Re: This thread is extremely likable.

1

Concord monitor has HRC up by a whole 200 votes.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 5:56 PM
horizontal rule
2

Gravel at 42! He's IN this!


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 5:57 PM
horizontal rule
3

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?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 5:57 PM
horizontal rule
4

I see Obama at 10,288.


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 5:57 PM
horizontal rule
5

I find myself kind of hoping HRC wins.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 5:58 PM
horizontal rule
6

No shit. A tie.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 5:59 PM
horizontal rule
7

Hillary up by 334! (nytimes)

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


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 5:59 PM
horizontal rule
8

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


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:00 PM
horizontal rule
9

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


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:01 PM
horizontal rule
10

NOT THE FERN!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:02 PM
horizontal rule
11

Hillary keeping her percentage lead so far.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:08 PM
horizontal rule
12

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


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:08 PM
horizontal rule
13

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:09 PM
horizontal rule
14

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


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
15

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

Damn. Called it for McCain.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
16

Ah. Proportional. Thanks, New York Times!


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
17

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.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
18

Fuck a McCain.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
19

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!


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
20

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:12 PM
horizontal rule
21

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


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:14 PM
horizontal rule
22

Uh . . . Andrea

Misogynist!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:14 PM
horizontal rule
23

This is stressing me out more than I expected!


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:16 PM
horizontal rule
24

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.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:17 PM
horizontal rule
25

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


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:18 PM
horizontal rule
26

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:18 PM
horizontal rule
27

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.


Posted by: John | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
28

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


Posted by: OPINIONATED MARK PENN | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:20 PM
horizontal rule
29

Blurgh.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:22 PM
horizontal rule
30

Er, that's "very nervous"


Posted by: John | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:22 PM
horizontal rule
31

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


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:24 PM
horizontal rule
32

Bazz fazz.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:26 PM
horizontal rule
33

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?!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:28 PM
horizontal rule
34

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"?


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:28 PM
horizontal rule
35

Brit Hume is talking about blogs. Awesome.


Posted by: mike d | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:29 PM
horizontal rule
36

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


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:31 PM
horizontal rule
37

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


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:31 PM
horizontal rule
38

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.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
39

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
40

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.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
41

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:35 PM
horizontal rule
42

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:38 PM
horizontal rule
43

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.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:39 PM
horizontal rule
44

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


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:39 PM
horizontal rule
45

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.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
46

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:41 PM
horizontal rule
47

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
48

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."


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
49

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.


Posted by: water moccasin | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:43 PM
horizontal rule
50

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:44 PM
horizontal rule
51

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:45 PM
horizontal rule
52

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


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:45 PM
horizontal rule
53

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.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:46 PM
horizontal rule
54

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?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
55

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

Mitt Romney.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
56

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


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
57

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


Posted by: mike d | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:49 PM
horizontal rule
58

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


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:49 PM
horizontal rule
59

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.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:51 PM
horizontal rule
60

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.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:51 PM
horizontal rule
61

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
62

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.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
63

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


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
64

I also believe in whales.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
65

And Wales. Also bigger.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
66

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.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
67

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.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
68

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


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
69

(Also, the Obama-push has begun.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
70

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.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
71

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
72

Word from Obama NH headquarters is that people are sanguine.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
73

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


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:01 PM
horizontal rule
74

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.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:02 PM
horizontal rule
75

Hey mcmanus, where are you reading these exit polls?


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:02 PM
horizontal rule
76

(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.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
77

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
78

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


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
79

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.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
80

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.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
81

79. Remember the Alamo


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
82

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


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
83

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


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
84

Was 40-34. Now 39-36.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
85

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')?


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
86

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


Posted by: anmik | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
87

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
88

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.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
89

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.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
90

Yes, says Yglesias.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
91

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.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
92

Sorry, 90 to 85. And pwned by Ogged.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
93

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


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
94

Dude. Poor Edwards.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
95

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.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
96

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


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
97

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.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
98

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.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
99

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.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
100

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?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
101

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

You're a commie?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
102

95 pwns.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
103

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


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
104

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.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
105

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


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
106

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


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
107

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
108

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


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
109

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


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
110

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
111

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.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
112

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.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
113

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


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
114

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
115

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.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
116

it's so starkly nationalistic and has violent undertones


Posted by: destroyer | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
117

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
118

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.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
119

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
120

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


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
121

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.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
122

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?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
123

Sorry, that was MSNBC's exit poll.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
124

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


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
125

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.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
126

Hillary's lead has grown to 4300. SEK


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
127

Fuck you and your banning anchor babies, Huckabee.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
128

"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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
129

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
130

I'm calling it for Hillary


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
131

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
132

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.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
133

Hillary's lead has grown to 4300.

And a minute later it's shrunk to 3600.

Patience.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
134

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


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
135

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


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
136

Anti-semite.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
137

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


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
138

136 to 134. Dammit.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
139

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.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
140

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
141

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
142

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


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
143

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.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
144

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.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
145

Ralph Reed looks like Tommy Carcetti.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
146

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


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
147

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


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
148

Yeah, he does. And he blames the tears.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
149

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

We're racists.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
150

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


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
151

Fuck you, too, Thompson.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
152

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.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
153

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


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
154

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


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
155

Other CNN dude also blames the tears.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
156

144: Short:sexist

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


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
157

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.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
158

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"?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
159

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


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
160

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


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
161

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


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
162

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


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
163

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


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
164

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?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
165

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


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
166

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


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
167

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.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
168

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
169

164: LEAST LIKABLE! GET IT RIGHT!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
170

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.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
171

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?


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
172

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.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
173

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.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
174

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


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
175

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.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
176

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
177

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
178

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.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
179

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


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
180

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.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
181

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?


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
182

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
183

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.)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
184

[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]


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
185

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
186

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.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
187

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.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
188

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


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
189

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!"


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
190

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?


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
191

3: Yes.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
192

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
193

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."


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
194

(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....)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
195

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


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
196

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.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
197

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.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
198

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.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
199

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
200

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.)


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
201

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
202

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.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
203

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.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
204

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
205

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


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
206

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


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
207

Obama increasingly seems like the educated liberal fantasy projection candidate.

Of course he is. So what?


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
208

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*.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
209

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.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
210

202 was me.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
211

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.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
212

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.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
213

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
214

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
215

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.)


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
216

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


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
217

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.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
218

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.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
219

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.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
220

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


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:18 PM
horizontal rule
221

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

Only under our breaths.


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
222

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.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
223

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?


Posted by: ixnaythemetier | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
224

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
225

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
226

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.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
227

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.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
228

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.)


Posted by: Moira | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
229

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
230

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!


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
231

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
232

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.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
233

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.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
234

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


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
235

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


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
236

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


Posted by: Sybil Vane | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
237

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.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
238

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
239

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
240

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


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
241

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?


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
242

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
243

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


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
244

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.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
245

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.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
246

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.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
247

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
248

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
249

245 is correct.

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


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
250

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
251

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?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
252

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

You and me both.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
253

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

Indianapolis, I believe.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
254

AP calls it for Clinton.


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
255

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
256

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


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
257

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.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
258

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
259

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?


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
260

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.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
261

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.


Posted by: Buck | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
262

You and me both.

Dittoes. She's awesome.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
263

MSNBC declares Clinton winner in NH


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
264

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.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
265

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.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
266

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
267

AP calls it for Hillary.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:35 PM
horizontal rule
268

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:35 PM
horizontal rule
269

he hates the Kennedy clan and all their works.

See my 'About' page.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:35 PM
horizontal rule
270

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:35 PM
horizontal rule
271

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:35 PM
horizontal rule
272

267, meet 254.


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:35 PM
horizontal rule
273

"brokered convention"

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
274

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

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


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:37 PM
horizontal rule
275

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.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:37 PM
horizontal rule
276

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).


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:37 PM
horizontal rule
277

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
278

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.


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
279

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


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
280

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
281

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
282

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


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
283

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
284

Still won't happen, of course.

Why do you say that, Ari?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
285

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.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
286

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.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
287

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.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
288

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
289

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
290

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


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
291

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
292

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


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
293

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.)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
294

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.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
295

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


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:46 PM
horizontal rule
296

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


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
297

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
298

(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.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
299

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.


Posted by: water moccasin | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
300

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
301

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
302

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
303

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


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
304

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
305

And 289 completes Bob's transition to elder statesman.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
306

Hell, drive them all to Afghanistan.

Where they'll be safe?!?


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
307

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


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
308

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


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
309

297 would be truly awesome.

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


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
310

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
311

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!


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
312

This thread is no longer likable.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
313

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.


Posted by: water moccasin | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
314

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


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
315

now I'll go for obsequious

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
316

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.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
317

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.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
318

Un-American, rather.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
319

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.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
320

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.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
321

Also: Sacramento weather sucks balls in January.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
322

Also: Sacramento weather sucks balls in January.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
323

Hell, drive them all to Afghanistan.

Through Iran? Neocon!


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
324

Dammit.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
325

witt says all I want to say in 319.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
326

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.


Posted by: water moccasin | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
327

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.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
328

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
329

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

Hence my 173.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
330

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.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
331

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.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
332

Through Iran?

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


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
333

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
334

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 ...


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
335

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.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
336

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
337

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.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
338

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
339

SEK you a Neapolitan fan?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
340

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?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
341

SEK you a Neapolitan fan?

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


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
342

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
343

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.)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
344

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
345

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.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
346

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
347

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


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
348

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
349

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.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
350

While we're a country with plenty of political dynasties

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


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
351

But feel free to submit your own nominations.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
352

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.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
353

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
354

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
355

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
356

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
357

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
358

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
359

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
360

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.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
361

Anti-semite.

Mexican.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:15 PM
horizontal rule
362

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.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:15 PM
horizontal rule
363

360: Dude. That'd be sweet.

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


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
364

339: SEK you a Neapolitan fan?

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


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
365

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.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
366

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
367

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
368

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".


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
369

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
370

365: I thought that in 2004.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
371

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.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
372

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.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
373

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.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
374

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
375

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
376

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.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
377

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


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
378

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
379

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
380

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
381

And hated by his party's establishment.

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
382

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!


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
383

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?


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
384

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.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:26 PM
horizontal rule
385

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?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
386

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:29 PM
horizontal rule
387

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.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:30 PM
horizontal rule
388

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:30 PM
horizontal rule
389

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.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
390

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.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
391

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

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


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
392

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:39 PM
horizontal rule
393

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:42 PM
horizontal rule
394

385: I'm outsourcing it to Andrew Sullivan.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
395

391: Is that in trillions, or what?


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
396

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


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:50 PM
horizontal rule
397

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:50 PM
horizontal rule
398

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


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:50 PM
horizontal rule
399

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?


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:51 PM
horizontal rule
400

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:51 PM
horizontal rule
401

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


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:53 PM
horizontal rule
402

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


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
403

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
404

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.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
405

403 is what worries me.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
406

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


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:57 PM
horizontal rule
407

406: ?


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
408

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


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
409

"The time for come has changed."


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
410

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
411

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


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:09 PM
horizontal rule
412

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:12 PM
horizontal rule
413

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
414

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


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:21 PM
horizontal rule
415

Mmmmmmmmmm, crow, yummmmmmmmmmmmmy.

Fuck.

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

Fuck.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:24 PM
horizontal rule
416

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
417

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


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:26 PM
horizontal rule
418

Would Arnie support McCain?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:26 PM
horizontal rule
419

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:26 PM
horizontal rule
420

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:27 PM
horizontal rule
421

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


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:27 PM
horizontal rule
422

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

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


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:29 PM
horizontal rule
423

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:30 PM
horizontal rule
424

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:30 PM
horizontal rule
425

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


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:31 PM
horizontal rule
426

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:32 PM
horizontal rule
427

130. I claim glory.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:33 PM
horizontal rule
428

Glory unto Michael.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:34 PM
horizontal rule
429

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:36 PM
horizontal rule
430

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:41 PM
horizontal rule
431

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!


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:42 PM
horizontal rule
432

I think SEK needs a hug.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:43 PM
horizontal rule
433

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


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:44 PM
horizontal rule
434

Michael is a Hillary partisan, SEK.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:44 PM
horizontal rule
435

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


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:45 PM
horizontal rule
436

432: If my arms were long enough...


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:45 PM
horizontal rule
437

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.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
438

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:51 PM
horizontal rule
439

thanks, guys! Does prognosticitation pay?

(off to bed.)


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 10:51 PM
horizontal rule
440

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.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 11:00 PM
horizontal rule
441

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


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 11:13 PM
horizontal rule
442

You are now rich in humility.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-08 11:30 PM
horizontal rule
443

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.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 12:11 AM
horizontal rule
444

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


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 12:23 AM
horizontal rule
445

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?


Posted by: Martin Wisse | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 2:35 AM
horizontal rule
446

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 5:48 AM
horizontal rule
447

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.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 5:52 AM
horizontal rule
448

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.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 5:53 AM
horizontal rule
449

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 5:59 AM
horizontal rule
450

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

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 6:04 AM
horizontal rule
451

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].


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 6:12 AM
horizontal rule
452

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 6:28 AM
horizontal rule
453

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


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 6:56 AM
horizontal rule
454

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
455

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


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 7:13 AM
horizontal rule
456

"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.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 7:14 AM
horizontal rule
457

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 7:37 AM
horizontal rule
458

451 gets it right.

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


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
459

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.)


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
460

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!


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
461

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


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
462

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.)


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
463

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.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:18 AM
horizontal rule
464

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.)


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
465

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:22 AM
horizontal rule
466

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
467

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.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
468

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.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
469

, 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.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
470

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


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
471

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
472

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
473

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.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
474

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."


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
475

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).


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
476

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.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:52 AM
horizontal rule
477

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.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:53 AM
horizontal rule
478

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:57 AM
horizontal rule
479

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.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
480

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.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
481

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.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:10 AM
horizontal rule
482

Delegate count via DKos:

25 Obama, 24 Clinton, 18 Edwards

Don't give up on John Edwards yet.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
483

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!!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
484

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
485

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?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
486

485: They know something you don't?


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
487

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.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
488

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.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
489

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
490

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?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
491

For example.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:22 AM
horizontal rule
492

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.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:22 AM
horizontal rule
493

Gotta love the headlines:

Post Iowa:

"McCain making comeback! [after low finish]"

Post NH:

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


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
494

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


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
495

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.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
496

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


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
497

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


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
498

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.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
499

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.


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
500

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


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
501

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
502

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?


Posted by: PerfectlyGoddamnDelightful | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
503

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-08 1:44 PM
horizontal rule