|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Will Hillary's tears make a difference? I can't imagine a candidate who got that emotional retaining a whole lot of credibility for long, and if she does get the nomination, then how long will it be before the Republican challenger asks if she will cry about anything else.
I think it is a big deal. Hillary has dealt with the question of whether a woman can be POTUS by acting tougher than any man in the race. This goes to the heart of her own positioning on how to deal with the gender issue.
I think this is just one part of many that appear to be unravelling for her. She has seen that her approach to running is not working. She really was pitching herself as "inevitable," and that isn't a viable pitch when you lose primaries. She was pitching herself as the embodiment of experience, and people are looking for a break from the past -- something that makes "experience" more of a liability than a virtue.
So, yes, I think her tearing up is a problem for her candidacy. But it is just one of many, and is more a reflection of the real problem -- that her candidacy is imploding -- than a source of its collapse. Personally, I won't miss her if she drops out -- I am one Democrat who has had Clinton fatigue for some time.
I'm not all that enthusiastic about the remainder of the field either, though. I worry about Obama's lack of experience, Edwards' angry populism, and Richardson's complete lack of campaigning skills. I was hoping that Biden would catch fire, but the break-with-the-past zeitgeist seems to pretty much make Obama the man to beat, and Biden a pariah this time out.
--Tom Clune
[ 08. January 2008, 14:55: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Then I saw Huckabee playing bass on The Tonight Show like Clinton did when he was running for president.
You're really weirding me out here, on several levels: didn't Clinton play saxophone?
(But the more I think about it I've heard both the sax and the bass are instruments of the devil so maybe you're onto something.)
Yes, Clinton is a sax man but I didn't realize I had forgotten to specify what satanic tool he was using until it was too late to edit.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I am sorry Hillary Clinton's campaign is unravelling, though she doesn't seem to have many fans on this thread.
She and Guiliani are the two I would feel most comfortable about from a UK viewpoint, not because of policies but because they seem the two who might be ready for the level of responsibility where your decisions affect the whole world not just the USA.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Actually Hillary was growing on me, not unlike a fungus. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I like her more than Obama, or at least I respect her experience more. I don't like any of the politicians frankly, with the possible exception of McCain. I was ready to vote for Hillary (because I'd rather chew my arm off than vote for the Republican Party at this point). Given Obama and some Republican, I may have to vote Independent just so I can say I didn't vote for either.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lad Himself
Accidental stowaway
# 2073
|
Posted
Am I horrible and cynical for assuming Hillary's tears were tactical tears?
My own fault for reading the hell thread "all crying is blackmail" too recently. I'm not actually suggesting she's planning on crying till she gets what she wants, though it'd be an interesting position. I'm just wondering if she's as cynical as I am, that's all.
Posts: 2302 | From: Southport, UK | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lad Himself:
Am I horrible and cynical for assuming Hillary's tears were tactical tears?
That was my assumption as well.
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Drudge is reporting that the turnout in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire is so heavy that some areas are running out of ballots.
Maybe we'll be back to hanging chads?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
quote:
Originally posted by The Lad Himself:
Am I horrible and cynical for assuming Hillary's tears were tactical tears?
That was my assumption as well.
I think you have to realise that people can cry for more than one reason. Some are less noble than others.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Drudge is reporting that the turnout in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire is so heavy that some areas are running out of ballots.
If so, that would bode well for Obama. Hillary sure isn't bringing any new voters (other than Mad Geo, of course) into the Democratic primary.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Drudge is reporting that the turnout in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire is so heavy that some areas are running out of ballots.
Maybe we'll be back to hanging chads?
No chads here in New Hampshire. Paper ballots pretty much everywhere, either counted by hand or run through optical scanners (which allows for recounting by hand if needed).
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
quote:
Originally posted by The Lad Himself:
Am I horrible and cynical for assuming Hillary's tears were tactical tears?
That was my assumption as well.
I think you have to realise that people can cry for more than one reason. Some are less noble than others.
I watched the video, and it looked entirely genuine to me. If someone had asked me such a caring personal question when I was exhausted beyond belief, I probably would have just laid my head down on the table and sobbed. I thought she simply looked like a human being. It won't make me vote for her in the primary -- she's too conservative -- but it makes me like her better.
Autenrieth Road: I think it's the second letter that makes Obama look green, because in it he doesn't seem to get why McCain is so pissed off.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I doubt that Hillary's tears would be tactical. It's far too ikely to backfire because crying makes her look weak. It's not something that she would deliberatly do, because the small amount of sympathy it might garner her is most likely overshadowed by the bad impression it makes.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lad Himself
Accidental stowaway
# 2073
|
Posted
Maybe I'm wrong to call it cynical, I have a real problem with personality politics. To put it more charitably, it just looked to me like she felt genuine tears coming (as everybody does sometimes) but made a decision to let them show. I'm not saying that kind of conscious play with emotion is necessarily a bad thing. It's communication. I mean, of course people cry for lots of different reasons. But to actually lose control? Hillary, of all people? NOW? Way too crucial a moment. She's a seasoned politican and she's been under intense pressure many times before.
Posts: 2302 | From: Southport, UK | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lad Himself:
Maybe I'm wrong to call it cynical, I have a real problem with personality politics.
Um, isn't debating whether Hillary Clinton was genuinely crying, pretending to cry, tempted to cry and unable to resist, or just plain pooped after a long day, well, pretty much personality politics? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
So what if Hilary decided to let a bit of her exhaustion show in front of a group of supporters (mostly women from the glimpses I've seen)? Is that any more calculating than Huckabee making a big deal of his Christian pastor background in Iowa, only to backpedal it once he hit the more sceptical libertarian shores of New Hampshire? Or whatever Romney's pulled? (I haven't been paying much attention to Mitt - I got to watch him from just a few miles away for the past few years and saw more than enough).
At any rate, I made my little trek down to Town Hall, chatted with the usual suspects, picked my temporary party affiliation, voted, and scurried over to the table where we undeclareds wash off the cooties. The deed is done.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lad Himself
Accidental stowaway
# 2073
|
Posted
quote:
Um, isn't debating whether Hillary Clinton was genuinely crying, pretending to cry, tempted to cry and unable to resist, or just plain pooped after a long day, well, pretty much personality politics?
Well, I guess so. But that doesn't mean I'm proud of myself. I'm addicted to personality politics as a sort of soap opera, but I am tormented over its meaning for democracy.
It's a sore spot. The Green Party in England and Wales have recently voted to switch to a leader / co-leader structure, and it has disturbed me. Ostensibly the idea is to make the party more accessible to the media but it just feels like playing into their hands. Do we trust the media? - see also the media assassination of recent UK LibDem leader Menzies Campbell, who looked a bit old. Anyway sorry for tangent. You're quite right.
[ 08. January 2008, 20:35: Message edited by: The Lad Himself ]
Posts: 2302 | From: Southport, UK | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I watched the video, and it looked entirely genuine to me.
I caught some of it subsequent to my post above. My comment wasn't really about Hillary in particular; but I've noticed more than once that people can cry for all sorts of reasons which are internally consistent for them, but which can be very widely (mis)interpreted by onlookers. Distinguishing tears of remorse and tears of repentance can be tricky, for instance. Here endeth the tangent.
[ 08. January 2008, 21:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I watched the video, and it looked entirely genuine to me. If someone had asked me such a caring personal question when I was exhausted beyond belief, I probably would have just laid my head down on the table and sobbed. I thought she simply looked like a human being.
Right. After all the crap she's gotten as "calculated" or an "ice queen," here she has a moment where she gets a little verklempt -- her voice wavers for a second and her eyes seem to fill up, although no tears were actually shed -- and this becomes the lead on all the news channels. And I was appalled when John Edwards played the weakness card yesterday -- some remark about "if you're going to be Commander-in-Chief, you have to be steady." I felt that was a cheap shot, mean-spirited and chauvinistic to the core, worthy perhaps of Guiliani but not of a fellow Democrat.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lad Himself
Accidental stowaway
# 2073
|
Posted
It was a shame. It was desperate, mainly.
(Edwards' comment, I mean)
[ 08. January 2008, 22:30: Message edited by: The Lad Himself ]
Posts: 2302 | From: Southport, UK | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I think that Hilary's tears were both real and ok.
IME, most women can't cry on demand. I watched her face; it relaxed as she cried and talked...which I'd expect with real tears.
It makes her softer and more human...a Hilary that I might actually *like* to have as president, for more than her gender.
Given the macho posturing by so many presidents...who went on to really mess up...are a few tears--in the context of talking about how deeply she feels that the country is in deep trouble--such a bad thing?
BTW, I thought she did a great job of handling the guy with the "Iron My Shirt!" sign who turned up at a different meeting. He caused a disturbance; and she said something to the effect of "he's welcome to stay in here and I'll tell him how to iron his *own* shirt". ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
ETA: I think Edwards was just nasty about this. I don't like him to begin with. Not enough "there" there...and most of what is there seems nasty.
[ 09. January 2008, 01:07: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
John Edwards told reporters he was unaware of Clinton's emotional reaction and would not respond to it, but added, according to CNN's Dugald McDonnell: "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being President of the United States is also a very tough business. And the President of the United States is faced with very, very difficult challenges every single day, difficult judgments every single day."
What is "nasty" about that? It obviously wasn't a prepared statement. And what about it wouldn't you agree with? What could he have said, "Ah, we all want to cry at some time or another." Then he would have been accused of being flippant.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Autenrieth Road: I think it's the second letter that makes Obama look green, because in it he doesn't seem to get why McCain is so pissed off.
Oh dear, colour me phenomenally green too then, and not in an environmental sense.
I read it as 2nd letter making Obama look bad, but then 3rd letter makes Obama look good again. I can't quite tell which parts of either of them is real political posturing and which part is good faith. But if I take McCain's letter as good faith, then I take Obama's 2nd letter as good faith too. And if I were to take Obama's 2nd letter as bad faith (I don't think naivete explains it to me), then I would take McCain's equally well as bad faith.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
[Bah, ran out of edit time by pressing the quote button.]
Either way I take it that Obama very much does understand why McCain is pissed off, and either he's given an honest explanation, or he's giving a calculated explanation, but either way he as much as McCain knows what's what.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
Hillary won New Hampshire, so did McCain.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Hmmm....Ms. Clinton seems to be winning but its an intriguing thing if you look at who did what at what polls.
It is the larger centres where Clinton has gained her lead. In many if not most of the smaller centres, Obama is winning.
The triumph of the city based party machine over the rural independent folks more taken by the hype/desire for change?
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
John Edwards told reporters he was unaware of Clinton's emotional reaction and would not respond to it, but added, according to CNN's Dugald McDonnell: "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being President of the United States is also a very tough business. And the President of the United States is faced with very, very difficult challenges every single day, difficult judgments every single day."
What is "nasty" about that? It obviously wasn't a prepared statement. And what about it wouldn't you agree with? What could he have said, "Ah, we all want to cry at some time or another." Then he would have been accused of being flippant.
If I were to see that quote entirely out of context, I'd certainly agree with it. But the problem is, it was made in a particular context. And in that context, he's drawing a straight line between a candidate's emotional moment to a question of fitness to govern. I also think it's a little cheap to use the "I'm not going to comment but..." formula for slipping in a dig. I haven't had the impression of Edwards being nasty, so I was surprised that he resorted to this. At any rate, none of this seemed to have hurt her, as the AP has just called the NH race in her favor.
[ 09. January 2008, 02:58: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
[Bah, ran out of edit time by pressing the quote button.]
Either way I take it that Obama very much does understand why McCain is pissed off, and either he's given an honest explanation, or he's giving a calculated explanation, but either way he as much as McCain knows what's what.
Could be. I obviously don't know. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall at their next meeting, though.
Well, I was very wrong about how the Democratics would go tonight, but pretty right about the Republicans. Rather troubling, I must say! I hope they don't take my liberal card away.
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Hmmm....Ms. Clinton seems to be winning but its an intriguing thing if you look at who did what at what polls.
It is the larger centres where Clinton has gained her lead. In many if not most of the smaller centres, Obama is winning.
The triumph of the city based party machine over the rural independent folks more taken by the hype/desire for change?
jlg can speak with far more authority, but I imagine this is not the case. New Hampshire is a small state, and it doesn't have anything like what I'd call a big city. And they're all pretty independent up there -- some 40 some-odd % of them won't pick a political party.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
The largest two cities in NH have around 100,000 residents each. The state capital, where I live, has about 44,000 people.
We are definitely a rural state. Dixville Notch, which always votes first, has a total of 17 registered voters, and there are lots of little towns of 3-4,000 people.
[ 09. January 2008, 03:25: Message edited by: Foolhearty ]
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...New Hampshire is a small state, and it doesn't have anything like what I'd call a big city. And they're all pretty independent up there -- some 40 some-odd % of them won't pick a political party.
There's a reason they have the slogan "Live Free or Die" on their license plates.
There is nothing there a Noo Yawkuh would recognize as a city at all. It's mostly exurban, from what I've seen, with small cities, small towns, and lots of houses scattered on big lots.
Ross
[crossposted with Foolhearty]
[ 09. January 2008, 03:26: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
OK then...the triumph of the small town machine over the rural believers then?
Cause looking at the poll by poll data (before CBS scripts killed my firefox) was pretty conclusive...the margin is pretty much all due to larger centres.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Just because the numbers are smaller doesn't mean there may not be differences between relatively-populous vs. very-rural area. Maine is similarly sparse to down-state New York eyes, but has large political differences between counties and between north and south of the state.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
OK then...the triumph of the small town machine over the rural believers then?
Cause looking at the poll by poll data (before CBS scripts killed my firefox) was pretty conclusive...the margin is pretty much all due to larger centres.
I can't find the CBS poll data anywhere, but I'd guess that the bigger places would have more traditional blue-collar Democratic voters. I don't know if I'd call this a machine, just the Democrats' long-time northeast base. And the Clinton campaign did say they'd built a firewall in NH, and it looks like it held.
ETA: I wouldn't disagree at all, AR -- just that I don't think NH could ge characterized as having a big-city machine thing going on there, because they don't have big cities and the folks up there wouldn't stand for being railroaded by a machine.
[ 09. January 2008, 03:40: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Maybe the population slant reflects where Clinton campaigned hard: in more populous areas, to get a denser bang for the buck.
I don't know very much specific about New Hampshire politics. Though in Maine I'd agree that the split isn't population, it's North of Bangor and South of Bangor.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
Hillary won New Hampshire, so did McCain.
the strangeness of politics. A few weeks ago, if Hillary had polled these numbers, it would have been considered a disaster as she was way ahead in NH.
As Harold Wilson (of blessed Memory had it "a week is a long time in politics"
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
NH has a north-south split too, traditionally. North of the Notches, it's very conservative (but also quite sparsely populated).
The cities in the southern tier are becoming more diverse and more democratic, though only 10-15 years ago, the whole state would have been considered a Republican stronghold.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Cross-posted with a lot of people]
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
OK then...the triumph of the small town machine over the rural believers then?
Cause looking at the poll by poll data (before CBS scripts killed my firefox) was pretty conclusive...the margin is pretty much all due to larger centres.
What on earth are you talking about? Here in NH our "larger centres" are Portsmouth and Manchester, with Concord, Salem and Nashua straggling along behind. None of them qualify as anything remotely more than a "larger centre" by local standards, which means they're pretty much simply Big Towns (compared to the rest of us), except for Manchester, which "used to be a big manufacturing City, but is now scrabbling to survive". We simply don't do Big Cities.
But what I heard on the local Public Radio coverage commentary while I was driving home from choral society rehearsal, was that while Hilary had taken the expected blue-collar city constituency, she was also unexpectedly taking the surrounding "college-educated women" demographic in the suburban communities surrounding those isolated spots of blue-collar liberal urbanism here in New Hampshire.
To be honest, I attribute her win here in New Hampshire to all the politically active women we have. I saw a lot of signs, but I also saw a lot of Obama and Romney and Huckabee and Ron Paul signs. But when I went to the poll today, I saw my various elected officials and all the usual unelected volunteers. And as usual, the majority of them were female.
So is it any surpise that most of the signs out front were for Hilary? We have a solid history of strong women politicians here in New Hampshire, at all levels of government.
[ 09. January 2008, 04:09: Message edited by: jlg ]
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Thanks, jlg -- I was hoping you'd be along to tell us what's what about NH.
What do you make of McCain's win? The NY Times puts his win down to tireless campaigning; the guy running things for him in NH estimates McCain talked to 25,000 people.
I disagree with about 90% of McCain's positions, but I have to say, I like the guy. I believe him when he says he's telling the truth. If he were president I'd yell at the TV a lot when he was on, but I wouldn't feel like hurling things at it the way I do with the current occupant of the White House.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Well I got back from doing pottery tonite, opened up MSNBC, and the Teutonic Goddess and I did a big Happy Dance at the news. Lots of whoopping at hollering at Hillary's win. The thought of Obama winning this one gives me the willies. He really doesn't seem experienced enough the more I hear and see him.
Oh and btw the Teutonic Goddess is from N.H. and the word "Independent" just doesn't quite cut it. It's like describing the Liberty Bell as "just a little ringer".
N.H. is the future home of the Free State Project and they selected N.H. for good reason.
The old saying "You can't herd cats" was first said while pointing at a New Hampshirite.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I found something really, really cool, at least for those of who really are political junkies: http://www.mapthecandidates.com/ . You can see where they all campaigned. It looks like Barack Obama ventured a little further afield from the bigger towns than Hillary Clinton, and nobody but Edwards went north.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
This mornings UK papers (at least the early editions) are confidently predicting and Obama landslide, with stories about Clinton considering sacking her aides. Meanwhile the radio and TV news are reporting Clinton's win.
I love it when the press get it so wrong ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
I'm hoping to see "we was wrong" editorials tomorrow, but experience of the British press tells me that isn't going to happen.
Lots of commentary on the radio as to how Clinton came from behind, and how Obama lost it, but only the briefest mention of McCain also coming from behind to win.
Still it is the first indication I've seen that the Republicans are contesting this election. Can anyone explain the almost blanket coverage of the Democrats campaigns and marginalisation of the Republicans in the UK media?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Hmmm:
Hillary Clinton - 39%
Barack Obama - 36%
John Edwards - 17%
Bill Richardson - 5%
Is this a surprise for Edwards given he was essentially tied with Clinton in Iowa? I'd have thought he'd do better in the 'East'.
And another 'Comeback Clinton' story in New Hampshire... is there anything new under the sun.
John McCain - 37%
Mitt Romney - 32%
Mike Huckabee - 11%
Rudy Giuliani - 9%
Ron Paul - 8%
Huckabee beat Giuliani who just edged out Paul?
Those NH folks must be a different breed.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
John McCain - 37%
Mitt Romney - 32%
Mike Huckabee - 11%
Rudy Giuliani - 9%
Ron Paul - 8%
Huckabee beat Giuliani who just edged out Paul?
And all three of them together not equalling the second-place candidate!
Its hard to imagine Giuliani being in the race for much longer.
Actually, with that lot in the list, its easy to imagine it going to the convention and them choosing someone who isn't even standing yet.
I love elections. They are my sport. I love them the way some people love football ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 09. January 2008, 11:04: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
Can anyone explain the almost blanket coverage of the Democrats campaigns and marginalisation of the Republicans in the UK media?
1) everyone expects the Democrats to win. Most British people who pay attention, including most British journalists, want the Democrats to win.
2) Clinton is a woman and Obama is black, which is a bit of human interest that foreign media can pick up on easily. Deep down inside most Brits don't really care about US politics, so long as they don't bomb us or anyone we like.
3) we've already heard of Clinton. Fame sells papers. She counts as a celebrity. And remember, the Clintons are popular here.
4) the three front-running democrats are normal politicians by UK standards. Our political journalists can make sense of them in their own terms. The only Republican on that list who looks normal to British journalists is Giuliani (maybe, just maybe, McCain) Huckabee and Romney and especially Paul are off our radar. No-one like them would ever be likely to be elected to high office in Britain, and our journalists don't know how to relate to them, or to describe them to their readers.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
To me both the Democratic and Republican primaries have narrowed. For the Democrats, Hillary and Barack will slug it out. For the Republicans I still think John, Mitt, Rudy, Fred, and Mike are leading. Lots more shaking out to do for the GOP.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
This mornings UK papers (at least the early editions) are confidently predicting and Obama landslide, with stories about Clinton considering sacking her aides. Meanwhile the radio and TV news are reporting Clinton's win.
I love it when the press get it so wrong
I'm hoping to see "we was wrong" editorials tomorrow, but experience of the British press tells me that isn't going to happen.
Dewey Defeats Truman!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
It seems McCain did better than expected and Obama less. Maybe a pretty good number of independents who were going to vote for Obama figured he was going to win easily and decided at the last moment to vote for McCain.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems McCain did better than expected and Obama less. Maybe a pretty good number of independents who were going to vote for Obama figured he was going to win easily and decided at the last moment to vote for McCain.
I don't know, but that approach to voting impresses me as very strange. I do think that the Republicans would be crazy to run anyone other than McCain -- he's the only one of their candidates who would have national appeal and could reliably attract a large number of cross-over voters (IMO of course).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
To me both the Democratic and Republican primaries have narrowed. For the Democrats, Hillary and Barack will slug it out.\
and certainly, the electibility factor in the General Election will loom large in the debates between the 2 of them.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
If Hillary's win came as result of her "becoming emotional" (read crying) perhaps she had just seen a rerun of the old Spencer Tracey Katherine Hepburn film "Adam's Rib". In that film, playing oppposing lawyers, Tracey accuses Hepburn of using her tears to win the case. He goes on to show her that he can cry on demand too.
Maybe, if Hillary was playing the crying card, Obama should show her he can cry too.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
...the electibility factor in the General Election will loom large in the debates between the 2 of them.
"Electability" is one of the oddest arguments imaginable. "Sure, you can't stand me. But other people can, so vote for me for their sake..."
To my mind, the great advantage in voting in the primaries at all is you have a better chance of being able to vote for someone who you would really like to see get elected. In the general election, you're usually just voting to keep the bigger creep from getting in.
--Tom Clune
[ 09. January 2008, 14:02: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
