sozobe wrote:I think it could be about the media's reaction to the tears more than the tears. What Butrflynet referred to. White, college-educated women seemed to have a big part in the win and in the change from the polls.
What did you think of Bill's "fairytale" speech, Blatham? I thought he was preparing the way to go negative and he sure did. (Though evidently he was again going against the wishes of Hillary's campaign by doing so...)
Swimpy, looks like Edwards isn't planning to drop out of the race... he's said he's in it until the convention. (Have you seen something indicating otherwise?)
First, there's some good numbers at
Real Clear Politics
Second, if folks didn't read yesterday's op ed by Gloria Steinem, they ought to...
here
I was completely conflicted last night and remain so today. I wanted both Clinton and Obama to win and wanted neither to lose. I want a woman in the office and I want an african american in the office.
Further, I do not have any confident notion which of the two of them (and I could include Edwards here too) will end up being the better candidate (to produce a win) or a better President (to help produce a better american/world).
In the present discourse, it is
a given that Hillary or her campaign will 'attack'. That they will 'go negative'. You presume it as do many others and it is a fundamental presumption of the media (in the rightwing media, like fox, it is apparently not merely a presumption but a mandated preface to all discussion).
The presumption leads to 'perception'. And then perceptions are broadly warped and unbalanced as a consequence.
In the last debate, had the idiot/moderator made the charge to, say, Dodd that people/voters found him an unlikeable person, and then if Dodd had answered that he thought himself a likeable person, and then if Clinton had tossed in the ungracious comment from the side, "Oh, you're likeable enough, Chris"... what do you think the media (and you) would have thought about that one? Her cold-hearted bitchiness revealed again?
Watch the language. Which candidates are stated to be "drawing out differences" or "pointing to a candidate's weakness" and which are said to be "attacking" or "launching a negative campaign"?
Again, you find in Bill's statements things which I do not.