Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 07:30 am
She just won that's all... and no one wants to merely credit her for it.... which makes it all the sweeter to me Cool
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 07:33 am
Well, credit her how though?

If the polls were indicating that she'd win all the way through, totally. I have a hard time discounting the volume of polls that predicted Obama would win handily though. So, what changed, and why?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 07:38 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
She just won that's all... and no one wants to merely credit her for it.... which makes it all the sweeter to me


Well, yes - the truth is also that she's been a better, more sturdy campaigner than the pundits had given her credit for.

In the few days after Iowa, she didnt waver, went full-out with endless townhall meetings, answering every last question people had. In Saturday night's debate she did well, at least as well as the others, in the face of a media climate of ridicule and disdain. She realised in time that such seemingly unprofessional things as lowering her guard (the tears moment) and playing the female charm card (her answer in the debate about how Obama was polling as more "likeable") sometimes are just what you need. And she avoided ever acting intimidated or losing her cool a la Dean.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 07:42 am
She certainly did work hard and most likely earned her victory. My daughter is very pleased -- she wants a woman president "for once". She's still the establishment candidate to me so I can't get behind her.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 07:43 am
I think nimh just gave you a pretty handy answer soz......


Now how about a victory party



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/stevetheq/clintonsinbondage.jpg
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 07:47 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I think nimh just gave you a pretty handy answer soz......


Not really, since that would seem to belie the bounce Obama got. And that (the bounce via polls) was mostly from the 5th and 6th -- well after any effects of seeing her keep cool after the loss, and half after the debate performance. Unless the polls are to be discounted -- which is of course possible -- then Obama was doing much better than her up until the 6th, and then things changed.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Now how about a victory party


Heh...!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 07:52 am
I do agree with this btw:

nimh wrote:
Well, yes - the truth is also that she's been a better, more sturdy campaigner than the pundits had given her credit for.


I think pundits were too quick to give it all to Obama, and I've been careful not to do that because I do think that her campaign is formidable. I don't really respect some aspects of what happened (Bill's speech, for example), but I was always nervous about NH.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 08:07 am
Good point from Andrew Sullivan, I agree:

Quote:
I said my piece here, but I do think that if Obama struggles and fights and wins a long, tough campaign, he will help dispel some of the sense that he is a neophyte and inexperienced - his major liabilities in the fall. This can help him. He's the under-dog again. And he can - and, I think, will still win.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/some-reader-rea.html

Well, not "will" -- that goes too far for me. But this goes back to what I said at some point recently about campaigns being a window into how someone will govern, and I agree that if Obama runs a savvy, tough, hardworking campaign -- if it doesn't all just fall in his lap -- that'll serve him better in the general election if he does manage to get the nomination.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 08:12 am
I think that if Obama continues on his present path and shows himself to be thoughtful and resilient and gets some experience under his belt he will make a great president in 2016 after Hill is done.....and I will vote for him happily.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 08:26 am
The tears. It must have been the tears.

We conclude this because:
1) it is the ubiquitous conclusion of the experts today at The National Review.

2) the over-towering importance of the tears/showing her human side event was the subject of hours of studious and analytic discussion on every political show the media has to offer. Even if the three earlier instances where Mitt got teary-eyed gained nary a peep.

3) and because (as bill suggests in an earlier post here) tears are the way that females (and children) mediate their relationships with the rest of the world. When they don't use their alternate device, the slut thing, of course. Hysteria...it's how women win contests.
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 08:26 am
The big question remains where the Edwards people will go after he drops out of the race.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 08:30 am
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?)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 08:49 am
Here's the "fairy tale" speech I keep referring to btw -- videos and a transcript:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/_by_frank_james_the.html
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 08:54 am
I just can't believe that her "choking up" actually worked. I thought (or hoped) that we as a species had become more savvy than to be swayed by such trivialities, whether her threat of tears was genuine or rehearsed. Geez... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 08:57 am
Brazile's full comments, (I mentioned her reaction yesterday):

Quote:
Brazile: I could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn't take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It's time that they regroup. Figure out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing.

[snip]

Blitzer: But tell me why, as an African-American, Donna, you feel that the president's comments weren't appropriate.

Brazile: First of all, if Bill Bennett [also on the show] had said some of the things that Bill Clinton is saying about Barack Obama, I would have called Bill Bennett out of his name and said that Bill Bennett should shut his mouth because he is not speaking in the right tone. I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United States senator. He's experienced. The people of Illinois elected him, and regardless of what kind of items are on his résumé, this is a man who has worked all his life. He's proven; he's been a college professor. I don't have to give Barack Obama a résumé. I'm not for anyone at this point. But I think for Bill Clinton to go out of his way to become a distraction to Hillary Clinton and to launch the kind of attack on Obama is just out of character for Bill Clinton. I think it's time he helps Hillary talk about her message and not go down this road.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Brazile_on_Bill_Depressing.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:04 am
eoe wrote:
I just can't believe that her "choking up" actually worked. I thought (or hoped) that we as a species had become more savvy than to be swayed by such trivialities, whether her threat of tears was genuine or rehearsed. Geez... Rolling Eyes


Here's Maureen Dowd. It's one example from among thousands...
Quote:
When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the "humanized" Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. "We are at war," he said. "Is this how she'll talk to Kim Jong-il?"

Another reporter joked: "That crying really seemed genuine. I'll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand." He added dryly: "Crying doesn't usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships."
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:08 am
I read it and saved it.
Still can't believe it.
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:30 am
sozobe wrote:

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?)


Edwards has no money. He can't stay in forever.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:47 am
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.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:50 am
Donna Brazile did, too.

Honestly Blatham... you see nothing to object to in Bill's speech?

Or are you saying that yes, of course, they'll "go negative" and make **** up, and that's fine?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 333
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.39 seconds on 06/19/2025 at 04:23:03