JANUARY 9, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Second Sex: [Michael
Tomasky, The
Guardian]: “I think it was mostly a rebellion by women voters against
the media. Most major media outlets had written Clinton's obituary and could barely conceal
their joy in doing so. And voters, especially women voters, said: not so fast.”
Our Bad!: [Andrew
Sullivan, The
Daily Dish]: “[T]he media piled on too much at the end and there was a
voter backlash; independents may have assumed an Obama victory and went for
McCain instead; the Democratic base responded to the Clinton appeal, especially
women and urban voters; the youth vote didn't quite turn out as well as it
should have; Clinton for the first time looked vulnerable and even human in the
final days”
Waiting Game: [John
Ellis, Real
Clear Politics]: “[T]he longer Huckabee faces two ‘not Huckabee’
candidates, all of whom are alien or anathema to the GOP's core
Sunbelt/Christian constituencies, the more likely it is he will eventually
emerge victorious in the final showdown, wherever that might occur.”
Going to Vegas: [Jonathan
Singer, MyDD]: “Obama
might not need a win now in Nevada, but with the backing of SEIU and
seemingly also of Unite Here/the culinary workers, it would be awfully
dampening to his momentum heading into South Carolina the following week were
he to get defeated by a hefty margin.”
--Ben Crair
5 comments
Tell me why anyone should pay attention to these jokers, again?
2000-2003: Excitable Andrew supports that humble and pure conservative W and his war to make the arab world safe for democracy.
2004-2006: the Excitable One hysterically fulminates against any and all supporters of said man and said war.
2007: the Excitable One throws his support to the humble and pure conservative Ron Paul, the one true conservative.
2008: E.O. casts over his latest crush when he learns that, Yes, Virginia, the libbetrarian Texan and best bud of Lew Rockwell is aligned with pro-Confederacy racism and crackpot survivalism (who'd have thunk it?)...
- teplukhin2you
January 9, 2008 at 2:37pm
Calm down Tep. The problem with all of us, laymen (pardon me, laypersons) and media alike, is that we are far too quick to make grand pronouncements and call this for one or the other. We've had one caucus and one primary, and we have two major candidates with strengths, weaknesses, and money, a couple minor ones who could play spoiler roles (Richardson, at least, in Nevada.....probably for Hillary if your worldview of ethnic groups at each other's throats in constant battle are true, because hispanics are supposed to be hostile to blacks and he might siphon them off from her....) and we have what is shaping up to be a fairly long process to go.
What the last week should teach us is to lay off the catagorical and sweeping predictions of anybody's ultimate triumph or anybody's far too hasty demise and just chill. Let Democracy play itself out. This is just getting good. Sullivan may be proved right or Sullivan (and everybody else, including you...) may be proved wrong. Thursday and last night should have given us all a little humility. This thing is going to be full of surprises. There are no sure things here and no paper tigers. Just a damn good election with some damn good candidates. Let it unfold.
- vanwurs
January 9, 2008 at 5:32pm
I'm totally calm. The Chairman is in power, and the situation is excellent.
Seriously, we agree, the process is unfolding and is working very well, imo-- telling each candidate where his/her flaws are and forcing them to up their games. My problem with the Excitable One is the way he leaps to sweeping conclusions about who's moral, who's immoral, etc and ignores simple, obvious facts.
His blog's Orwell quote is best applied to his own over-the-top hysterical style.
- teplukhin2you
January 9, 2008 at 5:38pm
There is no doubt in my mind that her tears AND the sexist reactions to them induced a backlash among women voters. PRetty sad state, though, when the positions that the candidates defend are so much less important than a tearful moment. And don't forget the dirty campaigning by the Clinton camp, with a right-wing style attack against Obama's proposed lifting of the Social Security cap, the blatant lie about his pro-choice position, and the stupid, incorrect slogan that Obama's proposals lack substance. They do not. And we know Hillary's substance: she is a hawk, pure and simple. And she has NOT been in the forefront of the defense of our civil liberties, and our Constitution. But all this becomes unimportant in the face of her sincere ( I believe ) tearful moment - probably because of the ridiculous media coverage it got, and all of the sexist comments we had to hear. Yes, the media's reaction to the tearful moment, re and re and reshowing it, with sexist comments included, we decisive as far as I', concerned. HOW can we women hold our head high when decisions are made not on the base of policy ( and Hillary's policies, her record, terrify me) but on the basis of knee-jerk sexist press overage, together with stupod comments from other candidates ( this means you, Edwards )? By the say, in some countries, polls are not permitted to be published the last days before an election. Seems like a good idea to me.
- irunkle
January 9, 2008 at 5:58pm
One thing that occurs to me is the possibility that blue-collar white men are threatened by Hillary and wouldn't tolerate their wives claiming to be Clinton supporters. That means that when a pollster asks, the wives claim to be backing John Edwards and then go behind the curtain in the voting booth and vote for Hillary. When asked about their vote in an exit poll, they lie.
- jenwinong
January 9, 2008 at 8:39pm