January 13, 2008
“Winning” and “Losing”
I don’t think it can be properly said that Obama “won” Iowa or that Clinton “won” NH. I heard Thomm Hartmann on Air America Thursday (Jan 10) morning explain that the contests we’re seeing are about assigning delegates to various candidates. In Iowa, Obama got the most votes so he got the most delegates but Edwards got some for placing and Clinton got some for showing. In NH, Clinton got the most votes so she got the most delegates, etc.
He said the standings (at that time) showed Obama with 25 delegates, Clinton with 24, and Edwards with 18. (I didn’t give a rat’s tail about the Repugs…)
…at least it’s a good race…
barackobama.com
I went to your Barack link, Bart. On the splashpage, bottom right corner of the box is a link; ‘continue to web page’. I found it quickly and easily and when I clicked the link, I found detailed information regarding the candidate, his positions on a variety of subjects and several other links containing a plethora of information. (Ok, so I just wanted to use ‘plethora’ in a sentence.)
I, too, have been known to scan a page too quickly to see what’s written on the page…
Comments Off
Why Does The Main Scream Media Hate It? – Grimgold
ElectionWatch: Media Ignore, Misreport ‘FairTax’ amid Huckabee Surge
When reporters aren’t completely ignoring the proposal to overhaul the U.S. tax system, they’re dismissing or mischaracterizing the FairTax.
By Nathan Burchfiel
Business & Media Institute
1/9/2008 11:41:25 AM
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s caucus victory in Iowa last week came in part thanks to anti-IRS fiscal conservatives attracted to his support for the “FairTax.” He also finished with a better-than-expected showing in the New Hampshire primary, coming in third.
The media acknowledged the FairTax’s role in Huckabee’s Iowa victory, citing high turnout from members of FairTax groups as one reason for his win over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. But in spite of its importance the media have largely ignored the concept. And when they attempted to cover it, they attacked it as unworkable, “fringe,” “radical,” “regressive,” and “crackpot.” (more…)
Comments Off
Mind-reading…
Under the subject “your truce”, you wrote: “But this mind-reading bullshit has to stop.”
Under the subject “Hillary’s tears and the truth” you wrote:
“I think she made deals to get enough power to take the reigns.”
Are you not “mind-reading”? Or did she tell you her plan?
Newt Says Hillary Shows Courage and Integrity
Kenneth P. Vogel, Politico.com, January 8, 2008
Newt Gingrich’s on-again, off-again adulation of Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be back on.
The leader of the 1994 Republican revolution – who as House speaker in the mid 1990s clashed fiercely with then-first lady Clinton and her husband, Bill Clinton – attributed her surprise victory in New Hampshire to the Democratic presidential candidate’s courage, integrity and openness.
After Clinton’s third-place finish in the Jan. 3 Iowa Democratic caucuses, “it would have been very easy for her to have broken, accepted defeat,” Gingrich said in a weekly podcast e-mailed to supporters.
“Instead, starting on Saturday night, she fought back with greater and greater intensity, and she opened herself up,” Gingrich went on. “She talked as a person, without all the protection, without all the discipline, and she became more and more appealing.”
Gingrich said that shift demonstrated “the courage to learn” and enabled the New York senator to grow “in the space of three or four days to a much more attractive, much more aggressive and much more appealing candidate.”
Frank Rich: Haven’t We Heard This Voice Before?
Frank Rich, The New York Times, January 13, 2007
She had me at “Well, that hurts my feelings.”
One cliché about Hillary Clinton is true. For whatever reason — and it’s no crime — the spontaneous, outgoing person who impresses those who meet her offstage often evaporates when she steps into the public spotlight. But in the crucial debate before the New Hampshire primary, the private Clinton popped out for the first time in the 2008 campaign. She parried a male inquisitor’s questioning of her likability by being, of all things, likable.
Not only did Mrs. Clinton betray some (but not too many) hurt feelings with genuine humor, she upped the ante by flattering Barack Obama as “very likable.” Which prompted the Illinois senator to match Mrs. Clinton’s most human moment to date with the most inhuman of his own. To use family-newspaper language, he behaved like a jerk — or, to be more precise, like Rick Lazio, the now-forgotten adversary who cleared Mrs. Clinton’s path to the Senate by boorishly waving a paper in her face during a 2000 debate.
Mr. Obama’s grudging “You’re likable enough, Hillary” made him look like “an ex-husband that was turning over the alimony check,” in the formulation of Paul Begala, a Clinton backer. The moment stood in stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s behavior in the corresponding debate just before the Iowa caucuses. There he raised his head high to defend Joe Biden’s honor when Mr. Biden was questioned about his tic of spouting racial malapropisms.
Whatever the precise impact of the incessant video replays of Mr. Obama’s condescension or of Mrs. Clinton’s later quasi tears, Tuesday’s vote speaks for itself. In her 2.6 percentage-point, 7,500-vote victory, Mrs. Clinton beat Mr. Obama among women voters by 12 percentage points only five days after he carried them by 5 points in Iowa. As we reopen the gender wars, let’s not forget that it’s 2008, not 1968. There are actually some men who are offended by sexist male behavior too. Or by the female misogyny exemplified by the South Carolina woman who asked John McCain in November, “How do we beat the bitch?”
Read More Here