

    John Cole,

    All things considered, I’d rather see Edwards win it. And you’re still wrong on this one, but what else is new. Hint: they all have plans, and they’ve all talked about their plans, and if you missed it, then boo hoo, go look it up first next time.

    Incidentally, you know who ran on having a plan last time? Yeah, that’s right, George W. Bush in 2004. Remember “At least you know where I stand”? You must still find that to be a compelling argument–because you’re still peddling it.

  329. 329
    myiq2xu says:

    Yeah, it is. I wanted to be on the ocean, I love it there, I can make very good money and have long periods of time off.

    Being stuck in an office is soul destroying for me.

    I wanted to be taller. And I’d rather be rich, instead of good looking.

    But like my Grandpa said “It ain’t what you want that you get the most of.”

  330. 330
    Harley says:

    Oh, puhleeze. If you don’t know what Obama stands for, if you don’t know his “plans” — this only means you’re too frackin’ lazy to do the ten minutes worth of Googling it takes to garner all the relevant info. That doesn’t mean his plans are superior to Hillary’s. But the notion that he doesn’t ‘have any and is only speechifying is something the Mark Penn would very much like to spoon feed to you.

    How’d it taste?

  331. 331
    Tax Analyst says:

    Chris Says:

    Dag, Brachiator gets my endorsement for awesome post.

    Yeah, not bad. That said, I don’t think HRC would do a bad job – probably can dig us out of some of GWB’s crap. That is, after all, what has to be the first order of business. She’s still far superior to any Republican. I prefer Obama at this point because I think he promotes a positive vision beyond anything I think HRC is capable of doing.

    Yes, that’s a speculative position.

  332. 332
    Anne Laurie says:

    I don’t want a Democrat [Obama] who is running as Republican-lite. BTW – That’s also my feeling about Hillary. The electorate is moving to the left (finally) and we need a candidate that is a true progressive. Carpe diem!

    Ain’t irony a pissah? The only serious Democratic contender who’s talking about real change is the straight, white man from the South.

    I’ll vote for either Obama or Hillary over whichever sad-sack staggers to the Repub finish line (literally staggers, if it turns out to be Old John) but sometimes I wish the Great Sky Novelist didn’t rely so heavily on pulp cliches!

  333. 333
    John Cole says:

    Oh, puhleeze. If you don’t know what Obama stands for, if you don’t know his “plans”—this only means you’re too frackin’ lazy to do the ten minutes worth of Googling it takes to garner all the relevant info. That doesn’t mean his plans are superior to Hillary’s. But the notion that he doesn’t ‘have any and is only speechifying is something the Mark Penn would very much like to spoon feed to you.

    How’d it taste?

    Harley, I am gonna assume you have been here before, so I am going to ask you this- what in my 6 years of blogging makes you think that I am:

    A.) A Clinton fan
    B.) Someone interested in reciting Clinton talking points simply because I am so eager to see her elected.

    Anything?

    And another thing- all this “Obama gives me hope” crap just makes me want to vomit. Seriously. Get control of yourselves, already. We are selecting a politician, not the Messiah.

  334. 334
    John's Minions says:

    Well that was an interesting hundred pages of debate about two pretty decent canidates who are essentially on the same page, issues-wise.
    Thanks guys.

    Also, we found out that Monica took it up the butt.

    Good god, why can’t every major celebrity from the nineties just fall in a fucking hole and disappear? Arrgh! Even “American Gladiators” is back!!

    mumble grumble grumble

  335. 335
    Harley says:

    Easily answered. I don’t believe you’re a Clinton fan, and I was obviously surprised to see you regurgitating Clinton talking points. Let’s just call it an unfortunate coincidence.

    But as others have noted, the idea that Obama lacks plans or substance (compared to Hillary) is more to do with your own laziness than the candidate himself. And as I did not say anything about Obama giving me hope, I”ll assume your vomiting is otherwise inspired. And while we’re on the subject, the idea that Obama supporters are high on hope and moonbeams is yet another canard floated about by those who oppose him.

    Dang. Another coincidence.

  336. 336
    myiq2xu says:

    Oh, puhleeze. If you don’t know what Obama stands for, if you don’t know his “plans”—this only means you’re too frackin’ lazy to do the ten minutes worth of Googling it takes to garner all the relevant info.

    I don’t see any point in researching a candidate until Feb 4, 2008. You see, I don’t get to vote for any of them until Feb 5th, so why do research on a candidate who might not be there by the time I get to vote?

    When I shoot of my mouth (fingers?) here at Bug Juice, I don’t get paid. Hell, I don’t even get respect. But that’s okay, I don’t give any back, so it evens out.

    So I’ll wait until the last minute and then look closely at the remaining candidates and make my choice.

    The smart money says I’ll vote for a Democrat, but I don’t know what the line is. Place yer bets, take yer chances.

  337. 337
    John Cole says:

    But as others have noted, the idea that Obama lacks plans or substance (compared to Hillary) is more to do with your own laziness than the candidate himself. And as I did not say anything about Obama giving me hope, I”ll assume your vomiting is otherwise inspired. And while we’re on the subject, the idea that Obama supporters are high on hope and moonbeams is yet another canard floated about by those who oppose him.

    I watched the coverage, I watched the debates. I did not go to the town halls, but I tell you that Obama is peddling hope/change/whatever, and Hillary was talking substance and record the last few weeks.

    And if you think Obama supporters are not high on moonbeams lately, you have not been paying attention. Have you been to Ezra Klein’s website in the past month? Sullivan’s? And I like them both, but sheesh.

  338. 338
    NotSoSmartMoney says:

    “4.) The young did not vote in the same numbers as they did in Iowa.”

    There’s some truth to this – but I can’t help but think it also has to do with those “young voters” I saw on I-80 in Iowa, filling up multiple vans, vans carrying Illinois license plates. And then there’s my friend in northern Iowa who works in the county clerk’s office, wondering about the sudden infusion of young residents three week before the caucus – all registering in the Demo caucuses. OK, flame me – I think Obama’s a fine candidate – but I know what I saw – and heard.

  339. 339
    Harley says:

    All right, then we’ll just have to disagree. I’ve watched the same coverage, the same debates, and while there is certainly a difference in style between the two candidates, and that style impacts the way in which they talk about ideas and the future — I still don’t buy the idea that HIllary is offering substance and record while Obama wastes our times with silly notions about hope, the future, and whatever else it is you feel he’s ‘peddling.’ And by the way, when it comes to her record, I’d suggest it’s Hillary who’s doing the peddling. (I kinda liked Chris Rock’s take on the subject, to be honest.)

    And of course I’m paying attention. Sully’s link is how I got here — tho’ I’ve been by many times in the past. But after eight years of Shrub, I’m willing to forgive, and certainly understand, the urge toward moonbeams — or paradigm shifts, for that matter — when it comes to Obama, particularly for those of us who would rather not relive the Clinton wars on the national stage one more time.

  340. 340
    John Cole says:

    And of course I’m paying attention. Sully’s link is how I got here—tho’ I’ve been by many times in the past. But after eight years of Shrub, I’m willing to forgive, and certainly understand, the urge toward moonbeams—or paradigm shifts, for that matter—when it comes to Obama, particularly for those of us who would rather not relive the Clinton wars on the national stage one more time.

    I personally would rather shower in prison than relive the Clinton years and re-fight those some battles. Clinton is, after Gravel and Kucinich, my last choice of the Democrats. I wanted Dodd, and Obama seems like a decent man.

    But for chrissakes, what has been going on the past few weeks is absurd. Hillary is not the enemy. She is not perfect, and she is wrong on Iraq (for that matter, Obama will not immediately withdraw, either),but she is not the enemy.

    And if you think Obama will get through the general election just by “inspiring” people and “transcending” race and politics, you are high on moonbeams.

  341. 341
    Harley says:

    Uhm, okay. Agreed. Even about the prison shower. But as I said nothing about ‘transcending race and politics” or even “inspiring” people, I’m assuming the last line referred to someone else.

    Tho’ I’m certainly not above being inspired by the right politician at the right moment. Cynicism is a barren redoubt. And oddly enough, it doesn’t make one a whit smarter.

    Also? Obama’s ability to inspire should not be underestimated. It’s a worthy addition to any politician’s repetoire.

  342. 342
    tBone says:

    And if you think Obama will get through the general election just by “inspiring” people and “transcending” race and politics, you are high on moonbeams.

    And if you don’t think that his ability to inspire people would be a huge asset in a general election, you’re fucking nuts. Personality is just as important as policy in a Presidential race, whether you like it or not.

    Somehow, I think Obama is smart enough to find middle ground between A) incessant rounds of Kumbaya and B) endless recitations of dry policy proposals.

  343. 343
    Joe G says:

    I think Obama talks about his plans plenty (wasn’t he just a few months ago criticized as being too cerebral?) but I also agree a major problem right now is his unending rhetoric. I am 100 % behind him but I think he needs to show people he has more substance.

  344. 344
    D-Chance. says:

    Mr Cole, no redesign, but comment threading might be helpful. Jumping from “Obama vs Hillary” to “battle of the sexes” to “I wanna be an old salt covered in fish guts” got a bit mind-numbing there…

    As for Obama vs Hillary, I don’t think their overall policy package will differ that much from each other. The main contrast will be perception. There are many, many disenfranchised Republicans out there disgusted by Bush and Company. They won’t mind seeing the Party lose power, if only because they believe the only way to fix the house is to first tear it down to the ground, then rebuild it from scratch. They want to see some major changes as much as the Democrats.

    But those Republicans don’t particularly see the old dinosaurs from the 80’s and 90’s as change. Hillary isn’t change. She’s establishment, she’s party machine, she’s dynasty. Obama shows the promise of being a new face, if nothing else. Of course, if pushed to name names as to whom he would eye for various posts within his cabinet, he starts rattling off the same-old, same-old, that promise could easily fade. But for now, he’s struck the Kennedy chord… and I seem to recall Bill Clinton striking the same chord on his way to the White House. I still remember a news clip on Clinton, shortly after the ’92 election, in a mall where he did a meet-and-greet with some supporters. One woman interviewed afterwards on camera was in tears as she cried, “I’ve met my Kennedy!” Obama has that quality. And given how down in despair much of the country has been for the past few years, who are we to deny them hope? Obama’s offering that, even if it is emotional fluff; Hillary hasn’t.

  345. 345
    Brachiator says:

    Darkness
    Okay, I’m late to the party, but I just have to point something out. Hillary is either one of: a) she’s not qualified because she was just hanging around with an elected person (and possibly sleeping with him); or b) she’s more of the same dynasty; but she can’t be both.

    I’ve never written or suggested anything about the dynasty angle. This stuff bores me to tears.

    I never said that Hillary was not qualified. However, I simply do not agree that being Bill’s wife made her co-governor or co-president, or magically endowed her with 35 years of on the job training. This is just nonsense, and it is the kind of romance novel drivel that informs stuff from “Grey’s Anatomy” to “Xena: Warrior Princess,” the latter in particular, where Gabrielle magically transformed from sidekick to co-kick-ass warrior babe through her … ahem … association with Xena.

    More than this, I have observed that people who have spent most of their lives as advisers, counselors and administrative aides to leaders rarely exhibit excellent executive or leadership ability. They don’t make the final decision, and have neither the power nor the authority to make sure that their advice is followed. Ultimately, they are not even responsible for their own advice, and can say, “not my fault” if things go badly. They have not had to forge compromises directly. Their desks are not where the buck stops. But Hillary Clinton is trying to parlay this role into evidence of leadership experience.

    And it isn’t just a “woman thing”. Senator Dianne Feinstein, from my home state, has been over the course of her career the first female President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, San Francisco’s first and only female mayor, the first woman to serve in the Senate from California, the first woman to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the first woman to chair the Rules and Administration committee of that body. Hillary Clinton’s nebulous “35 years of experience” and “lifetime of experience” pales in comparison.

    However, Clinton has done very well as a Senator, has been a quick study, and has forged good relationships with other members of Congress despite all the supposed hostility that she and her husband supposedly engendered. She inspires intense loyalty. She is no lightweight by any means.

    But being a leader is something more. Watch the movie version of “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World,” and how Russell Crowe’s Captain Jack Aubrey is just saddened to see how one of his lieutenants just can’t grasp that leading a crew, commanding their respect and loyalty, is more than working hard and knowing policy.

    And Lysistrata by Aristophanes is an amazingly amusing play, ESPECIALLY considering how old it is and how different you keep expecting the author to assume you are as a viewer/reader. In summary, the women stop a war by denying the men sex.

    I hear you. Human nature has not changed in thousands of years, and some themes are timeless. Still, “Lysistrata” is about wives and husbands, not about women leaders.

    And ultimately it is about leadership and inspiration. And this is the foundation of my qualms about Hillary.

    I have suggested in other places that Sophocles’ “Antigone” can help us understand the Terri Schaivo case, and how ridiculous it is for the state to interfere with the obligations of family. Creon, the king, is much like a number of conservative officials in this regard.

    But Creon, charged with restoring order after the reign of Oedipus, is all about rules, and policy and hard work. But he understands nothing about political or social empathy, and so sparks a tragedy as great as that precipitated by Oedipus. I am not suggesting that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a disaster, but I am greatly concerned about her lack of political empathy. Working hard for the people is not as good as being able to inspire people to get on board with you. At one time, FDRs social programs were seen as revolutionary. But if you look at the popular response to the Roosevelts, a couple of things stand out. A lot of folks would go to hell and back for FDR. And even more of them would go to hell, and sit down and relax a while on hot coals for Eleanor Roosevelt. People even wrote songs about them.

    This is an aspect of America, and of being president, that I fear that Hillary Clinton does not understand. But Obama’s got it.

    A much more whimsical reflection on this idea is here: Oscar Peterson, who recently passed away, was an exquisitely gifted technician. When he sat down at the piano, the cats said, “Man, listen to him play.” He knew all the notes. But when Art Tatum sat down at the piano, the cats said, “God is in the house.”

    Or, even more simply, as Paul Simon once sang:

    No I would not give you false hope
    On this strange and mournful day
    But the mother and child reunion
    Is only a motion away….

  346. 346
    Tax Analyst says:

    Brachiator – fine post. Always a pleasure to get good history, literature and/or pop culture lessons (no snark, I mean it).

    I agree with you about the importance of inspiration in a leader. Beyond all the policy wonk issues (and yes, formulating policy and understanding policy is important), there is only so much any leader can accomplish if he/she can’t get the PEOPLE on board behind them.

    Your comments about the Roosevelts are pertinent points well made. And although he never made much of a legislative impact, John Kennedy also had inspirational qualities…and Lyndon Johnson was able to grab ahold and use those in Kennedy’s death to accomplish some very positive things before he waded us far too deeply into Viet Nam. I remember my older brother…a very apolitical 16 year-old in 1961, and how deeply moved and motivated he was by Kennedy’s speeches and ideas that spoke to our Better Angels. These stayed with him for the rest of his life, and although they were later tempered by a good measure of world-weary cynicism, he never completely let go of them. I think Obama has the same type of potential and I would like to see if he can pull it off…it will not be an easy task in our jaded era, but it would give us a better future than the one that lays before us now.

  347. 347
    Pb says:

    I watched the debates

    Great. Now do you remember anything Obama said? Oh, I’ll save you time–I blockquoted a couple of paragraphs of it way upthread. You know, substance. Just watch it again, or read it again, or roll it up and snort it, or whatever you need to do, and tell me if he’s talking about a) moonbeams and sugarplums or b) Pakistan and nuclear disarmament. I’ll wait.

  348. 348
    Tony J says:

    TOA and Tony J going head-to-head for the Best Al Maviva

    Cranes neck back watching that particular pop-kultur reference sail far, far above his head.

  349. 349
    bernarda says:

    Yes, Obama does have plans. One of them is to support Senate bill S 1959 in committee. This is the Senate version of HR 1955 or “Homegrown Terrorist” act.

    Dennis Kucinich voted against it in the House. If you like Obama, write to him and tell him he has to oppose this bill.

    Apparently neither Clinton or Edwards have taken a position on it. Their supporters should also write to them to tell them to oppose it.

  350. 350
    bernarda says:

    Here is a cartoon explaining Obama’s policies.

    http://www.creators.com/editor....._image.jpg

  351. 351
    John S. says:

    Here is a cartoon explaining Obama’s policies.

    That’s cute, and by itself a rather nice swipe at Obama. Now lets fill those panels up with the same distilled snark about the other candidates.

    I really like Huckabee, Gramps!

    Me too! What’s his tax policy?

    The FAIR Tax!

    How about the war on terror?

    Double the size of Gitmo and pursue every Islamofascist to the ends of the Earth that is 6000 years old!

    The environment?

    With the rapture coming soon, it’s not that important!

    The thing I like is that Jesus himself wants Huckabee to win!

    Plus, he wants the evangelicals to take over the country!

    Oh, well then I guess that settles it!

    Obama’s cartoon doesn’t look so bad by comparison.

  352. 352
    Cassidy says:

    I wanted to be on the ocean, I love it there,

    You could’ve been a hostess on a cruise ship (j/k)

    Seriously, I recognize that there are unfair discrepancies in the workplace and I’m fully behind the equal pay. AAMOF, my thoughts are “most qualified gets the job, period”. If the white guy is the best candidate, then he gets the job, repeat as necessary with other demographics.

    OTOH, there has also been a trend to give perks to female employees based on being a woman (telecommuting for one). I’m not against these things, but it is harder for a man to justify staying home with the kids and working at the same time. That’s what I mean when I said professional women would be pissed if they were treated like professional men.

    Overall, in the drive to become equal in the workplace, women have largely given up their god-given status of womenhood.

    It’s simpler than that. As a woman, I don’t feel the need to let pass unchallenged the misogynist arguments that guys like to pass off as debate.

    That’s fine. Welcome to the ranks of perpetually offended. Every civil rights movement starts off with the goal of gaining equality, which is a great goal. Once reached, it moves into the realm of “you can’t do this because it offends me”. At that point, the movement loses any kind of important status and becomes a mockery of itself.

  353. 353

    […] Blinded By Our Spite […]

  354. 354
    Old Democrat says:

    Speaking of delivery, Obama may have megabytes at his website — written by whom? — but at the NH debate he reminds me of Bush Jr. A question is asked, he gets that deer in the headlights look, you can see his Rolodex going round till he finds the right cue card, he gets out a few words at a time with no cadence of understanding, not the most elementary phrasing by meaning, struggling to remember what someone has told him to memorize.

    Then Hillary comes out with a whole nother level of details that she’s obviously living with all day every day, and how they fit into a larger picture….

    And instead of admitting he has a lot to learn and claiming he’s a fast study — he says experience and knowledge don’t matter at all.

    We’ve had enough of rhetoric and Rolodex, thank you.

  355. 355
    YawB says:

    Thank You, John. I have been telling my friends for as long as Obama has been in the campaign that the guy is a good politician, but, he does not offer anything substantive apart from lofty ‘Change’ nonsense.

  356. 356
    capelza says:

    Overall, in the drive to become equal in the workplace, women have largely given up their god-given status of womenhood.

    June Cleaver never existed. Just a head’s up.

  357. 357
    Daryl says:

    It was the last debate. They double teamed her but she threw punches (and connected) the whole night.

    America loves a fighter.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Blinded By Our Spite […]

Comments are closed.