Concord monitor has HRC up by a whole 200 votes.

Gravel at 42! He's IN this!

So, if tonight ends in a more or less even delegate split between HRC and Obama (as it was in Iowa), can I go back to claiming the race is a tie?

I see Obama at 10,288.

I find myself kind of hoping HRC wins.

No shit. A tie.

Hillary up by 334! (nytimes)

ok, i'm off for a bit...

5. welcome to the dark side. Help yourself to a muffin, coffee's on the table next to the fern.

Oh dear. Chris Matthews complaining about a "docile press corps."

NOT THE FERN!

Hillary keeping her percentage lead so far.

6 more Gravel votes! He's surging!! HE'S SURGING!!

Giuliani just 100 votes ahead of Paul, down in the single digit percentages.

How does the New Hampshire primary work? Is it winner-take-all, or are delegates allocated according to each candidate's vote share?

Obama can't really be said to win unless does so by double digits. Teevee told me!

Damn. Called it for McCain.

Ah. Proportional. Thanks, New York Times!

I really want him to beat her. I am so used to "hope! ha! you fell for it again you sucker: don't you know that the SECOND you strongly support someone & really believe he could do this he is doomed?" But I'd be pretty happy to have him win by a 3-5% margin I think. Let's have a real campaign for once.

I'm much cooler than I was 24 hours ago about a two person race between Obama & Clinton, too.

Supposedly she had a really fucking great organization in NH.

Fuck a McCain.

Dammit! I started getting a little freaked when I saw this at ABC:

Preliminary results don't indicate higher turnout among young voters, at least not as a share of the electorate. The preliminary exit poll results indicate that about one in six Democratic voters has been under age 30; that's similar to what it was in 2004 (14 percent) and its peak, 17 percent, in 1992. Turnout among young voters was up in the Iowa Democratic caucuses.

Instead, in New Hampshire, turnout among seniors in the Democratic race looks to be up from 2004, to nearly two in 10.

Fuck you, young people of New Hampshire! There are more of us! Show up at the damn polls and show the oldsters what tyranny of the majority really means!

There aren't any winner-take-all primaries, are there?

Andrew Mitchell tells me that the Hillary camp feels that most of their votes have already been counted. Fuck if I know.

Uh . . . Andrea

Misogynist!

This is stressing me out more than I expected!

I find myself kind of hoping HRC wins.

I do too, even though she's not my favourite candidate. I'm truly irked by the Hillary hatred that I hear from Democrats who need to stop listening to GOP talking points.

Wikipedia informs me that some Republican primaries are modified winner-take-all: Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina.

Everything I'm seeing predicts a much closer result than Iowa. The Obama fizzle. And the young man seemed so exciting a mere two days ago.

There aren't any winner-take-all primaries, are there?

I think that some of the GOP primaries are winner take all, but all of the Democratic ones are proportional. But I'm not sure.

Man, Hillary and McCain winning would suck. I'm getting various nervous now.

WHERE'S THE BOUNCE, HUH?? WHERE'S THAT FUCKING BOUNCE?!?! BURN!!!

Blurgh.

Er, that's "very nervous"

29: I was in the process of typing Blarg, but I'll go with yours.

Bazz fazz.

Also blurgh: I didn't watch but the Times tells me that Jon Stewart spent part of his time last night trashing the writers guild?!

So far, Biden votes + Dodd votes = 112. Did these people not get the memo about the drop-outs or are they just "making a point"?

Brit Hume is talking about blogs. Awesome.

I normally go for blarg, in fact, I was just mixing it up. The positive counterpart of blarg is glarg!

33: I'm disappointed in both Stewart and Colbert.

Jon Stewart spent part of his time last night trashing the writers guild?!

I was just talking to someone who watched it and reported positively about Jon. Hmm. I'll have to watch it on online.

Well, the "say, Iowa's not a secret ballot, is it" meme has officially been floated here.

37: I know, right? I mean Viacom can't sue YouTube saying their online content is worth $20 billion, and then turn around and tell the writers it isn't worth anything. Seems straightforward who's twirling their mustache here.

oudemia I would watch it before you get too harsh on the man.

Also, of course Colbert made fun of the Writer's Guild; his onscreen character is modelled on Bill O'Reilly.

I was talking about Viacom as mustache twirlers. Objectively in the wrong, I think. But if you read the Times article, Stewart doesn't come off too well. But you're right -- haven't watched it.

42: Don't know if Colbert did or didn't. Stewart did.

The good news: as of five minutes ago, both Clinton and Obama each have more votes than the entire Republican field. (And yes, it looks like most of Hillary's votes are in, whereas the Edwards/Obama both did better than they should've in Clinton strongholds.)

43: I just did. They didn't, like, quote him or anything. He made fun of their ad campaign; so?

I didn't watch but the Times tells me that Jon Stewart spent part of his time last night trashing the writers guild?!

For refusing to make a Letterman-type deal with The Daily Show ... because they're anti-semites one and all.

Gosh, Colbert comes off better (than Stewart on the tv show that I for sure have not watched).

And his [Stewart's] position was certainly ambiguous: he was resentful of the producers and angry at the writers' representatives, who so far have failed either to reach an agreement or to grant Comedy Central a special exemption for "The Daily Show."

Mr. Colbert also returned, but with less angst. He opened his show by sitting at his desk feeding script pages into a paper shredder, as if destroying incriminating evidence. When Mr. Stewart asked him if he was violating the rules, Mr. Colbert teasingly accused Mr. Stewart of having relied on prepared material. "I'm very alarmed by how prepared you seem," Mr. Colbert said, adding that he would denounce him to "The Writers' Guild People's Council for the Preservation of the Written Word."

I know, right? I mean Viacom can't sue YouTube saying their online content is worth $20 billion, and then turn around and tell the writers it isn't worth anything. Seems straightforward who's twirling their mustache here.

Well, just because Viacom says their content is worth $20B in one venue and $0 to the writers, doesn't mean it's the writers who are being fed a load of crap.

47: now that's funny! I think he has some right to be pissed about the Letterman deal.

God, I think I just saw Ed Rendell recommend Obama pick Joe Lieberman as a running mate. I probably should go to C-Span, the Networks are crazy people.

49: Oh, certainly. But surely more than $0. Which is what the writers made, apparently, for, say, those heavily-hyped BSG "webisodes."

Looking at the town-by-town results on CNN, it's all pretty consistent with a close race according to these indicators (via ygglz). Most of the towns mentioned as likely Obama victories have not yet reported, as indeed have most towns overall.

Oudemia I think you'll find a lot of union fans here, but if you can't mock those who love, who can you mock?

if you can't mock those who love, who can you mock?

Mitt Romney.

I have to use up all my Mitt Romney jokes fast, because it's becoming increasingly obvious that he's going to lose.

Wait - you don't love Mitt Romney? Animal.

I love Mitt Romney, of course. Not everyone does, though.

56 is for the benefit of anyone who's wondering why something like half of my comments in the past few days have been Mitt Romney jokes.

54: Oh no doubts or worries. And Christ unions can be mocked. But again, it isn't exactly a mystery as to why Worldwide Pants has a deal and Viacom doesn't. Viacom isn't dealing. So, Stewart shouldn't whinge on that point.

I'd have to see the joke before having an opinion.

Mitt Romney, a few minutes ago: "Americans believe in God, and those who don't believe in God believe in something bigger than themselves."

Do whales count? I believe in whales.

That was more to your "he has a right to be pissed."

I also believe in whales.

And Wales. Also bigger.

oudemia, Stewart tried to do a backdoor deal via Busboy Productions, his company and the producers of The Colbert Report. But apparently his efforts were rebuffed. (Even though they were largely on behalf of Colbert, it looks like he got Viacom to agree to put Busboy in charge of The Daily Show for the duration of the strike.)

Mitt Romney, a few minutes ago: "Americans believe in God, and those who don't believe in God believe in something bigger than themselves."

If he's serious about going after the Catholic vote, Mitt needs to do some work on how to set up a syllogism.

I don't believe in wales. All those who wear corduroy are heretics.

(Also, the Obama-push has begun.)

I've decided to be mad at Stweart and Colbert, largely on the basis of the bits of their show quoted in Heather Havreleski's article in Salon. (I'm not going to watch the shows).

Stewart acted like he was a little guy that the writers guild should cut a deal with, rather than a part of Viacom. Scab.

The exit polls are good enough that there is no way this doesn't end very close. No Obama blowout, and the news story will be:"Why not?" beside comeback Clinton.

Word from Obama NH headquarters is that people are sanguine.

I shouldn't have said scab. I take back scab.

Stewart acted like he was a little guy that the writers guild should cut a deal with, rather than a part of Viacom.

If the guild will do the end-around for Letterman, why not Stewart? He went out of his way to show his support for the strike, too, but this is one of those exceptional cases when I'm tempted to side with the alleged scab: The Daily Show is a force among the demographic we need to hit the polls these next few months, and some things are more important than a strike. (Like, say, the future of the republic.)

Hey mcmanus, where are you reading these exit polls?

(Glad you didn't mean to say scab, as that's what really bothered me about your comment. I mean, I'm a card-carrying member of the United Auto Workers Union, so I'm typically opposed to any strike-vague action, but I think this is an exceptional situation.)

SEK provided a link at 69, and I have MSNBC on, but mostly I am basing my guess on the fact that the networks haven't called it yet. They aren't so bad they are not going to pick up on a final 10 point Obama win.

So close at finish.

62. Only if you believe in a whale greater and more magnificient than can be conceived.

74: Viacom has been such the enormous force behind "All Your Word Is Belong to Us" that I just don't see how they could.

Fuck Elvis's bday. It's Bowie's.

I don't really have a clue what I'm talking about, but I'm inclined to think the Letterman deal was a bad idea.

79. Remember the Alamo

A wale greater than which no other wale can be conceived? I don't think you will find that in the Orvis catalog.

And the usual suspect blogs, OpenLeft, MyDD. Matt & Ezra are both seeming a little quiet and reporting rumors of "very close."

Was 40-34. Now 39-36.

With 32 percent reporting, it's Clinton 40, Obama 36. So is Obama supposed to surge ahead based on the results from a different kind of precinct (more urban? younger voters?) for which we don't yet have the results?

Or have we all been suckered, once again, by a media narrative? ('Clinton loses Iowa, her campaign collapses, Obama inevitable, Hillary cries real [or were they fake?] tears')?

Do you think Obama can tap Shamu as his running mate and pick up all of Romney's support?

Or maybe he'd only get Teo to vote for him. Not belittle the crucial Teo bloc.

So is Obama supposed to surge ahead based on the results from a different kind of precinct (more urban? younger voters?) for which we don't yet have the results?

Yes.

John McCain's victory speech is cracking me up. He's visibly uncomfortable--and kind of annoyed--at the exuberant "Mac is back!" cheers. He just wants all of his supporters to get off his lawn.

Yes, says Yglesias.

Story goes the earliest districts were Clinton country, later projected to go Obama. After the past few days, I think a dead heat would be charming.

Sorry, 90 to 85. And pwned by Ogged.

Now the McCainiacs are chanting "U! S! A!" Dorks.

Dude. Poor Edwards.

Christ unions

...are getting murdered paying out all those death benefits and then finding out three days later they still have to pay the health benefits, too.

Everything says that it will be a close result. Sucks.

91 multiply pwned, but I'll second Cala on that one. Is there a reason he's showing so poorly in NH, other than the stupid HRC/Obama "narrative" crap? I'm going to take a wild guess that America isn't punishing him for being sexist under pressure.

I hate the U!S!A! chant.

I was 12 for the 1980 Winter Olympics when the US faced the Soviets and just coming into my political awareness. Everyone in my Jr. High chanted U!S!A! My negative reaction was visceral. I still can't explain what my real problem with it was.

It was a huge part of why I grew up to be liberal/progressive.

I also hate the USA chant, but I'm a foreigner. Still, it's so starkly nationalistic and has violent undertones, at least for me.

95: *snerf!* I'm a UAW gal, myself.

U!S!A!
U!S!A!

Does McCain think he will never be allowed to give another speech ever?

I still can't explain what my real problem with it was.

You're a commie?

95 pwns.

Were you in the US in 1980 when the chant caught on? Cold war ugliness.

As for Stewart/Colbert, keep in mind they don't own their shows the way Letterman does. If my incredibly shaky and dubious understanding is correct then I'm not sure it would be legit for them to do a deal with those two shows and not Viacom.

My sympathies and hopes are with the writers by a long, long shot but I am also very sympathetic to the fact that the people working the cameras and lights have mortgages, too.

98: I was in Lake Placid, overwhelmed with joy. Still a pinko, what to do?

Obama's narrowing the gap. I'm just happy McCain's finally stopped talking.

On the tick from 40 to 41 percent reporting, Obama pushed it to 37 and 39. I don't think this is going to be that close, since Clinton has no more support coming in.

Dear Rudy: you have the same number of votes as Ron Paul did, on 9/11.

88. so confusing. Is there some kind of sports analogy that will help me to understand this?

I do too, even though she's not my favourite candidate. I'm truly irked by the Hillary hatred that I hear from Democrats

Indeed.

You have to give it to J Mac, he's hip with the yungun's music- theme from Rocky to enter, Johnny be good to exit.
Damn it's hard to type on an XO.

I don't think this is going to be that close, since Clinton has no more support coming in.

I dunno, man, you said that nearly an hour ago (in 45) and then a bunch more support for her came in.

Fuck you Andy Hiller, everyone has not agreed the surge has worked. Dipshit convention wisdom spouter.

I'm with SEK. Obama by 4-8 points. Of course that's a wild guess. And 4 will be spun as a loss. While 8 will just be holding serve.

112: And in that time, her lead has shrunk from 10 percent to 2. Have faith, my son. I am always correct.

(Except when I'm not.)

it's so starkly nationalistic and has violent undertones

Josh Marshall is being hilarious about Rudy! tonight. Very wry.

I want a tie, and then a dramatic scene where both Barack and Hillary cry, and apologize, and hug, and promise never to go negative again. Then they hold hands and head to the next state on the same bus.

Even sweeter, as of a minute ago, the total number of people who participated in the primaries:

104853 voted for Democrats.

77247 voted for Republicans.

And the districts the Republicans typically carry have mostly reported.

Then they hold hands and head to the next state on the same bus pony.

CNN's exit poll says that 37% of voters decided in the last three days, and those people split 38% Clinton, 38% Obama. I blame the tears.

At around 39% reporting, Hillary was leading by ~2200 votes. With 45% reporting, she's leading by ~3000 votes. Is this expected by the people who say it's going to get better for Obama?

Sorry, that was MSNBC's exit poll.

Then they hold hands and head to the next state on the same bus pony motorcycle winged unicorn.

Exit polls say Obama +20 among men, -7 among women. I think voter split is usually 45 men 55 women, so that equals Obama wins by 5.

Hillary's lead has grown to 4300. SEK

Fuck you and your banning anchor babies, Huckabee.

"SEK, the new QED."

But seriously, folks, just wait. The Hillary/Barack split works across the same lines as the Kerry/Dean split, except Barack's picked up much more Hillary territory than Dean did Kerry.

I feel decidedly less euphoric than I did during the reporting from Iowa. I miss those carefree days of yore.

I'm calling it for Hillary

But I'm still with SEK. To the bitter end.

But seriously, folks, just wait. The Hillary/Barack split works across the same lines as the Kerry/Dean split, except Barack's picked up much more Hillary territory than Dean did Kerry.

Oh JOY! What a happy comparison.

Hillary's lead has grown to 4300.

And a minute later it's shrunk to 3600.

Patience.

Dude, I am totally holding you (and the tears) responsible if Obama loses.

if i'm wrong, we'll forget this ever happened. If I'm right, PWNAGE!

Anti-semite.

132: Except at this point in 2004, Kerry had the win sealed. Right now, Obama's barely behind.

136 to 134. Dammit.

I am totally delighted by these results -- so shoot me. I said 3 days ago that Iowa was not predictive of the national primaries. Seriously. No shit. And that's all I care about.

(/obnoxiousness)

I did predict that McCain would surge. Though. Guy played the theme to Rocky. And that Clinton would as well.

No, I haven't read the thread yet.

Sorry.

Dude, I am totally holding you (and the tears) responsible if Obama loses.

I like my crow lightly roasted, with potatoes and rosemary, if it comes to that.

I am totally holding you (and the tears) responsible if Obama loses.

If Hillary wins, it'll be because of what Gloria Steinem was talking about in the NYT this morning.

135- Only ogged could ever do something like redact his incorrect predictions.

Good God, Ron Paul is a DORK. He does this little self-chuckle at the end of his sentences that's almost endearing, except that it's about eliminating the Federal Reserve.

I don't understand why people are rooting for Clinton. If she wins, it makes it much, much harder for Obama to get the nomination; it's not just some symbolic victory.

Ralph Reed looks like Tommy Carcetti.

OT: do people not understand that 'not thinking a 700ft long fence is a good plan' is not 'omg! open borders'?

145: So should we like him more or less? Is he all about the schools, too?

Yeah, he does. And he blames the tears.

I don't understand why people are rooting for Clinton.

We're racists.

Anderson Cooper says McCain is "real" and that's why people vote for him.

Fuck you, too, Thompson.

Anderson Cooper says McCain is "real" and that's why people vote for him.

Wait, I thought it was Obama who was real. I mean, black.

would this godawful war last longer under a Clinton presidency than an Obama one?

If there's anyone I trust on who's real, it's Gloria Vanderbilt's son.

Other CNN dude also blames the tears.

144: Short:sexist

Other reasons I want a Clinton win are too involved for this thread. But I remain an Edwards supporter.

Anderson Cooper says McCain is "real" and that's why people vote for him.

This particular trope has a power to irk me like few other.

Am I crazy, or is the Unfogged position seeming kind of like "we liked Edwards, but we're willing to support Obama as long as he beats Hillary"?

B., you know better than to think any one of us speaks for all of us ... but yes, that's the consensus.

Gee, it's so great she was honestly choked up by the stress of campaigning....

158: That was my position, based mostly on the fact that Hilary is too hawkish.

156. Are you trying to contradict me!?!?

Wow. You guys really do kind of suck, don't you?

Shut the fuck up, B. It's not all about you or feminism. Hillary is the least liberal, most hawkish candidate. Is it really a surprise that she's the last choice of the people here?

I'm supporting Clinton, I think. I don't have a vote, though.

161 speaks for me, and no, I don't suck.

Depends. If it's just because we hate a woman so much, yes. If it's actually disagreeing with her approach to things, not so much.

I think a lot of people here rank the candidates OEC or EOC, with Clinton being a very distant third. And that's nothing to do with her chromosomes and everything to do with her record in office.

164: LEAST LIKABLE! GET IT RIGHT!

I don't understand why people are rooting for Clinton. If she wins, it makes it much, much harder for Obama to get the nomination; it's not just some symbolic victory.

I am concerned that Obama can't win the general election. I'd like the rest of the country to weigh in about that.

Thinking Edwards and Obama would both be better Presidents than Hillary, and are as or more likely to win the general, is a serious problem for you?

Look, I don't like misogynist anti-Hillary talk either, but I'm worried about dead bodies on the ground. It is hard to tell what people will actually do in office, but a Clinton presidency will probably mean a longer war.

158 is kind of my position.

The debate question I most want to see asked is "What specific executive powers would you relinquish, and how would you go about it?"

I have marginally more confidence in Obama's ability to answer that question. Extraordinary rendition started under Bill Clinton's watch. I don't see HRC rolling it back.

158:I am a troll at Unfogged, but obviously I never betrayed the true progressive out of sexist spite. That's a joke. Some reasons:

1) Slow the Obama mo down, demonstrate that the Obama demographics are troublesome (he wins white males and loses women badly?)
2) Kick the sixists where it hurts
3) Confound the media

but yes, that's the consensus.

I'd like to register my dissent from the consensus. I'm now ready to go work for the Hillary campaign, and she's not even my first choice candidate. Call it an allergic reaction to pure, unadulterated misogyny.

I'd feel differently if I thought Obama really would be better than Hillary on foreign policy, but I don't believe that for one second.

Seriously though, what everybody else said. Clinton seems to me the Democratic equivalent of Romney. From moving to Chappaqua in order to live somewhere she was electable, to her position on the war, to the fact that I don't want another "liberal" president who represents the interests of the DNC more than the Democratic Party (much less those to the left of that mainstream). She's an opportunist, and while I'd like to see a woman in the Oval Office, she's not my first, second, or fifteenth choice.

167: If the discussion today had mostly been about her positions, then I wouldn't be so appalled.

164: It's a surprise that y'all hate her so much that you're forgetting that this isn't the general election, it's just the primaries. And then in a few months we'll be supporting--I assume!--whoever gets the nomination.

Health care is among my top three issues, and I'm not at all confident that even if HRC has a good plan, that she'll have a prayer in hell of getting a solid second run at fixing the health care mess after HillaryCare.

Clinton's lead is up over 4000 now. I don't see Obama catching up.

She's an opportunist

Yeah, unlike all those other politicians who are purely motivated by selflessness and altruism.

Christ, nobody even gets on the ballot without being an opportunist of some sort or other.

It's a surprise that y'all hate her so much that you're forgetting that this isn't the general election, it's just the primaries. And then in a few months we'll be supporting--I assume!--whoever gets the nomination.

Wait, this doesn't make sense. we're not allowed to have preference among the Democrats?

I don't like misogynistic Hillary-bashing either, but she is, as Ogged said, the least-liberal of the Democratic front-runners. She's not my choice. That said, I'm pulling the lever for whoever the Democratic nominee is, because they're all better than the Republicans.

That's cool, right?

145: Ralph Reed looks like Tommy Carcetti.

Ralph Reed, gambling lobbyist par excellence! I was waiting for that twisted little pigfucker to show up this campaign. I'm sure he's trying to remora himself on to the Repub "winner's" campaign in some way. I hope he does, bringing all that Abramoff smack with him—but I suspect he's still viewed as poison at this point.

I don't hate her at all. I don't tend to feel strong emotion about presidents, or politicans in general. I loathe some of their policies, but it's not personal.

(I also watch sufficiently little visual/audio media to have trouble identifying them by face or voice, so I'm not terribly representative.)

[Orgasmo]

I don't want to sound like a queer or nothing, but I think that black dude is hot and don't much care for that woman.

[/Orgasmo]

you're forgetting that this isn't the general election, it's just the primaries

I'm not forgetting that. We're determining the leadership of the party. That shit matters, especially if we win.

177 - Jesus, B., it's not like we haven't been discussing why we think HRC is substantively, on policy, the worst candidate for the better part of a year while you called us all sexists.

EOC works for me. B, you're right that a Hillary presidency would be a good thing insofar as it cracked an important glass ceiling. You're also right when you voice your misgivings about going so far as to support her for that reason.

Any dem can win the general election.

She's my third choice as well, on the war mostly.

181: I'm not saying people can't have preferences, for god's sake. I'm just interested in, and dismayed that, what I see here is "beat Hillary!" rather than "go Obama!"

178: Health care is one of my top three issues, too, but aren't we basically fucked here? Isn't Kucinich the only one with a real health plan?

3: Yes.

Yeah, unlike all those other politicians who are purely motivated by selflessness and altruism.

Point taken. That said, Clinton strikes me as a political animal in the Romney mold, as opposed to one in the RFK. I much prefer the RFK, and to be honest, will be disappointed if the centrist/corporate Democratic candidate wins tonight. Hillary's no better than Bill in this regard, and if we have a chance to change the direction of the Democratic party, I'd prefer we move more liberal, not less.

I'm just interested in, and dismayed that, what I see here is "beat Hillary!" rather than "go Obama!"

Is that because she's a woman? Or because you don't like negative political preferences in general? It's fair to say my vote in 2004 was "Beat Bush."

(I do resent the fact that I spend most of my HRC-discussion time in real-life conversations defending her from knee-jerk sexism. I don't like her policies and I don't like feeling reflexively obligated to defend her. But I did the same thing for Lieberman on the religion issue, so....)

is the least liberal, most hawkish candidate
just a thought
it occurs to me that if Obama wins he'd bethe least liberal, most hawkish prez, just so that he could prove himself worth of winning majority votes and lead all to consensus policy something
that would be so like human nature, paradoxically
and it doesn't even matter Obama or whoever else
may be i'm very wrong
sure i don't know anything about american politics
and do not follow, except your debates

damn, comment got eaten by spotty internet:

b, this thread seems divided between people who lean Hillary and those who prefer Obama. I don't think there's a consensus.

also with IA on trying to single out Hillary as the "opportunist". Obama's one, too. They all are.

I much prefer the RFK, and to be honest

Nothing like getting killed before you're elected to any national office to really prove your mettle.

Obama increasingly seems like the educated liberal fantasy projection candidate.

I'm just interested in, and dismayed that, what I see here is "beat Hillary!" rather than "go Obama!"

Well, when you don't actually adore any candidate, but most consider the policies of one by far the worst, that's how that goes down.

And hate the hawk, but I have been thru too many wars to let war be the only determining issue. Make the country 10-20% more feminist at the cost of continued war? Women suffer because of sexism, millions of them.

I admit to making such monstrous calculations.

The horserace is on. "Beat Hillary!" is what you say when you're supporting either of her two main opponents. (I think it's high time for a woman president, and Hillary has a lot going for her as a politician, but she seems to me to be by far the most right-wing of the Democratic candidates.)

To put this another way: most liberals were supremely disappointed by Clinton's administration. Be it his kowtowing to corporate interests, NAFTA, or Gore signing off on the '95 Telcom initiative, we all bitched and moaned that our Democrat in the Oval Office didn't represent our interests. While I agree that having a woman in the White House would be a great symbolic victory, I fear that we'll fall into the same line of complaints if that woman ends up being Hillary ... and I'd rather, at this important juncture in history, have someone in the White House I believe will make me proud.

If you are a true progressive, I don't see how you can't root against Hillary. She's linked to the Presidency that spelled the death of the liberal Democratic party, she's the most conservative candidate in the race, and she voted for the war and refused to repudiate it.

I'm a shitty progressive who's mostly motivated by revenge, so I'm interested in whichever candidate is most likely to smash the Republican party. I can't figure out who that is, though.

and what's this about Hillary being the least liberal? I think a lot of people, such as Drum and Krugman, believe her to be more liberal on domestic policy than Obama.

I'm just interested in, and dismayed that, what I see here is "beat Hillary!" rather than "go Obama!"

That's because the HRC machine seems to be composed of fat-cat insiders whom we would all like to see rethink their plans instead of get further confirmation that America loves them and hates liberals.

Witt, you defended Lieberman on the religion issue? For being sanctimonious or for being Jewish?

Gross-out link of the week. (unless they changed it.)

Obama increasingly seems like the educated liberal fantasy projection candidate.

Of course he is. So what?

what I see here is "beat Hillary!" rather than "go Obama!"

Yes, because while a Clinton presidency is better than a Republican presidency, it would be a net negative for the Democratic Party's long-term health and *she's said she expects to have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq through at least the next four years*.

the educated liberal fantasy projection candidate.

Also one of my worries about him. He's still quite unknown, and the love-fest has kept him from being really tested; I see what I think is a lot of projection.

202 was me.

197: Nothing like getting killed before you're elected to any national office to really prove your mettle.

RFK had already proved his mettle. Or do you think just anyone can calm Detroit in the wake of MLK's assassination? (Oversimplifying a bit, yes, but you see my point.)

Its also high time for an African American to be president.

Bah, I'm going to bed.

Someone email me if B admits she's wrong.

203:believe her to be more liberal on domestic policy than Obama.

I think so, at least at this point. But on the surface, I admit the domestic differences are marginal.

193: It's because she, too, is running for the Democratic nomination. I like Edwards, but hey: if Obama's winning by a landslide, like he was last week, hurrah! A candidate people like! If it's an Obama/Clinton tie, hurrah! Two strong candidates!

I mean, you just sort of implicitly compared her to Bush. I'm taken aback by how much y'all hate her. It's a bit freaky.

I'm just interested in, and dismayed that, what I see here is "beat Hillary!" rather than "go Obama!"

Y'all can make this a personal scuffle over attitudes on Unfogged, but really, who cares: the primaries are about US voter responses: why, for god's sake, is it not more interesting and important to think about how the body politic is responding, and how that pans out ultimately nationwide?

(Most people here already agree that Clinton is the least desirable of the Democratic nominees: that is not the question. Why bother to argue it over again.)

I still like Obama. Don't stone me, Ogged.

here's the way I see it bitch: you and my mom have exactly as much business telling me I am a traitor to feminism for voting against Hillary as I have telling you voting for her shows that you really don't understand or care about the plight of Iraq, & are "pro-woman" rather than "pro-human." Which is to say, none.

It turns out identity is a pretty powerful & completely legitimate basis for voting whether that identity is "black," "female," or "starry eyed young voter" "human rights person who feels betrayed by the Democratic party." Gender issues put Clinton ahead of Edwards for me yesterday based on one cheap shot. But Obama is not running on a "women are unfit to lead" platform. Hillary may be my best standard bearer as a woman, but as a 29 year old who came of political age when I did, she is running on a "the foolish hopes and dreams of these naive fools must be crushed! Up with the Democratic DC Establishment platform--we will never try anything new!" platform. Part of me this is glad that women voted: "this is over when we say it's over, thank you very much" tonight--it's the only way for them to be represented. But I hope people under 30 respond the exact same way tonight. Let's have a race for once.

I'm not saying people can't have preferences, for god's sake. I'm just interested in, and dismayed that, what I see here is "beat Hillary!" rather than "go Obama!"

That's because I like policy proposals from both Obama and Edwards. I like their judgment (excluding some of Edwards's more extreme anti-corporate rhetoric). I love that neither of them signed onto complete centerist pandering bullshit bills like the Flag Burning Amendment or held showboating hearings on video game violence.

Also, in 2004, when her name was cited as a possible entrant to the presidential race. Before she'd done her most egregiously shitty pandering in the Senate. When I would gladly have supported her, and in fact kept hoping that she'd enter the race and give us the first female president... When all that was in place, and polls showed that she'd do incredibly well... Hillary fucking gypped us. She waited 4 years so she'd have a better shot for herself, a clear shot when she wouldn't face an incumbent. And she left our entire fucking country out in the cold. In the hands of George Bush with the only competition an uninspiring, uninspired Bostonian who, as far as I could tell, never had an elegant or interesting progressive policy idea in his life.

Fuck Hillary.

Of course he is. So what?

You seriously don't care that you're probably projecting your Jed Bartlett fantasies onto Obama?

Politics is the slow boring of hard boards, as A Famous Man once said. Charismatic leaders are more dangerous than pragmatic ones, as a rule.

uh, not that bitchphd actually called me a traitor to feminism today. unnamed others may have.

uh, not that bitchphd actually called me a traitor to feminism today. unnamed others may have.

Only under our breaths.

I mean, you just sort of implicitly compared her to Bush. I'm taken aback by how much y'all hate her. It's a bit freaky.

Oh, Christ. I don't hate her, I just like her least among the Democratic candidates. You're getting boring on this subject.

My hunch is that Obama will be better on the executive power stuff (does that count as a domestic issue?), but does anyone know what the 3 front runners have said about signing statements?

220: Me too. Of course, if I'd supported Hillary, the other half of the room would've called me a racist.

There's no way to win when everyone can land solid cheap shots.

You seriously don't care that you're probably projecting your Jed Bartlett fantasies onto Obama?

There's something practical to be said for all those fantasies. JFK didn't actually do all that much for liberal causes like civil rights and poverty -- if you look at his actual record, the man was kind of awful. But all the hero-worship liberal adoration for his youthful inspirationalness did a whole bunch to power LBJ's Great Society.

205: The latter. And yeah, I was surprised too. (We're not past that? ...oh, yeah, we're not.)

she's said she expects to have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq through at least the next four years

FWIW, I think it's that's just flat-out true. Stupid to say it, but it's extremely hard for me to imagine how it's not true. The logistics alone -- this is not going to be an easy place to manage a retreat from.

At least it's an accusation of a Jed Bartlett fantasy, rather than jungle fever or being too naive. It's nice to have the charisma along with the policies for a change.

Sorry, late to this thread - and this might veer a bit off topic but Edwards is giving his concession (ish) speech now and his wife introduced him. My goodness, she's likable and well-spoken. (And clean!) (I still won't vote for her husband though - he just seems so unctuous to me.)

220: Indeed. Look, wanting a woman in office is *not* the only reason to support Hillary, people.

Anyway. If I stick around for this conversation, it's just going to piss me and everyone else off. Please return to watching the returns, or whatever.

It's because she, too, is running for the Democratic nomination. I like Edwards, but hey: if Obama's winning by a landslide, like he was last week, hurrah! A candidate people like! If it's an Obama/Clinton tie, hurrah! Two strong candidates!

Oh boy, something is happening involving interchangeable Democrats! A Democratic candidate may exist! The Republicans won't be the only party on the ballot this year! What's this, Joe Lieberman is a Democratic candidate now? He might appeal to Republicans even more than HRC would! What a coup!

219: But what if the charisma mobilizes a new generation to enter the public sphere, to care about the health of the republic, to abandon some of its cynicism?

Seriously, just because every president we've ever seen has mostly sucked, that's not to say that there can't be another FDR, someone who can make this a better nation.

And if that's projecting my Jed Bartlett fantasy onto Barack Obama (or John Edwards), so be it. It feels good, if only occasionally, to ditch my reflexive distrust of everything.

205: The latter. And yeah, I was surprised too. (We're not past that? ...oh, yeah, we're not.)

she's said she expects to have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq through at least the next four years

FWIW, I think it's that's just flat-out true. Stupid to say it, but it's extremely hard for me to imagine how it's not true. The logistics alone -- this is not going to be an easy place to manage a retreat from.

I think a lot of people, such as Drum and Krugman believe her to be more liberal on domestic policy than Obama

Krugman has criticized Obama's rhetoric on Social Security and his health care plan for lacking a mandate; I don't know how one nets up liberal points but he has certainly never said she's more liberal, there's good reason to think she wouldn't be (like her legislative record) and I always assumed the implicit contrast he was drawing was with Edwards.

Drum likes her because she's a competent manager and he's turned off my high-flown rhetoric.

Neither of them said or implied she's more liberal, I don't think.

Jeez, y'all are jumping my shit. Transference, much?

Here's something I don't understand: Hillary's "beating" Obama, but he has three more delegates than she does. ¿Que?

I don't hate HRC at all. I don't even especially dislike her. I want that on the record.

But all the hero-worship liberal adoration for his youthful inspirationalness did a whole bunch to power LBJ's Great Society.

Only because he was dead! Not that I'm an expert, but it seems to me that the fact that LBJ was a politicking Texas son of a bitch was a lot more important to getting actual legislation passed than anything about JFK himself.

she's said she expects to have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq through at least the next four years

FWIW, I think it's that's just flat-out true. Stupid to say it, but it's extremely hard for me to imagine how it's not true. The logistics alone -- this is not going to be an easy place to manage a retreat from.

I agree entirely.

But Obama is not running on a "women are unfit to lead" platform.

What? That's it, I'm voting Brownback. Hillary must go down at all costs, for the good of all mankind.

I wish Elizabeth Edwards were healthy enough to run for President.

219: But what if the charisma mobilizes a new generation to enter the public sphere, to care about the health of the republic, to abandon some of its cynicism?

You don't think having a woman as president might have a similar effect on a lot of young women and girls?

Not watching, but via Digby:

Rachel Maddow just relayed to Chris Matthews' face that many in the blogosphere (she cited Talking Points Memo specifically) are blaming HIM and his misogyny as the reason undecideds broke late for Clinton. Matthews laughed it off, but there was some real bitterness there.

My father, who was a hardcore Eugene McCarthy supporter (as much as a resident alien can be), still hates RFK with a passion.

234 evidences that Ogged and B have decided that today is the day to finally find out to which of them can more effectively troll everyone else.

Crap, I typed "DNC" above, but I meant "DLC. If you want a reason not to support HRC, there it is. Nader wasn't right -- Christ, was he not -- but in terms of tendencies, in a moment when we can choose the direction of the party, well, I'd highly prefer we don't head in the DLC direction.

(And yes, I may be eating that crow after all. Fuck.)

B, even though there is a certain "Boo Hillary" feeling here, you seem to be overestimating its acuity. Everyone chiming in here would, I think, vote for Clinton over any of the Republican contenders in a heartbeat. Bush and his legacy are a relentless nightmare; Clinton is just very undesirable.

241: I do. And didn't say otherwise. I was responding to your snitty comment about people's fascination with Obama.

that's just flat-out true

Except it doesn't have to be. Four years is WAY more than enough time to exit from a four-and-a-half year old occupation.

245 is correct.

Hillary may not be Bushesque, but Mark Penn is certainly similar to a Bush advisor.

245: Yeah, SEK, looking less good. I'm deflating.

243: I assume from RFK jumping in only after McCarthy took out LBJ in New Hampshire? (LBJ won, just not by a lot.) Or just ideological differences?

I wish Elizabeth Edwards were healthy enough to run for President.

You and me both.

Or do you think just anyone can calm Detroit in the wake of MLK's assassination?

Indianapolis, I believe.

AP calls it for Clinton.

250: Me too. I'm not sure what went wrong, but I suspect it involved migrants fruit-pickers hired to do ... things they never expected to be hired to do.

By Mayor Daley.

With force.

Ugh.

Dude, B, aren't you an Edwards supporter?

in a moment when we can choose the direction of the party

Look, I think this sort of talk is basically vacuous. If people vote for Clinton, they will also be choosing the direction of the party -- just not in your preferred direction.

looking less good. I'm deflating.

Cripes people, it's a tie. This is all about delegates and they're going to split them evenly.

What are the chances, his promises to fight to the end notwithstanding, that Edwards drops out after South Carolina? And then throws his support to Obama?

Gonerill's just a bloody foreigner, of course, but what he says here (about Obama as "liberal fantasy projection candidate" and about the dangers of a charismatic candidate) makes a lot of sense.

225

Only because they blew JFKs brains out. LBJ was allowed to cash in Kennedy's political capital, much as Lincoln's Veep would have been able to do if he had not been such a drunken asshole. (Imagine if Sherman was his Veep, for instance, or better still, Chamberlain . . . . Imagine if Lincoln had lived.)

I would not wish such a fate on any candidate or President, particularly one full of hope and, at least on TV, devoid of cynicism.

You and me both.

Dittoes. She's awesome.

MSNBC declares Clinton winner in NH

I assume from RFK jumping in only after McCarthy took out LBJ in New Hampshire?

Yep. My dad was also not a little alarmed by the, how shall we say, broad powers RFK gave himself as Atty General. Primary elections 1968 bitterness aside, though, I think he hates the Kennedy clan and all their works.

Apo's right, of course. Obama and Clinton are clearly going to end up with roughly equal numbers of delegates, and neither is going to drop out of the race no matter what happens tonight.

Edwards drops out after South Carolina

He's already stated that he will stay in until the convention. If Obama and Clinton keep finishing neck and neck, and Edwards continues picking up delegates in each state, his bloc would be the swing vote at the brokered convention.

AP calls it for Hillary.

256: I am, and I'm sorry he's not doing better. I'm perfectly willing to get behind Obama, though. Nonetheless, I'm put off by the animosity people have towards Clinton.

he hates the Kennedy clan and all their works.

See my 'About' page.

259:Edwards can't control his base that much. They are much more likely Clinton supporters, older party liberals. Like me, haters, who will just not join the Obamarama.

Look, I think this sort of talk is basically vacuous.

Gonerill, by "we" I mean "us," the voters, instead of the RAH-RAH-GO-UNBRIDLED-CAPITALISM folks at the DLC.

267, meet 254.

"brokered convention"

Seemed like crazy-talk not too long ago. Now looking less impossible on both sides. Still won't happen, of course.

Gonerill, by "we" I mean "us," the voters,

Yes, that's who I mean, too. The DLC will not elect the Democratic nominee.

What are the chances, his promises to fight to the end notwithstanding, that Edwards drops out after South Carolina? And then throws his support to Obama?

Oh, as long as we're in the realm of idle speculation, would it do more good from Obama's perspective for Edwards to stay in the race and score enough delegates to deny HRC a first-ballot victory at the convention? 'Cause that should would give Edwards a lot more leverage. Brokered convention!

FWIW, Yglesias contends that Edwards is taking more "beer voters" from Clinton than he is taking anti-Clinton voters from Obama.

252: Me three.

As far as retreat -- now we're into ground I'm unqualified to comment on. There was a long comment from Farber at ObWi a while back on the logistics of the retreat from Vietnam, in light of the geography of Iraq and the realities of supply lines and how many combat vs. noncombat troops we have there.

I found it persuasive in a pragmatic way -- that is, it's hard to move Group A to Point B without causing chaos of Type C or D (e.g. killing a whole lot of Americans or losing control of the oil fields, which I do think the US has a vested interest in retaining proxy control over, retreat or no).

The DLC will not elect the Democratic nominee.

Yes they will. Remember, the primaries mean nothing in terms of who the party elite choose to nominate. It would take an overwhelming mandate for them not to nominate Clinton, and with tonight's tie/defeat, Obama won't have that, and the DLC will pressure superdelegates to vote their way.

the oil fields, which I do think the US has a vested interest in retaining proxy control over

There's the rub. No serious leader would risk losing control of the oil fields.

(Also, Obama still has more delegates than Hillary, for whatever reason.)

or losing control of the oil fields

Admittedly, if we're trying to pull out of Iraq with the intent of retaining control over their primary asset, I can see how that's the sort of process that could take awhile.

Of course the logistics are complicated. But if we decide to withdraw from Iraq before 2012, we goddamn well can do it.

SEK -- because it's the total, including Iowa. They're tied in NH delegates, if I'm reading teh charts right.

Why the fuck is it impossible to retreat from Iraq in less than four years? It could be done in two or three months.

If you're talking about maintaining a presence or achieving certain goals before we leave, we'll have to stay for years or decades. But if we decide to leave, we can do that quickly.

Still won't happen, of course.

Why do you say that, Ari?

Damn fucking straight he's the liberal fantasy projection candidate. But it's not just American voters projecting hopes onto him--it's him projecting hopes onto American voters.

The best part about this is that a close NH primary means that Obama's got a long campaign ahead of him, so I'm pretty sure we'll get to see him burst into tears as well.

losing control of the oil fields, which I do think the US has a vested interest in retaining proxy control over, retreat or no).

Gahhh. The word "control" is doing a lot of unexamined work in this sentence.

And in our foreign policy in general, I suspect.

Nonetheless, I'm put off by the animosity people have towards Clinton.

On my part, I assure you that it's because I can't imagine her daring to restrain the forces of laissez-faire capitalism. Bill didn't, and I hate to see all the Rockefeller Republicans who are in the Clinton camp happy. I don't know why she listens to them, she seems like an empathetic person, but she does. Loyalty, maybe.

But I guess I can't prove it isn't personal.

Obammers should not be so discouraged. Obama has a strong shot in Nevada, if not the lead, will win SC easily, and just has to stay close Feb 5. HRC had money troubles.

Geez, two days ago it was over, and now it is all over in the opposite direction.

The race for the nomination has begun.

Oddly enough, I agree with bob. This race has only just begun.

Geez, two days ago it was over, and now it is all over in the opposite direction.

I tried to tell you fuckers Iowa was a tie.

Could NH voters be any more self-satisfied, I wonder.

290, 281: And this is why I said it was true thing for Hillary to say, but a dumb one. Do we need to remind the part of the world that is already enraged with us for fighting a war of choice over oil that we intend to hold on to our influence to the bloody end?

(Nothing I say in this thread should be construed as a reflection of my personal views, except as specifically noted.)

281, 283: Hell yes. Even for people who don't think pulling out of Iraq quickly is the right thing to do, isn't there a point where the staggering cost of every single day of the occupation starts to matter to people? Think of all the amazing things that could be funded with even one day of Iraq cost.

291: I don't remember saying it was over. We were just going woo! a lot.

Cheer up, guys. Richardson won Wentworth's Location with 3 votes to Clinton's 1.

Hoinestly? I hope the Obammers & Clintonistas cage-match all the way to the convention, where the mutual hate remains so strong that only Edwards can get the nomination as the compromise candidate.

Unlikely, but I would give my right arm to see 1st Lady Elizabeth Edwards. So I hope and will not surrender.

(Obviously I was referred to 280 and 281.)

The word "control" is doing a lot of unexamined work

Indeed; I agree. Nevertheless.

the staggering cost of every single day of the occupation starts to matter to people

I really, really hope so.

Except it doesn't have to be. Four years is WAY more than enough time to exit from a four-and-a-half year old occupation.

Word. Think of how long it would take to get the Army out of there if something started going seriously wrong somewhere else in the world. Six months? Hell, drive them all to Afghanistan.

it was true thing for Hillary to say

It's only true because that's her policy. We can leave *whenever we want*. It's our elective war. I'm honestly conflicted about voting for Clinton in the general (though I will in the end) because IT'S APPROVING THE OCCUPATION. It's accepting Bush's foreign policy as our own. It's completely fucking insane.

284: For the Dems, see SEK's 277. On the Republican side, I understand the mechanics far less well.

294 gets it right, and can be used to rebut pretty much any claim that any aspect of the Iraq War is in any way desirable for anyone under any circumstances except the "viciously enforced control over extracted resources" angle. The US economy is not what it used to be. The US empire cannot be sustained with actual troop deployments. This exact thing happened after WW1 when the UK decided that in addition to ruling India it would also rule the entire Middle East except for Lebanon, despite having exhausted its treasury and manpower in said war. There simply was no public support for it, in a country that couldn't coin imaginary money like we can.\

Sadly for imperialists, we are no longer trusted by proxies either.

You know what really sucks about Hillary winning NH? I just lost my office pool.

291: I've already tried to be gracious. So now I'll go for obsequious: I kneel before your prescience.

And 289 completes Bob's transition to elder statesman.

Hell, drive them all to Afghanistan.

Where they'll be safe?!?

This thread, btw, makes me very glad I didn't read any of the other political threads today.

303: Yeah, I'm glad I didn't put my predictions in writing this time. I pwned in Iowa.

297 would be truly awesome.

300: We *can*. But I honestly do not think that we will, no matter who wins.

300, I honestly think Clinton differs much more from Edwards and Obama on all kinds of domestic policies than on foreign policy. I honestly think that it's extremely convenient for Obama right now that he didn't have to vote on the Iraq War resolutions. I don't know how we can vote on foreign-policy matters in general. There are so many secrets involved.

I'm waiting for the cry and the hug and the hand-holding, and then I'll collect all my congratulations from you cynical motherfuckers. W00t tie!

This thread is no longer likable.

I found it persuasive in a pragmatic way -- that is, it's hard to move Group A to Point B without causing chaos of Type C or D (e.g. killing a whole lot of Americans or losing control of the oil fields, which I do think the US has a vested interest in retaining proxy control over, retreat or no).

I don't know about that, really. The US can maintain de facto control over Iraq's oil fields by a) being able to pay $150 a barrel, or if push comes to shove, b) being willing to blow them up. Neither one of those requires having ground troops in the country.

Also: I like Obama, but fuck a bunch of "disagreeing without being disagreeable."

now I'll go for obsequious

If I ever use "you fuckers" in a comment, it's purely for comedic effect, Ari.

Does no one else think it's profoundly anti-American to pass the presidency back and forth between two families like the Yorks and the Lancasters? If Hillary wins the nomination, I'll pull the lever for her, but I'll hold my nose the whole time for that reason alone.

The primaries are all about convincing the party hierarchy to support someone they wouldn't otherwise support. Every victory for a mainstream, hawkish, pro-corporate candidate only reinforces their belief that centrist compromise is the way to go ... despite the fact that Democratic/independent turnout bested the Republicans by two-to-one, the DLC is going to consider tonight a mandate for The Same.

I doubt we'll be hearing HRC talk more about change, since if she's the favorite, well then, we should be TCB and whatever ...

(Not to be a pedantic ass or anything, but y'all know that the results of the primaries are non-binding, right? Barack could sweep the primaries and Hillary could still end up the Democratic candidate.)

Un-American, rather.

Further to 294:

Terrific banners for your website available here. Samples:

One day of the Iraq war = $720 million

One day = 34,904 four-year scholarships for university students
One day = 163,525 people with healthcare

We're spending $500,000 per minute on this war. A half-million dollars every sixty seconds. It's almost unfathomable.

First comment on Yglesias's newest thread:

"Perhaps even more significantly in the long run, CNN just had an exit poll which showed that Obama won comfortably amongst those who were economically well off, while Hillary won easily amongst those who are concerned about their economic future.

Doesn't this go back to the original concern about Obama, that although he's popular amongst well-educated, well to do democrats, he won't have enough support from the working and lower-middle classes to get the nomination." ...shariq

dammit, Obama has some work to do. He ain't gonna win with a smile.

Also: Sacramento weather sucks balls in January.

Also: Sacramento weather sucks balls in January.

Hell, drive them all to Afghanistan.

Through Iran? Neocon!

Dammit.

witt says all I want to say in 319.

Where they'll be safe?!?

Safer than in Iraq, surely. One could also drive them to Turkey. How long it takes also depends hugely on how much equipment one is willing to destroy in place vs. taking with you.

313 was my point exactly. We already have a gun to the world's head, all the time and everywhere, regardless of the precise location our troops are stationed. Certainly regardless of whether they are stationed in Baghdad or Kuwait. And if not a gun, a bribe will do. We can get what we need.

The entire problem with U.S. foreign policy is the kind of additional or exccess control we demand, which goes beyond simple security and has never really been fully debated publicly. It's a complicated, dark sort of question.

Does no one else think it's profoundly anti-American to pass the presidency back and forth between two families

If they're the best candidates, then it doesn't bother me at all.

It's accepting Bush's foreign policy as our own. It's completely fucking insane.

Hence my 173.

Does no one else think it's profoundly anti-American to pass the presidency back and forth between two families like the Yorks and the Lancasters? If Hillary wins the nomination, I'll pull the lever for her, but I'll hold my nose the whole time for that reason alone.

I've totally had this thought, too. That if Hillary wins, the presidency will have been controlled by two families since 1988.

I'm honestly conflicted about voting for Clinton in the general (though I will in the end) because IT'S APPROVING THE OCCUPATION.

If she is the candidate, I probably won't bother to vote for the presidential election, or will take a third party candidate if anyone's good. With the state I live in, protest votes are a very easy luxury, but I'd probably feel this way even in a swing state.

It's very hard to communicate just how abandoned I felt when she never ran in 2004, when I was so sure it was her year. And how much her decision seemed more and more to be for selfish, calculating reasons in the coming years as she proceeded to do stupid faux-centrist shit in the Senate at every opportunity and Bush continued to grind us underfoot for four more years.

Through Iran?

No, no, through Turkey, Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Sheesh.

Does no one else think it's profoundly anti-American to pass the presidency back and forth between two families like the Yorks and the Lancasters?

I think a lot of the people who started out thinking that have had that feeling trumped by the Historic Broken Glass Ceiling factor.

That if Hillary wins, the presidency will have been controlled by two families since 1988.

Which, I feel obliged to add, is my entire adult life. Seriously, I expected some variety in my presidential choices, not the electoral equivalent of Fruit Stripe ...

316: I think that gets overrated. The Clintons are a couple, not a dynasty -- Chelsea isn't being groomed for a political career. The Bushes are a dynasty, but that was never a serious argument against Bush, or the eighteen million junior Kennedys in one office or another, or Al Gore, or Nancy Pelosi, or any of a million second-generation pols. The back-and-forth effect is a fluke, not a real dynamic, and it's getting pushed by people looking for a stick to beat Hillary with (not you, but but the people you've heard it from.)

Broken glass would be a somewhat perilous ceiling material, I have to imagine. What if there's an earthquake?

330: Me too. I mean, better her than any Republican, but it seriously squicks me out that as far as my youngest sister's experience tells her, Presidents are either Bushes or Clintons.

The Clintons are a couple, not a dynasty -- Chelsea isn't being groomed for a political career.

Wharrr? She's taking the exact career path that Mitt Romney son of George Romney did.

And people that rich don't have to be career politicians to eventually be elected to office nowadays.

SEK you a Neapolitan fan?

Does no one else think it's profoundly anti-American to pass the presidency back and forth between two families like the Yorks and the Lancasters?

As opposed to, say, between a family of Massachusetts elites and a close-knit group of Virginia elites?

SEK you a Neapolitan fan?

Hillary, Edwards and Obama: the Neapolitan flavored run-off.

Me too. I mean, better her than any Republican, but it seriously squicks me out that as far as my youngest sister's experience tells her, Presidents are either Bushes or Clintons.

Not just your teen sister, erudite adults like me. No memories of Reagan at all. And I'm 25. And I'll be 34 at the end of HRC's second term.

being able to pay $150 a barrel, or if push comes to shove, b) being willing to blow them up.

Would we have comity if I said I could easily make those Types E and F in my little typology in 276?

The entire problem with U.S. foreign policy is the kind of additional or exccess control we demand, which goes beyond simple security and has never really been fully debated publicly.

Amen.

(Well, maybe not the entire problem.)

proceeded to do stupid faux-centrist shit in the Senate at every opportunity

And at some point, you have to question whether that's all just cynical positioning for a presidential run or what she actually believes. I'm pretty convinced it's the latter, and she would govern that way as president.

319: as a percentage of total national wealth, we're spending much less on Iraq and indeed on military spending in general than we did all through the 1950s and 1960s, and less than we did during the Reagan defense buildup of the early to mid 80s. We can certainly afford the war, *if* we really need to fight it. That's why the debate goes back to what kind of control we need.

I think our Iraq spending is unconscionable too, for lots of reasons, but the argument in the end goes back to whether we need to do what we're doing.

338: Oh, admittedly I don't know. But there's no direct indication that Chelsea's going to run for anything. The Clintons aren't a generationally entrenched power structure, they both came from nowhere politically. While we're a country with plenty of political dynasties, the Clintons aren't one as of now.

342: Yeah, it's probably true of my other sisters (22, 25, too.)

Another comment from Yglesias's thread

"Maybe Obama will reacquaint himself with the left side of the party in order to pick up Edwards supporters. Until mid-December I didn't think there was anyway they would vote for Clinton but after some of the shots (real or imagined) the Obama campaign (not to mention its supporters) took at progressives you never know.

Personally, I will vote for him on 2/5 if starts sounding more liberal on economics. I am looking for a little more Wellstone and a little less Biden."
...liberals for ????

Must be a lot us paranoid nutcases around...

That's enough. War War War. "It's the economy" and always will be. Obama is not running for the nomination of the Independent Peace Party.

Does no one else think it's profoundly anti-American to pass the presidency back and forth between two families?

If they're the best candidates, then it doesn't bother me at all.

It should still bother you that these hypothetical scions were the best candidates our supposed democratic process could rustle up. Unless they're all amazing Presidents whose solid leadership keeps improving our international situation while improving the scope and efficiency of government programs, an event I consider slightly less possible than penguins launching a successful Antarctic space program and colonizing the moon to escape global warming.

While we're a country with plenty of political dynasties

I suspect the Harrisons take the prize for Most Mediocre American Political Dynasty Evar.

But feel free to submit your own nominations.

349 is making me snicker. Thanks, PMP.

And LB manages to be right about the fact that people use the Bush/Clinton dynasties thing as an excuse to beat up on Hillary, but wrong wrong wrong about Chelsea having a political trajectory. She's got one if I've ever seen one.

hypothetical scions were the best candidates

Oh, they've produced one great campaigner and so-so president, one totally ineffectual president, and the worst one in American history. And HRC, who has all the markings of another so-so president.

wrong about Chelsea having a political trajectory. She's got one if I've ever seen one.

I don't, to be fair, have any reason to think this is untrue, it just hadn't occurred to me.

353: not to mention one dishonest governor, one hard drinkin' hillbilly, and one terrifyingly autocratic grandmother. Oh, and the little brown one over there.

315: Oh, I'm more thick-skinned than that. Anti-semite.

Now Jenna Bush, there's someone who is not currently networking with fat cats, although it's not like the rest of her generation of the family isn't doing enough of that that she can return to the fold at any time.

Really, it's hard to say that any political child is not likely to have a political career, unless they start committing serious crimes.

Also, my son, at bedtime, just explained to me that he's a "fully trained Jedi and wizard (we've been reading Harry)." So I've re-inflated. Politics be damned.

355: don't forget the party girls! And Socks! Don't forget Socks!

Chelsea is a smart, personable youngster who doesn't really seem to know what else to do with herself, so I'll bet it will be politics. I mean, LB, if you could quit your job and draw on a massive political machine to get you elected, wouldn't you do it?

Also: Hillary would lose the general to McCain. She's got most all of his negatives plus a bunch more.

Anti-semite.

Mexican.

Chelsea is fairly obviously in training. I'm not sure she'll want to go for elected office, though. I see her doing better as a bureaucrat, frankly.

360: Dude. That'd be sweet.

I don't know about all McCain's negatives -- she's not old enough to look vaguely pathetic.

339: SEK you a Neapolitan fan?

Would that I could find a copy of "Halfway to a Three Way" online!

Hillary would lose the general to McCain. She's got most all of his negatives plus a bunch more.

I just don't believe it. The war will divide the candidates in most voters' minds, and McCain is too closely identified with the "Yayyy, let's stay in Iraq forever!" position.

360.2 is correct, although I hold out some hope that as the current McCain starts being televised 24/7 people will realize that he's actually really old and looks much older than he did 8 years ago. That's really why I'm so discouraged by the New Hampshire news. We've all heard that HRC vs. McCain is the only situation in which Republicans would have a good chance even before they start their eight-month opus of character assassination.

So when did McCain start sounding like Andy Rooney, anyhow?

The war will divide the candidates in most voters' minds, and McCain is too closely identified with the "Yayyy, let's stay in Iraq forever!" position.

Voters have never thought that way. Replace what you have in quotes with "Let's win in Iraq".

Yeah, while she's scarily pro-war if you've been listening, I think the median voter thinks she's going to get us out of Iraq as briskly as possible, and doesn't get that we could get out quite briskly if we wanted to.

365: I thought that in 2004.

Is it Jenna or Barbara who had the annoying op-ed in the NYT recently about her experiences as a teacher?

362 makes a good point.

Ok, ok. In the minds of the general public, Clinton v. McCain will be "bring 'em home with honor" v. "fight for glorious, honorable, difficult victory." I'm pretty sure that the country is already pretty sour on Option B.

Speaking of unlikability, isn't McCain looking awfully hunchy and growly these days? I used to wish him well, back before he went all neocon, but the hunch-heh-heh shit is just too GWB+10yrs.

JM your optimism is winning, if implausible to me personally.

Continuing 368, I think the average voter does not currently foresee any particular difference between the candidates in terms of what would actually happen in Iraq after their election. The inability of the new anti-war Democratic congress to accomplish anything is making a lot of people feel like the government is completely unresponsive and arbitrary. My hope is that it becomes obviously impossible to devote infinite amounts of future tax revenue to Iraq, which will only happen if the economic collapse comes before rather than after the election.

McCain vs. Hillary is grampa vs. big momma. Brand new Presidential archetypes for your campaign pleasure. But certainly neither of them feel fresh and new -- Hill is younger, but she's been in the public eye forever.

But if she ran against McCain Hillary would finally reap the benefit of all her careful, passionless war triangulating. She'd be just to the left of McCain but not dangerously so.

299: I think Iran is between those two, isn't it?

Trying to figure out the electoral math with a HRC-McCain race gets hugely complicated, I think. I mean complicated beyond even the usual speculative nonsense. Not to mention that McCain still only has like $7 and is 467 years old. Also, very, very sick. And cranky. And hated by his party's establishment. I really don't understand how the Republicans will win this election. But I know they will.

The final delegate division:
Clinton 9 (24 total)
Obama 9 (25 total)
Edwards 4 (18 total)

378: he needs the Huck on the ticket, no question. Coalition: recoalesced!

And hated by his party's establishment.

Also by his party's base. I really doubt he wins the nomination.

379: So: not tied. I win again. Er, I mean, told you so. No, wait, what I'm trying to say is: yes, you were right. Tied!

Clinton v. McCain will be "bring 'em home with honor" v. "fight for glorious, honorable, difficult victory."

Right. And in a country that is still -- still! -- fighting Vietnam, this is good news for McCain.

Be that as it may, I think bob is right. It's going to be about the economy much more than the war. Did you all see what happened to Countrywide's stock price today?

I would like to here make the admission that a portion of my intense affection for Obama is a product of his Kansas accent. It's beautiful to hear one's tongue spoken on television.

379: it's not a tie, commie! What is this, soccer? Early primaries are kill or be killed.

So Apo I thought you'd be talking about the confluence of racism and secret ballots this evening?

The economy is entirely fucked, by the way. If Huckabee can stay with it for another little bit here he might get a real nice populist wave going.

AUGH I'M TALKING ABOUT ELECTABILITY STOP ME HERE HERE'S A FRYING PAN HIT ME NO NO IT'S THE BEST THING

It's going to be about the economy much more than the war.

I agree. And this is where the war cost argument will become salient to people. Also, the Democrats need to resurrect the Bush tax cuts as an issue. Which shouldn't be hard if they want to, since as soon as the economy starts to go downhill the Republicans will start arguing for massive new tax cuts for the rich. But part of the reflexive Democratic centrist cringe is an unwillingness to take on tax cuts.

386: Y'see, I can imagine the Republicans having a brokered convention. Because of just that point. But I really don't understand, as noted upthread, how they allocate delegates.

I really don't understand how the Republicans will win this election. But I know they will.

Somehow, I'm hoping this time will be different. Feckless optimism springs eternal, from the crabbiest ground! I like my whirlpool vision, dammit!

And now to bed.

319:

We're spending $500,000 per minute on this war. A half-million dollars every sixty seconds. It's almost unfathomable.

There is, or was, an ongoing counter of the cost of war here, though it's crashing my browser at the moment. Still live and counting recently, though, shocking to view.

My favorite cost-of-war chart, for lots of reasons:

http://jec.senate.gov/charts/Iraq%20Economic%20Cost%20Report/chart%20a-1.pdf

Man, I hate seeing Bill Bennett's enormous head on my television screen.

FWIW, the GOP delegate count:
Romney 24
Huckabee 18
McCain 10
Thompson 6
Paul 2
Hunter 1

385: I'm outsourcing it to Andrew Sullivan.

391: Is that in trillions, or what?

395: yes, it's in trillions. It's an estimate of the total economic costs (including costs of war-related debt) through 2017.

394: Could be. But it seems equally likely that independents broke hard for McCain, thinking that Obama had a big win in hand. Plus, as Petey said on the post-Iowa thread (very late at night, when only I was awake and primed to argue with him), older voters hate Obama. And older voters showed up in huge numbers tonight. Makes me think that Logan's Run was onto something.

Hillary v. McCain? Issues: abortion, birth control, Bill balanced the budget, health care.

Man, I hate seeing Bill Bennett's enormous head on my television screen.

Wow, he's still in business? How can anyone on a panel with him not resist dropping in phrases like "Obama's big gamble" or "McCain really spun the slots with that one" or "He sweats like a bovine moralist with a chronic gambling problem" to their commentary?

Plus, returning to Logan's Run, no more Social Security problem.

395: And here's the report it came from, full explanation of that chart in Appendix A:

http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/11.13.07IraqEconomicCostsReport.pdf

Yeah, the old voters vs. young voters thing is a big deal for the Dems.

398: HRC v. McCain. Non-issues: media hearts McCain with an unnatural love, media despises Hillary with the heat of a thousand suns. It's very hard to make up that stagger. I'm not saying impossible. But VERY hard.

She'd be just to the left of McCain but not dangerously so.

So we bomb Syria, not Iran. Fuck it, I'm not Syrian.

The Clintons aren't a generationally entrenched power structure, they both came from nowhere politically. While we're a country with plenty of political dynasties, the Clintons aren't one as of now.

This seems wrong. They've been the most important family in Democratic politics for sixteen years, and it may be twenty four. If HRC wins it all, is there any class of people more important to the Democratic Party in the last 100 years, save FDR? I say no.

403 is what worries me.

Plus as JP Stormcrow points out in the other thread, there's that whole Supreme Court thing.

406: ?

It being an issue in a Clinton v. McCain race.

"The time for come has changed."

408: Cuts both ways. The Republican base, which surely hates McCain, understands that issue as well as anyone on our side. And the dog-whistle politics around the Court are so, so easy. As easy as Vice President Huckabee. Actually, as easy as McCain having sucked Bush's -- um, I'm commenting as me here, rigth? -- toes for the past several years.

Yeah, it's the toe-sucking that I think might just kill McCain in the general election.

411: I fear that you vastly underestimate the bloc that fetishizes that particular brand of kink. Can you imagine McCain winning our fair state? Arnold would go all out for him. Still, the war would probably be dispositive.

Would Arnie support McCain? Fuck, that would suck. And god knows the Freepers like my uncle would probably try to assassinate Clinton.

Look, the truth is that I'm really, really shitty at predicting what will happen politically. I'm almost always wrong. The American people do not think like me.

409: God, he's cute. Edwards has been this cute in the past and is tamping it down, unfortunately.

Mmmmmmmmmm, crow, yummmmmmmmmmmmmy.

Fuck.

DLC, here we come! We embrace your yellow sick road. 'Tis awesome!

Fuck.

413: I've never been right. About anything. Seriously, my predictions are an expression of my anxieties, loosely coupled with my fondest wishes. And the anxieties almost always tamp down the aspirations. Sometimes data and analysis make a cameo. But not usually.

414: Did we just use "tamp down" at the same time? Weird. Also, he's a handsome man. Obama-Edwards: The Ticket from Hott!

Would Arnie support McCain?

416: So clearly, people should do the opposite of whatever you and I say. If, that is, they want to be on the winning side.

The rest of that comment should have said: They pretty much occupy the same political niche, don't they?

418: Okay, yeah, I know it was a stupid thing for me to say.

Did we just use "tamp down" at the same time?

Man, Edwards just can't win. Even liberals associate his name with tampons.

413: I'm almost always wrong. The American people do not think like me.

Same. My most stupendously wrong call was in Houston in the early '80s. Somehow a proposed "no discrimination against gays in city jobs" ordnance got on the ballot. The vote was on the kind of beautiful fall day you often get down there and I was in such an expansive mood riding our bikes* to the polling place that I remarked to my wife that it might just pass. Fucker went down with over 80% of the vote.

*Riding your bike to a polling place is one of the top 5 warning signs that your Houston political prognostications are going to suck real bad.

420: The biggest difference between the two is that McCain has used real guns. And really been tortured. Also, Arnold has, it seems, become more progressive on almost every issue that matters to me -- except taxes. Whereas McCain seems to have become more conservative over the past few years. Or, more accurately, reverted to his own personal mean.

423: Ordinance, though it might as well have been ordnance.

You know what would make me happy? If everybody who ever mentions Intrade anywhere as evidence of anything would read this article, which only confirms the entire history of the political futures markets.

130. I claim glory.

Glory unto Michael.

423: Things like this used to happen to us all the time in Norman, Oklahoma. The time curbside recycling went down by twenty points was particularly painful. So we moved.

429 does a fantastic job of eliding the chance and fortune in the academic career narrative.

427: Yes, you were right. The country is all the worse for it, but take comfort in the fact that you correctly predicted the shit-mist we'd enter on a blog.

YOU WIN!

YAY YOU!

I think SEK needs a hug.

Bah, I'd just be accused of sexual harassment.

Michael is a Hillary partisan, SEK.

430: Oh, I just assumed they moved up to Edmond.

432: If my arms were long enough...

430, 435: I traded way down the ladder to get out. And then I got really, really lucky. So, yeah, you're totally right. I was being glib. About something that's pretty serious. Sorry.

Don't matter to me. I'm an undergrad!

thanks, guys! Does prognosticitation pay?

(off to bed.)

424: Arnold is way more progressive than McCain. I think Arnie would be in about the middle of the DC Democratic party, although how much of that is driven by California politics is debatable.

Fuck, ogged, I'll take that crow with salty tears, desperation and a side of WTF.

You are now rich in humility.

it's getting pushed by people looking for a stick to beat Hillary with (not you, but but the people you've heard it from.)

Thanks for that little slice of condescension, LB. I assure you it's something that's been pissing me off since, oh, 1999.

Chopper, on review, has a hell of a point.

I can understand people voting for Clinton because she's a woman out of tribalism, but don't understand people who think this would be some great victory for feminism, having a female president. A symbolic victory yes, but surely the experiences of the past thirty years should have taught people that breaking the glass ceiling does fuck all for most women and just means there's a sligthly more diverse class of oppressors, sorry, board members?

Sorry, Chopper, I knew it would sound like that. But honestly, we're a country with a lot of political dynasties, and repeated Presidents from the same family has happened several times. And suddenly the really worrisome, intolerable dynasty is the first generation of a couple that had no family background in politics and whose family may never, as far as we know, produce another politician? I can't help believing that public concern over this comes largely from the fact that the media hates them a whole bunch of Hillary.

A symbolic victory yes, but surely the experiences of the past thirty years should have taught people that breaking the glass ceiling does fuck all for most women and just means there's a sligthly more diverse class of oppressors, sorry, board members?

Yeah, I've argued this repeatedly in threads-past.

I can't help believing that public concern over this comes largely from the fact that the media hates them a whole bunch of Hillary.

I think a good helping of it comes from recoiling in horror from what our current political dynasty has wrought.

447: It's not a great victory, but it's not nothing. If Hillary wins, the next woman, who we may think more highly of, gets to run without people being able to say "It's impossible, no one will vote for a woman for Commander in Chief." Doesn't change the world in a huge way, but it opens a door.

the next woman [...] gets to run without people being able to say

Unless Clinton and her sky-high negatives lose the election.

re: 449

It may or may not have that effect. Thatcher didn't really open any similar doors in the UK. Ditto other female presidents/prime ministers in many other countries. A lot depends on what actually gets done.

I'm not saying it doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever, but I do think these 'symbolic' breakthroughs are less important than substantive structural changes. This especially applies in the economic realm, I think. [i.e. I don't give a shit if a higher percentage of massively over-paid corporate directors are women if the overall wage disparity remains].

Ferrarro didn't do women any good.

Ferrarro (like so many Democrats -- e.g. Eagleton) was destroyed by oppo research. The same thing can't happen with Hillary, because the dirt is mostly all out there already and her husband is a political resource. On the other hand, she has big negatives.

The biggest Hillary-hater I know (a stereotypical redneck Vietnam Vet, functional but always angry) is a big Merle Haggard fan. Merle (who was never as bad as people thought) has come out for Hillary. Most likely the guy will destroy his Haggard stuff, but you never know.

I confess that at the bottom of my white male serial-killer rapist heart that I believe that this is not the right time to find out whether a woman or a black man can be elected President. I'm not terribly upset specifically by that particular problem, however, because my upset-o-meter has been stuck at 11 ever since you guys first met me.

But I'd just love for the election to consist of a storng Democratic campaigner with ,low negatives running a liberal campaign on the war + the economy + equality + etc., with the social issues just coming along for the ride.

a storng Democratic campaigner with ,low negatives running a liberal campaign on the war + the economy + equality + etc., with the social issues just coming along for the ride.

Go Edwards!

Merle (who was never as bad as people thought) has come out for Hillary.

I think Merle is just sick of today's conservatives and Hillary was the consensus Dem front-runner when he endorsed. I know it's been posted before, but I can't get enough of this song or the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDoYsBAyFb0

Also, listen to Bill Clinton making the argument that Obama is an opportunist. What a great advocate he is. I still love Bill; Clintonite moderate centrism was IMO an entirely appropriate response to defusing the conservative movement in the 90s. If it hadn't been for Florida the strategy would have worked to stop conservatism almost completely. It's just that I think the nation needs to move beyond it now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDx4NZr2u4

Bill Clinton says Obama is an opportunist? He'd certainly no.

I really am pretty neutral on the Democrats, since they're all mealy-mouthed at best on military policy, but Hillary seems to be the worst of the three.

Clintonite moderate centrism was IMO an entirely appropriate response to defusing perpetuate the conservative movement in the 90s

"It's impossible, no one will vote for a woman for Commander in Chief." Doesn't change the world in a huge way, but it opens a door.

Given that they were running an inevitability campaign, I think HRC's team thought that door was already open.

455: Agreed. The 1990s were pretty high times for the conservative movement.

451 gets it right.

HRC winning the women's vote by a huge margin is quite depressing to me.

I actually don't blame women for switching to Hillary based on the Hillary trashing. I hope that in the long run other factors become more important.

I really hope that whoever runs gets 100% support from the other two. If I see any sign that Hillary (or Obama) is sandbagging the other in order to be able to take their own shot in four years, I'm going to have to buy more badnwidth for my outrage meter.

Anyone notice that Katrina van den Heuvel kept being talked over on MSNBC last night? Scarbrough (a complete prick, though brighter than almost all other Republicans) was the worst.

Rachel Maddow was good, though. (There, I've postponed my condemnation for gross sexism for another week or so.)

I actually don't blame women for switching to Hillary based on the Hillary trashing.

It means that even after people realize that Chris Matthews and Tim Russert etc. are buffoons not worth trusting, they're still dictacting who we vote for, this time motivating people via spite toward the pundits rather than sharing the pundits' scorn toward the candidates.

Just ignore the TV "news", everyone! At least the written "news" contains some objective facts if you look!

Matthews is even worse than Scarbrough, of course, but I don't think he was on with Katrina VDH.

If Hillary wins, the next woman, who we may think more highly of, gets to run without people being able to say "It's impossible, no one will vote for a woman for Commander in Chief."

Perhaps, but it could also saddle the next woman in hypothetical world with having to prove that she won't be a disaster like the one-term HRC was. The culture's still pretty sexist, which means the likely effect of any one woman succeeding is 'oh, she was the exception' and any woman failing is 'well, we always knew girls couldn't handle it.'

Not that that's a reason not to vote for HRC, but the door-opening one is a comparatively minor one. (Gloria Steinem disagrees, of course, but I think she's wrong.)

Here's the thing: while I think it's important to have a woman president, I think it's a lot more important to have a good woman president.

HRC winning the women's vote by a huge margin is quite depressing to me.

I wish Obama had won, but this actually made me happy, given that a lot of the women's vote is thought to be undecideds saying "fuck you" in response to a couple of days of sexist commentary. Maybe it gets a couple of talking heads to stop with that crap relatively early on. (And go dancing with their ponies, I know.)

460: But I do think that everyone should remember that this is still just the primaries. These are not ultimate votes, if you're going to make an "FU cable talkers" vote (I think Pam Spaulding has labelled it "The Tweety Effect"), now is the time to do it. I for one am much more comfortable with the process going forward after last night. Now we need to find a way for Edwards to get a fair shake.

I also wonder if some of the chiding that New Hampshire voters were just being front runners resulted in a backlash as well.

460 to 464.

I wonder why neither party nominated a woman before, if there are all these female voters out there who will rally around their sister as soon as she gets treated unfairly by the media. Given that every candidate gets treated unfairly by the media at some time or another, and I don't remember anyone getting a boost from it among low-information voters before.

Look, I can understand the impulse to want to vote a certain way to piss someone off - this was, after all, the Ralph Nader supporter's entire raison d'etre - but seriously, when it all comes down to it we're supposed to be voting for the person who'd make the best president. Not the most likable president, or the president you'd rather have a beer with, or the president who'll piss off the other side the most, but the president whose policies and ideas make the country and the world a better place to live in. If you're voting for some other reason, you're just not taking your vote all that seriously, because these things really do have consequences.

I wonder why neither party nominated a woman before,

The Republicans thought about it. Liddy Dole wasn't a protest candidate. But there are other interests to serve as well, and that gets worked out over time, in both the primaries and back rooms, I think. GWB was just judged to be the most electable.

, when it all comes down to it we're supposed to be voting for the person who'd make the best president.

It's possible that other people thought HRC was that person. Someone must have voted for her husband.

469: I'm sure plenty of them did. I'm merely responding to the "they voted for her to piss off Chris Matthews" thesis.

467:
1) stras - I think you and others are significantly overestimating the actual distance between what any of the 3 Dems will actually do in office.

2) Primaries, series of - the process continues. Strategic voting is what primaries are all about.

but the president whose policies and ideas make the country and the world a better place to live in
That was Dodd for me. Now I am in reevaluation mode.

My last two comments should be read as questioning the idea that HRC was boosted by the unfair treatment of her by the pundits. If people didn't notice during the last 15 years, I don't think two days of being ganged up on would change their minds.

472: We're talking about undecided voters who made up their minds in the last 72 hours, right? It's going to be something recent and little.

Well, who's to say they didn't notice? After all, she hasn't been in primaries while the media was knifing her before, so we haven't gotten this kind of feedback on how people react to it.

I was arguing for the effectiveness of media narratives yesterday, but I'd say they're effective at distorting perceptions, not always as intended by the people pushing the narrative. It's perfectly possible that the "OMG, she's such a stone-cold phony hysterical out of control bitch" routine has been generating as much sympathy for her as hatred all along -- the hatred's just easier to see because no one buys a bumper sticker saying "Hillary -- Really An Acceptably Pleasant Person."

I don't think two days of being ganged up on would change their minds.

In the context of a campaign, and with a lot of undecided voters, this could happen.

The Hillary surge is an example of an event. Social scientists are best describing continuous processes that don't change direction. But this was an apparent discontinuity. You don't have a lot of discontinuities, but they're not strange or even very rare.

A long time ago and economist (Galbraith or Samuelson, I think) said something like "Economists are best at describing economies which aren't changing, and are initially as bad off as anyone else if something actually changes).

I think you and others are significantly overestimating the actual distance between what any of the 3 Dems will actually do in office.

I don't think I am. There's been a concerted effort on the part of several interested parties - the netroots bloggers, professional liberal bloggers, and the candidates themselves - in minimizing the policy differences among the candidates, but despite this, the difference between Clinton and Obama on, say, foreign policy, is significant in and of itself to favor Obama. On trade, there's a major gulf between Edwards and the other two. On Iraq, Edwards is clearly the most progressive, promising to end the training mission and withdraw all troops but the embassy guards within nine months, and Clinton is the most hawkish, with her advisers saying in the NYT that she expects to still have troops in the country at the end of her second term - that's in 2017, mind you. I could go on. These aren't minor differences; these are different politicians from different wings of the party being advised by different people, and they have different ideas about what's best for the country and the world.

474 -- I've met her briefly a couple of times, and I'll go farther than acceptably pleasant; I found her utterly charming.

Not that I'm disagreeing with anything in 474. Or want her as the nominee.

I would agree with most of what Stras says, except my point of comparison is a non-existent candidate who actually wanted to completely change America's military and foreign policy strategy. The differences look tiny in that context, because all three candidates try to distance themselves from the war without committing themselves too much as to what they will actually do.

All will be better than any Republican other than Paul on the Iraq issue, though that's least certainly true of Hillary.

all three candidates try to distance themselves from the war without committing themselves too much as to what they will actually do

What? Edwards has said that he'll pull out.

479 -- I remain convinced that all such statements are merely symbolic, and that events will drive things much more than the small differences between candidates. You're free to buy into whatever symbolism you want, of course.

I remain convinced that all such statements are merely symbolic, and that events will drive things much more than the small differences between candidates.

But these aren't small differences. Edwards, for example, actually does want to end the occupation of Iraq; Clinton really doesn't, and people working for her have said as much.

Delegate count via DKos:

25 Obama, 24 Clinton, 18 Edwards

Don't give up on John Edwards yet.

476: It's the will actually do in office part that I think is the key and about which I think you are being somehat unrealistic.

But this is maybe just the cynicism of growing older. Which BTW, is I think the real (and maybe unexpected) challenge for the Dems —keeping all the generations energized. John Edwards the cross-generation uniter!!

Other statements of Edwards, on Israel or Iran for example, or on the future military budget, make me very doubtful about him. What he's saying is consistent with a version of the "incompetence" dodge -- "This particular war was wrongly done". There's no evidence of a strategic change.

I remain convinced that all such statements are merely symbolic, and that events will drive things much more than the small differences between candidates.

Do people who believe this--and it is exactly the sort of thing I'm inclined to believe--have an explanation for why so many neocons and other conservatives effectively endorsed HRC as a Dem President on foreign policy grounds?

485: They know something you don't?

There's no evidence of a strategic change.

Again, what? He's the only candidate who has said that framing counter-terrorism as "a war" is a mistake.

484: Which is why, on overall foreign policy, I tend to like Obama better than Edwards. But I also get the sense that Edwards just isn't all that interested in warmongering, while Clinton seems earnestly and consistently hawkish.

My queue is Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Romney?.....Giuliani. Giuliani is the worst, granted that Paul and Hunter aren't even plausible (nor is Kucinich). So I don't disagree with Stras, except that I think that he's taking small differences too seriously.

But at the head of the queue is an abstract non-candidate who ran strongly against the war and proposed a less militaristic foreign policy.

on overall foreign policy, I tend to like Obama better than Edwards

Out of curiosity, what are the differences between Obama and Edwards that you're referencing?

For example.

A more charitable description is that Clinton is realistic enough to be flexible about options. Which, from the Dem field, is about all the neocons can hope for.

Gotta love the headlines:

Post Iowa:

"McCain making comeback! [after low finish]"

Post NH:

"Edwards vows to struggle on despite third place finish!"

Come on, Apo, Stras is notoriously pro-Israel, so of course he'd go with Obama.

A more charitable description is that Clinton is realistic enough to be flexible about options. Which, from the Dem field, is about all the neocons can hope for.

That's pretty charitable, particularly when set beside a belief that events will force things, including, one assumes, flexibility.

No charity for Hillary. Get a job, bitch! No handouts for you! No free riders!

Clinton is realistic reflexively hawkish enough to be flexible about options keep carrying out their agenda.

497 is correct. Clinton's critique of the Bush Doctrine has always been some variant of the incompetence dodge: the war was the right idea, but I would've handled it better. Forget a major shift from standard American foreign policy; Clinton doesn't even promise a shift from Bush's foreign policy. Her promise is a world where our endless, pointless wars are more competently managed, where our torturers are discreetly tucked away and overseen by diligent technocrats.

I disagree with 455 and 457. Clintonism came within an ace of shutting a surging conservative movement out of the oval office completely post -- since post 9/11 I think a Democratic President who went into Afghanistan would have been reelected for some of the same reasons Bush was. This would have been a significant accomplishment and people around here simply do not credit Clinton for it.

Now, once Bush actually was in office the habits encouraged by Clintonism turned out to be terrible, and all the weaknesses of moderate triangulating were disastrous for the party. But I think these issues are separable.

Whoops, I meant "post-1992", or after 1992. Too many posts.

Clintonism operated by co-opting conservative policies. The result was losing both houses of Congress and Republicans getting big chunks of their agenda enacted while waiting to take back the White House.

This would have been a significant accomplishment and people around here simply do not credit Clinton for it.

Probably because he didn't achieve it.

501: you're doing straight up revisionist history now. The Republicans took both houses in 94 immediately after the most liberal two years of Clinton's presidency -- gays in the military, the tax increases on the wealthy (great policy, BTW), an overly ambitious health care reform plan instead of welfare reform, etc. Most of what we now call Clintonism was developed in defensive response to the political failure of more classic liberalism in the first two years of the first term.

Weren't you old enough to be politically aware then, Apo?

you're doing straight up revisionist history now

No, I'm not. I'm not saying that Clinton didn't have any accomplishments. I'm saying that Clinton's agenda, even in the 93-94 session wasn't particularly liberal. There's the DADT policy, which was good for the time, and the budget they managed to get through without any GOP votes. But tax rates aren't liberal or conservative, no matter the GOP propaganda. What you spend that money on is. As for the health care plan, it wasn't overly ambitious; it was woefully inadequate and overly generous to insurance companies, who killed it anyway.

As I said before, Clinton only looks progressive because of the presidents who preceded and followed him. By any reasonable measure, he's the most conservative Democrat to hold the office in many decades.

Weren't you old enough to be politically aware then, Apo?

Yes. My first vote for president was in the Bush-Dukakis race.