In her victory speech last night, Hillary Clinton probably nailed the underlying reason for her remarkable comeback in New Hampshire. In the last three days, Clinton had changed her pattern, spending far more time taking questions and comments and less time delivering the same old stump speech. "I listened to you," she told the voters of New Hampshire, "and in the process, I found my own voice.
"Too many have been invisible for too long; you’re not invisible to me. . . . There will be no more invisible Americans. . . .
"Now let’s give the country the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me."
On MSNBC last night, Katrina vanden Heuvel made the point that these candidates are learning from each other. Obama’s speech borrowed populist themes from Edwards, she noted, adding that Clinton probably turned her campaign around when she said she rediscovered the progressive causes and reasons why she was running.
When Clinton castigated the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the predatory loan companies, she was echoing Edward’s speeches. "For seven years they’ve had a President who stood up for them. Now it’s time you had someone stand up for you."
Edwards and Obama each delivered eloquent and gracious speeches, congratulating Hillary Clinton but also reaffirming their respective central themes. Obama’s speech restated how important hope has become in this race. In the face of an unexpected second place, his rejection of the claim of "false hope" and his insistence that "yes, we can" seemed the right message for his supporters and the country. (And it will play well elsewhere as "si, se puede.")
There was something else new in Obama’s speech — at least since Iowa. It was the declaration of the new, emerging majority of Americans who are eager for change — "something’s happening in America" — echoing the notion that last night again signaled a growing public repudiation of the Bush/Cheney regime. As in Iowa, the increase in votes for Democrats swamped those for Republicans. "We are ready to take this country in a fundamentally different direction," Obama declared, as he listed just some of the issues on which the current regime has been abysmal.
Edwards reminded us of the people he’s met, the people who needed a helping hand but didn’t get it. He vowed to keep fighting for them, so he’s staying in the race through the nomination. Rejecting the media’s annoying tendency to eliminate voices prematurely, Edwards reminded them it’s important to hear from the 99 percent of the country that had not yet voted.
It was another great night for Democrats. We’ll continue to have at least three strong voices, each articulating important pieces of the Democratic message — hope, experience, competence, commitment, empathy, and passion — plus a rejection of BushCheneyism. It’s a winning progressive combination for whoever pulls it all together, and now they all see it.
In Iowa last week, Obama’s youth roared; in New Hampshire last night, Hillary’s women roared back. The Democrats are becoming lions. Be afraid, Bush Republicans; be very afraid.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
yo
So, do you figure the rest of the party isn’t fighting like we are here on the Lake?
Good morning Scarecrow!
Good morning, Scarecrow. As usual, very good post.
Well, I think we are still trying to find our voice.
For me bottom line, any of the 3 Dems is so much better than the Repubs. I want a Democratic president to work with the Congress. Not paradise, but better than what we have now.
I can’t get past the fear that the machines are hackable and all the outrage and passion will be wiped away by a simple click of the button. And, now they have the 2004 election as a lesson that they have to tweak those machines a little more.
Good morning; I’ve added a link to Obama’s speech. We try to find Edwards.
Agreed. Any one of the three offers the country a chance to get out of this handbag.
there is no doubt that the clinton money machine has had to copy the Edwards’ positions but that tells us squat because if one thinks for one minute that she, or in fact obama, who are bought and paid for by the same corporations that Edwards castigates, can effect any change from the corporate owned world they are sadly mistaken.
Yeah, I wish the media would try to find him.
Seems like there are a good many (see how living in Georgia can make you say funny stuff) who think Hil and Obama are just as bad as the repubs. I’m just sayin.
Raven -
Comes of having been born at one end of the state and spending most of my adult life at the other end. Not so sweet when the tax/insurance/upkeep bills start pourin’ in….and it be that time of year. :-(
Hi, is BlueStateRedHead lurking? I’ve got some links to share. :)
Good Morning Scarecrow,
It’s a fine day
(except for the part where it’s raining)
A couple points about Hillary’s win. (always feel like putting an asterik after saying that). If the women did swing her way, I feel there were 2 reasons.
1)She’s better at answering questions than giving a speech. She seems warmer and of course, she’s well prepared to answer most questions.
2)The “Iron my shirt” guys ticked off the women voters. I was so p-o’ed when I heard that. Haven’t heard such open sexism at a public forum…well…ever. It’s akin to using a racial slur.
Look, I like John Edwards very much. However, his political record, his actual votes, are almost exact the same as Hillary Clintons. For some reason, you accept his change from a moderate democrat to what you consider to be the only progress, but no one else. Those of us who believe it is essential to root out all vestigas of the Bush Administration and it’s lockstep supporters aren’t Mary Poppinses and didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I helped beat Barry Goldwater, for God’s sake. So lighten up on the inferences and hold out the slim possiblility that you might be wrong on a thing or two.
Don’t knock the rain, darlin’…… we in the SE will take every drop you don’t want. ;-)
No, but you’ve heard a decorated combat veteran called a traitor, coward and a liar and not many people seemed moved to vote for him because of it.
We’ll have to see how Hillary pushes her re-discovered progressive ideas in the coming months. Si, se puede is a call for action from the downtrodden and I’m interested in seeing how these corporate-sponsored politicians deal with the real issues facing those whose call is “Yes, we can.” A comment I saw a few days ago stated that a hard turn to the left by Obama is a turn to the center. I think that’s true but is not limited to Obama. I’m suspicious of anything the Clinton’s do and would never vote for Hillary for anything but it’s going to be fun to watch.
It’s as bad in NC as it is anywhere.
It was an exciting night last night – I could hardly sleep!
Good morning, all – coffee is almost ready.
Hillary might want to thank those two ironing buttheads for so openingly doing what the MSM had been doing in their own snide and cheapshot way. Anyone with a wife, daughter, sister or niece should have been pissed. Those two turkeys will need to find some Stepfords Republicans to date.
Ooooh, you nail it, Scarecrow!
Republican levee, meet Democratic tsunami….
I am so proud to be a Democrat this morning.
Tell it, brother! Is your water table looking any better in GA?
Does anyone think that Obama’s and Hillary’s new found populism will translate into supporting Dodd and his FISA fight? That would cement it for me….that they mean what they say. I can see Hillary fighting. I can’t see Obama doing it.
The smaller lakes are better but Lanier is still wayyyyy down.
I think the Iowa and NH results — the turnouts, the motivations are showing a lot of folks are ready to take on the Bushies. I find this very encouraging. I wonder what the Dem leadership is hearing.
By copying Edwards populist approach, Sen Clinton and Obama are validating it. It is freaking big business out and we will have to see who goes after our two frontrunners because of it. Edwards still does populism best, and it is interesting to see the other two copy it. We will see if the change mantra morphs into populism. By validating Edwards they are risking interest being redirected back to him.
Footsteps
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/…..s_race.php
edwards
seems unlikely…
Who lost last night?
The media. NH delivered a severe rebuke that we’re not listening to them anymore. If I were Tweety, I’d take a day or two off and examine my conscience.
Re:
Do we have any information on those two hecklers at the Clinton event? The reason that I ask is that (can you believe it?) there is occasionally some fraud involved in politics.
Here’s a recent example. Fox News Caught Rigging Their Focus Groups
With the polls indicating that Hillary was cratering in New Hampshire, how difficult do you think it would be for the Clinton team to work on “ideas” about how they might manipulate the public’s mind? How likely do you think that that tear in Hillary’s eye was created just in the same way that stage and movie actresses can well up with emotion when they get into a role? What do you think are the possibilities that the pasty faced boys who were acting like absolutely no sane protestor would might have been confederates of the Clinton machine who were perpetrating a fraud? They sure seemed to give up without a fight, and the security personnel seemed to have little trouble with the boys who exited in a very orderly fashion after staging their outburst.
Think along the lines of really much bigger political frauds. Are you familiary with Operation Gladio? For political advatage, the right wing secret police in Italy murdered multiple dozens of ordinary citizens in egregious attacks that were blamed on the Left. Could Hillary have been trying to arouse her feminist friends and other sympathizers by staging a blatantly sexist and totally stupid “event”? I sure wouldn’t put it past her. She’s a professional politician, after all. And her husband has had two terms worth of full access to every dirty trick that our duplicious and immoral intelligence community could cook up. Watch out for this woman.
The public has tuned out the media especially the pundits and the reporters who pretend to be. The regular non political junkies look at the press and see George Bush and Iraq. They have to get information from the press but they don’t really believe them. This is why the big corporate press is slowly dying. Instead of information they sell punditry and entertainment which is being ignored more and more by the public.
Actions speak louder than words. Her votes over her tenure as a Senator, along with her actions apart from her role as a Senator, have said enough for me. Ditto for the rest of the candidates.
Lieberman — remember him? I haven’t forgotten him. A couple of tears didn’t shake that memory.
And speaking of the dems/dims……when does Washington get back to work?
goldberry @ 32 -
What freakin’ “conscience”? Just like scar this morning….it ain’t *my* fault. :-( And speaking of tweety, he’s coming up on scar.
Nothing has changed, in my opinion. Clinton remains the old-guard, heavily processed, shrink-wrapped democratic offering. Obama and Edwards are as close as the Democratic party can come to a truly different course. True, fundamental change–including drastic reductions in military spending, a reaffirmation of constitutional principles, and a rejection of american empire–will not be offered to american voters.
Re:
You know, I may have been born at night, but it waan’t last night. I would touch that bet with an eleven foot Lithuanian.
I agree — wonderful night when the media/pundrity class (gosh, am I one of them?) get’s a comeupance. And who better than Rachel Maddow to deliver the message to Chris Matthews. Any one find a video of that?
It’s now called “the tweety effect.”
“she noted, adding that Clinton probably turned her campaign around when she said she rediscovered the progressive causes and reasons why she was running. “
Hilary and Obama you say have moved Left. Cool once the GOP notices I expect them to start attacking all the Democrats as too Left for America or Dems will hurt the economy.
When the truth is the Dems are still to the Right of 70% of America, but I like the direction they are going.
And as far as the economy goes as long as gas is over $2.50 a gallon the GOP has problems.
The only way to win this election is to out Left your opponents!
Tweety on Joe this morning saying NH voters are a bunch of racists and liars…
Yes. But I think it was important that all three candidates chose to speak from a more progressive position in their speeches last night.
Ray Duray–
I read that the iron my shirt guys were doing a Boston shock jock stunt.
And you’re absolutely right. The media deserves a pummeling, as do establishment pundits.
NH — half the population of Iowa, yet the numbers in NH are supposed to be representative of the entire population’s opinion.
NH — nearly 97% WHITE, compared to Iowa’s 91%. (Does not take into account what percentage of this white vote is Hispanic.)
NH — in a media market overlapping or adjoining New York state’s market, so that any news about HRC has had a residual, cumulative effect during her tenure. Let’s not forget that NH is within easy driving distance of NYC, and has an international border if small. These things shape opinion.
Haven’t even begun to look at age. College towns clearly leaned towards Obama; one went for him at 58%.
This is so not over, and we haven’t even put the Southern factor into play yet; there was no way that Edwards and Huckabee were going to do well in NH.
Tweety “logic”: If there’s a black man running for office and you don’t vote for him, you’re a racist.
Whatever.
Tweety – “the reason Hillary is a senator is because her husband messed around”….
this guy won’t give it up.
At one point, Matthews cut off an Obermann-Mitchell discussion of HRC and went into a long incoherent diatribe concerning some Macchiavellian manipuliations of the Clintons that he didn’t understand, he was going to stay up and get to the bottom of it, although most people would go to bed. They needed to bring a net out. I think somebody finally told him to get a grip. Rachel’s statement came later.
Actions are what we need from the Democrats to see if they really are moving Left or just talking a good game. With the Primary season kicking in the average American is now paying attention.
Any attack of Spinelessness now could be fatal.
Who were the speeches for? That’s the tricky part. Were they thank-yous, or were they advance notice on their next target?
Whatever the case, I still look to their “resume”; I don’t hire on the interview alone. One of the chits I can put in HRC’s file is the screw-up that is Michigan’s primary. Her “girls” in this state have jacked it up so badly in their efforts to curry favor with her, win her the primary, and earn themselves a slot in the next administration, that they made the entire state look like fools while giving Republicans a leg up.
She could have done the right thing and followed party discipline — but as we saw with Lieberman, it’s not about the party, it’s about her and winning.
Rayne, can you explain please, how did she help screw up Michigan’s primary?
Damm Tweety is angry I wonder if he is trying to prove the Tweety effect.
Great post…..the only thing that needs to be discussed is the following;
New Hampshire voted for 2 candidates who want MORE war.
THey voted for 2 candidates who would not get rid of DOMA,
while Hillary and McCain are both different candidates, they BOTH used the 911 scare tactics in their final stump speeches. I hope the progressive sphere wakes up to the reality of this , especially concerning Hillary.
Yeah tweety and the press suck……but I hope we can all move beyond that, and get back to what is a big problem with Hillary!
I think the first part of post-vote speeches is a thank you; the second is directed towards the next audience.
I saw your links on the Michigan court decision — no TRO, but the issue is still open. Where is the DNC on this?
Solai – good points – esp the “iron my shirt” guys.
I am so grateful for the way Edwards is helping move the dialog towards the people. I hope he continues.
My fear is that Hill will win and McCain and Bush will start another war.
Morning, all!
While I was in the gym this morning, I listened to some show on MSNBC called something like “Cup of Joe”, with an announcer named Joe Scarboro, and there was also a blond female announcer, and two pundit “election expert” type dudes. It was absolutely staggering how inane the drivel was pouring out of their mouths concerning the NH primaries. It reminded me of why I never watch anything on TV except sports.
You just nailed the things Edwards has to hit and Hilary and Obama have to change if they want to win.
I also wonder whether the Florida mess (the move to move their primary earlier) wasn’t at the behest of Hillary so that they would be early and play a part in the “steam rolling” that was part of her campaign strategy. One of my problems with Hillary is how readily her supporters seem willing to break the rules (serving sandwiches at the Iowa caucuses, tearing down signs of opponents, replacing campaign literature of others). Michigan is part of this as well.
There you go again.
Well I did and as I was falling I distinctly saw hill and obama taking money from big corps and I did not see Edwards take a dime. Was I on the wrong truck?
This post is full of good stuff, including these discussions in the comments
why not digg it?
If either HRC or Obama are the nominated, what is the recommended action for those who consider themselves Progressive?
Stay home in November?
Vote Republican?
Write in a name?
Erect barricades
What?
Give money to act blue candidates.
She’s talking Edwards’s talk. She’ll never walk the walk. Let’s see if the Dems/voters understand that.
BTW, I just read MoDo’s column which from the last post has people seething. I liked it. What did she say wrong? Ecept that she said HRC had been “playing the victim.” I hope by that she doesn’t measn she was faking. Her column suggests otherwise. I assume MoDo meant the subsequent spin. I like it.
Sorry Blue America candidates
good one. he’s there. they really wouldn’t have to loom too hard,w ould they. Lazy.
Writ in a name as the other choices are all goopers
I’ll take your word for it. Although some dislike trial lawyers equally. I think they’re out to lunch, and he believes he needs the support in order to have a chance at getting elected and putting into effect what he believes in. It’s a problem in our system that you have to get elected to do anything. Other examples are Harry Trumans’ particpation in the Prendergast Machine, before he did them in, and Lyndon Johnson’s cosistent southern conservative votes, until he got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed.
Well, it might have been the “crying her way to the White House” thing. The title of the column is “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?” Puh-leeeze…
Me. I like a trial lawyer that takes on big business and wins. If the lawyer makes money at the same time so be it.
As a disclaimer some of my friends are lawyers.
Excellent post to start the day, Scarecrow.
Matthews repeatedly told NH how to vote & they, in turn, collectively blew him off. To top it, he was called out by Rachel Maddow on the constant Hillary bashing.
Ego trip punctured = tantrum from Tweety.
I’m for John Edwards, but will work like hell to elect whichever candidate the Dems finally put forward- Edwards, Obama, or Clinton. We need a Dem president & veto proof majorities in both houses of Congress to even attempt putting the brakes on the BushCo trainwreck. Bottom line for me.
Didn’t FL: used to be in the SE or did we get kicked out. I could understand. First they take away our delegates then they kick us out of the region for loing to a Big Ten team. been rainin’ more than usual this winter. But it’s OK. Clear now but that’ll probably change.
I would like to see a post on what kinds of cases Edwards took on, and his win-loss ratio analysed by type of case & adversary. This is something I don’t know enough about. An R in the lodge bar last night asserted that Edwards made all his money by winning cases of women who delivered birth defect babies because they didn’t have C-sections. I don’t know whether that is accurate or not, but I did point out what a shame it would be if these women & their lawyer took over the country. He understood the snark.
Scarecrow, I don’t think she borrowed Edwards’ themes; I think she stole them. Now that she sees they work, she has no intention of returning them.
Thanks for the “leadership” display, Hillary.
Welcome to the understanding that the corporate government of which you have been such a willing partner, is the problem, not the solution.
Now that you’ve changed colors for the umpteenth time, get ready; South Carolina is another leaf. :o)
The “Iron My Shirt” Hoax Fools Many in Media
(Snip)
“…Then from the folks over at HotAir.com, we get some further sleuthing. After some speculating that it might have been a Hillary plant, the tipseters at HotAir tracked down the truth. It’s a simple radio stunt.
It turns out the guys who the Daily News named work for Boston station WBCN 104.1 FM, and are members of the Toucher and Rich Show.
So much for real political protesting, eh? But it amuses me that few news outlets bothered to do the leg work to find all this out and went ahead to report this incident like it was legitimate. It did give the MSM a chance to show Hillary looking PC by claiming she was being confronted by examples of “sexism” run wild, though. So, maybe that is why they didn’t want to look into it too hard. It would destroy the illusion of Hillary’s “strength” and place the focus on a radio stunt…..”
For the most part, I like them too. I even favor John Edwards. But I take exception to the name calling and absolute prounoucement of debatable issues. I think yesterday’s primary suggests that it is counterproductive.
“…remarkable comeback”?!?!
Don’t believe the hype. I’m now quite suspect of these magical polls that swung 10 points to Obama in two days, and now were apparently 10 points or more wrong.
First, The Clintons try to steal the “Change” theme. Now they’re trying to steal the “Underdog” theme.
Please…the Conglomerate Media has been drilling the “unbeatable” and “inevitable” memes regarding Hillary for nearly 10 years. Change and Underdog are exactly the opposite of what Hillary truly represents.
Let’s not buy into and repeat the lies for them.
You might want to read MoDo again. As Mrs. Cheney would say, Modo is not a nice person.
The Repuiblican Legislature set the elction date in FL.
DNC is where it always has been: the committee, comprised of representatives from state parties across the entire country, voted a year ago on the primary schedule, and the repercussions of not adhering to that schedule were part and parcel of that decision.
Florida and Michigan chose NOT to honor a democratic (little d) vote and broke ranks, and the DNC is enforcing what it voted upon. No change in position.
What I am also riled up about is that Democrats have forgotten a fundamental learning from the Republican Party: they obtained a majority in Congress, the White House and now the SCOTUS because of party discipline. The actions of Florida and Michigan are completely rogue and outside party discipline; in Michigan, I have yet to run into ANY Democratic Party member or Dem voter who is happy with the current primary. This tells you a LOT about the respect that the Clinton machine, which set this in motion, has for party discipline, let alone the larger issue of respecting voters and their rights.
I was taling about teh article. the headline is supposwed to be an eye-grabber I think. i don’t count it for much. It was kinda stupid.
But her Edwards-esque speech was after she won. She hadn’t been sounding those themes as much prior to winning. But i guess she’s gonna co-opt more of teh Edwards language now. Again. talk the talk. won’t walk the walk.
Modo in a nutshell.
I read it carefully and parts more than once. I don’t like her, personally.
yeah kinda
From her column:
Where should I begin? “Misty dread,” “tremulously,” followed immediately by “smack her rival.” Some may call it good writing, I call it being a bitch. And believe you me, I know bitches. (I probably are one…)
I just took another look at the Hillary speech from last night. what I (finally) noticed was the crowd behind her. Gone, of course, were Wes Clarke and Madeline Albright.
Look at the tape – those who were directly behind Hillary and cheering in the frontal camera shot looked like they’d been bussed in from a local high school. Young, young, young.
I meant the headline. As I said teice, I like the article. What did she say that was wrong? I mean, it’s an opinion piece but I think it’s at least on target.
And in Michigan, the date of the primary must be agreed to and voted upon by the state legislature. We have a majority Dem state house and a majority Rep state senate here, and we were in the middle of budget wangling because of a multi-billion dollar deficit at the time the primary was negotiated. I don’t know based on the limited info we’ve been able to get whether the primary was a negotiating chit in the budget war here.
And I also don’t think that the party machine that demanded this early and rogue primary gave any thought to the benefits that the Republicans in this state gained. They can now compete against each other without any noise from Democratic candidates cluttering the airwaves; there are enough Reagan Democrats in this state, particularly union members, who are sooooo pissed off about this primary that they are going to cross party lines and may do so for good.
The unions are very upset. VERY. I can’t stress this enough. A long-time party activist with some of the greatest clout and on first name basis with the governor has already said they are crossing over and voting for McCain, and they are going to tell a lot of their union brethren why they are doing it. How good is that for the Democratic Party?
Many of us have been saying this same shit since the early 90s. Clintons stick their finger in the wind and go whichever direction the wind is blowing. They stand for nothing other than political gain.
This is disturbing. I can’t believe people are still falling for their crap. Are people voting for her because they want to see woman President? If so, it’s too bad so many people are so sexist and would based solely on gender.
Wikipedia has a brief writeup of some of Edwards’ more visible cases. One fo the cases was described like this:
All the footnotes are over at wiki.
You don’t make “comebacks” in a state that has been pronounced “safe” for you since you got into the race, and in which a short time before the election, you led by 22 percentage points.
I’ve never seen an election in which the polls seem to be more easily manipulated.
I think the voters of NH were punk’f by footage of a couple of Iranian speedboats that looked like they should be pulling a tuber on Lake Winnepesuakee not harrassing a couple of US destroyers.
Suddenly the steady hand meme loomed large.
-G
G’morning, everyone. Huzzah, Scarecrow!
I believe as you do, tanbark, that HRC pirated Edwards’ themes. Found her voice? Nah, found Edwards’ voice. And in so doing, he will be even more marginalized than before — which is hard to imagine, really. Talk about the Invisible Man.
Do we know/have a sense of how many people cross party lines to skew primary results? I know, I know. Tinfoil hat. I think I trend toward dirty tricks explanations because I so desperately want to believe Americans aren’t dumb as doorknobs. (sigh)
g’morning firdogs and thanx for the post crow
I haven’t read akk the comments so I don’t know if this is mentioned or addressed;
I’m sorry, edwards remained at 17 percent throught the entire night, I think he went to 16.5 for a while but rounded out he remained at 17 percent
that is simply not possible and I am quite confident this election was fixed
Noticed that instantly.
Not the establishment Mt. Rushmore of old greaybeards(apologies to Mrs. Albright).
-G
Appreciate your tracking that down, and wasn’t interesting to see the mea culpa at the end about the redblogosphere’s mistakes, but it would have been fairer to the reporters who actually did some of that rare leg work to have cited them directly.
I would have also avoided giving someone who hates my guts traffic.
so if anyone has the Daily News link, I’d appreciate it. In fact, why don’t we inundate them with LTE thanking them for doing such excellent investigative reporting and if they want to look into more dirty tricks there was some Anti-Mormon pushpolling in NH traced back to a Republican outfit with connections to Romney. Now there’s a plant for you.
Actually, for all its awfulness, the Daily News keeps up the great tradition of brilliant punning headlines. i.e. after the Red Sox beat the Yankees in 2004 after going 0 and 3 and won the ALCS, “The chokes on you.”
Please mods, do not excise this message because it contains sports content. It’s relevant to a discussion of what’s alive and dead in the MSM.
Rayne, I missed some of the background of this story. Are the Mich Dems pissed of the DNC/Howard Dean, or was someone else within the Dem Party pushing for this primary change?
It would be interested to see the modeling.
-G
Same bottom line for me. I am just trying to push all our candidates Left. I am trying to create the impression that going Left is the way to win elections.
That and the huge voter turnout that we have seen so far in Iowa and New Hampshire can only be explained by voters wanting “Change”.
The damm MSM however refuses to explain that “Change ” means Left.
I wonder how many states will have to have huge voter turnouts in their Primary elections before the MSM catches on.
If the GOP is getting out voted almost? 2 to 1 in very White States like Iowa and New Hampshire then I wonder what the numbers will be in big Minority population states.
This trend must be giving Karl nightmares. Remember the Permanent GOP majority Karl was trying to create? The GOP needs voters to be happy and apathetic about the issues not angry, paying attention to the issues and polarized with 70% on our side and 30% on their side.
Vote fraud and martial law are my only worries.
…and some may call it the self-referential parody of what was once a good writing style. What style MoDo once could claim has been going south for a while now IMO.
“Never give being called a bitch a 2nd thought, dear. It just means you finally got their attention. Maybe not in a happy way, but you got it” (thanks, Mom, I’ve always remembered that one).
My primary isn’t until May and I’m still voting Edwards. No chance he was winning NH so I was glad to see Hillary win last night. She’s much more moderate than I am but still she’s got substance. What turned me off about Obama has nothing to do with his personality, race or style. It’s the fact that when the votes were counted this last year, he wasn’t there. At least Hillary showed up.
Missed votes
Obama:
2007-Q1 126 3
2007-Q2 112 20
2007-Q3 119 67
2007-Q4 85 76
Clinton:
2007-Q1 126 3
2007-Q2 112 3
2007-Q3 119 26
2007-Q4 85 71
From the folks working on expanding the youth vote, they found a substantial increase in NH for Dems.
I have had the opportunity to see a physician blow off fetal monitor results that have the nurses pretty freaked out. In those times, the nurses do the best they can and hope that if the child/mother is injured, SOMEONE will take the doc for millions.
Maybe a petty reaction. But who made em go to medical school in the first place.
Go Edwards.
and Edwards wont be able to say anything. Because he is invisible.
MoDo is in hell people in New Hampshire liked Hilary despite the catty MoDo apparently we the people are not listening to her, and girls like her need to be the center of attention.
Bingo! DeeDee Meyers was on with Chris Matthews and K.O last night claiming that HRC was not the front runner for the past year. Matthews called her on it and proclaimed she was a revisionist. K.O. chimed in afterwards and stated something to the effect that were we in an alternate reality from DeeDee.
If we want to settle for revisionism and spin, we might as well just leave Bush in place.
The GOP needs voters to be happy and apathetic about the issues not angry, paying attention to the issues and polarized with 70% on our side and 30% on their side.
This is bedrock. Do you think we should mention it to Dem strategists? *g*
Well, according to the fount of all political wisdom, tweety says NH voters are liars, LIARS, LIARS….that’s gonna endear him to the citizens of the state. *g*
Don’t think so. the Dems in Fl could not have stopped the legislature from setting the primary date when it did.
Michigan Democrats Urge DNC to Stop New Hampshire Double Standard
The following letter was sent to Democratic National Committee Chairman Dean by US Senator Carl Levin and DNC Committee Woman Debbie Dingell.
* * * *
On August 19, 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) set the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic nominating convention as follows:
at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.
http://ladyjanescarlett.blogspot.com/
Don’t know why thiose states weren’t punioshed or the rules changed for them – but FL, a huge and important state was. that’s nat “party discipline. That’s stupidity.
I still wonder why RFK jr. supports Hillary and I heard women I respect talk about her yesterday and I wonder…
As is we effin’ care about the tweet.
Tweety’s just mad they didn’t take his unerring wisdom in, so he must say they are all liars and racists…
Fu*k Chris Matthews and his fantasy Bradley Effect.
He is a nut who IS obsessed with Hillary Clinton.
In my formerly bedrock conservative town Obama and Clinton both wiped the floor with McCain and Romney.
The Democrats walked away with the numbers.
-G
Not as long as Hilary has Penn working for her. I hope that the MSM will pick up this theme though.
Repeat after me:
The direction of change is left.
The direction of change is away from the religious right.
The direction of change is separation of powers.
The direction of change includes transparency in government.
The direction of change embraces, supports and defends the Constitution.
I read it carefully and parts more than once. I don’t like her, personally.
Gee that’s how I feel about Hillary!
Yesterday, Obama problably experienced his Tom Bradley and Doug Wilder moment in NH, where voters told pollsters they would vote one way, only to vote the other way in the privacy of the voting booth.
so why is nobody wondering how edwards could possibly be a steady 17 percent?
it’s not possible, why am I the only person talking about it?
I feel like edwards, if the media ignores him he will go away
I feel like everyone is ignoring the simple fact he could not have remained at 17 percent, it can’t happen
One great thing about FDL; it allows you to increase and enhance a very limited vocabular.
Scarecrow Definition of Castigation
Castigate– (verb) to take money readily and repeatedly.
–opens those Hillary arms for Big Money contributions from the very people she “castigates.”
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY)
Top Contributors
1
Citigroup Inc
$190,150
2
Goldman Sachs
$137,170
3
Kushner Companies
$119,000
4
Cablevision Systems
$104,450
5
International Profit Assoc
$86,000
6
Metropolitan Life Insurance
$85,500
7
Walt Disney Co
$84,850
8
Corning Inc
$83,750
9
Time Warner
$80,100
10
Skadden, Arps et al
$71,600
11
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
$70,075
12
UBS Americas
$62,830
13
Viacom Inc
$59,775
14
Emily’s List
$53,775
15
Credit Suisse First Boston
$51,500
16
E*TRADE Financial Group
$49,600
17
Bear Stearns
$47,650
18
US Government
$44,750
19
Columbia University
$44,455
20
Patton Boggs LLP
$44,250
The direction of change is away from NAFTA
The direction of change is away from global business
The direction of change is away from privately financed elections
Maybe you expounded on this earlier, perris, but I missed it. My gut agrees with you, but I have no data. Canst help?
this can only be accomplished with protective economic policies
when a country produces goods through slave or child labor, those goods must have a substantial tariff
when a country does not allow for collective bargaining their goods and serivces must know a substantail tariff
that and disallowing monopolies from doing any bussiness in america
Try Mystery Pollster. Mark Blumenthal and his colleagues often have very good discussions of the various polling techniques used, to explain why one poll differs from others — and why “surprises” like last night can come up.
To me, the explanation of last night is likely the combination of two things. First, the whole “tears” episode appears to have motivated a lot of women (mostly undecided) to vote for Clinton. This happened too close to Tuesday for most of the polls to pick up on it. Second, too many people who have never taken a course in statistics or mathematical modelling are talking way too much about things they know nothing about. How do you frame a poll question? How do you choose a sample? How do to calculate a margin of error? What are the limits of the conclusions you can draw from *this* survey instrument’s results? . . .
And yes, I’m talking about Tweety. Among others.
[full disclosure: I’ve got a degree in mathematical modelling, to go along with the theology degree. Confused both my math advisor and the seminary. Go figure.]
Edwards percentage is sizable. I guess they will be courting him.
Tye 17% solution?
hmmm…that’s a good question perris, I wonder why nobody is addressing that point
*sorry, just talking to myself*
Re Edwards and his cases: Don’t have the complete info you are seeking about JRE but there is an excellent book about his work. It’s called Four Trials and highlights obviously, four of his cases.
One case was brought due to the grievous injury a young girl suffered from a faulty pool drain — faulty from lack of $.50 modication. It’s the drain manufacturer’s hubris/lack of cooperation during the judicial process that’s so stunning.
Reading this book clarifies some of the how/why John has formualated some of his positions on certain corporate practices, e.g.lack of willingness to compromise, abandonment of principles for profit. etc.
Why not?
This is so funny Tweety has to claim the Bradley effect because otherwise he has to accept that his biased, mean, catty coverage of Hilary gave her the election. Tweety hates Hilary this thought must be giving him heartburn and Cognitive Dissonance.
That and the public is pushing back against the media’s attempt to shape the reality of the election and might continue this trend of doing the opposite of Chris Mathews.
Yes. If Edwards can push Clinton to the left, fine. The whole party must
rediscover it’s New Deal roots or we are cooked. All of them have operated in the corporado era in DC, but that approach has been overplayed. If the
top 3 dems don’t gut each other, the dialog could help redefine the general
election theme in our favor.
thank you raven, there are very few people that want to recognize this election was fixed
it was
Hey Waccamaw, recall our ealrier conversation, see #120.
every precinct is going to contribute a differant number, for every precinct to contribute 17 percent just flys in the face of reason
yes she is. and not so lurky. see my daily news item. but off to work now. so post away and i’ll check back.
thanks.
Re:
In 1940 there was a dispute between FDR and John L. Lewis of the Coalminer’s union. Lewis bolted the party and recommended that his men vote for Wendell Wilkie. I’m not too concerned about labor. They put Reagan over the top in 1980, much to my amazement. It’s really quite extraordinary how foolish organized labor can act once it achieves a middle class existence for its rank-and-file. It turns out that the natural instinct of these men (as they are for the most part) is to become reactionary as soon as they’ve achieved a modicum of security. And then the predator’s capitalist axe drops on them, and they have no idea what hit ‘em.
Hillary said she was gonna co-sponser a bill for public campaign financing.
She did not.
Hillary said she was gonna end the fiasco in Iraq
She is not
She refuses to say how fast or when she’d withdraw troops. She has voted for every Bush request to continue the fiasco, despite the gross mismanagement resulting in nearly 4000 American soldier deaths, 50,0000 cases of blind or paralyzed soldiers dumped in a VAH that can’t care for them–try getting an emergency medication for your VAH patient at 2AM–it often ain’t there for the past 25 years regardless of the tertiary University medical affiliation–I guarantee you it often ain’t there–they don’t have it; they don’t know why. Better to bring your own.
What Hillary won’t talk about now that she’s taking questions at some campaign stops:
4 million Iraqi refugees with hundreds of Iraqi women turning to prostitution in countries like Jordan where they are not given work permits. The Arab countries have welcomed Iraq refugees who have spent their last penny getting there for safety from the U.S. shitstorm by denying them work permits.
Patriot Act–Hillary voted for every Bush suggestion including interim apointments by the Attorney General not requiring confirmation by Congress.
I know of at least two voters, friends, who were affected by the report of the Iranian boats ‘harrassing’ the US ships in the Gulf.
It caused them to think who would they want as having to deal with a situation like that right off the bat for the president.
Both said it caused them to lean Clinton’s way.
I imagine the same can be said for the GOP’ers who may have been swayed from Romney to McCain.
The Steady Hand question.
-G
I’m sorry. Are you saying this is good or bad? It’s me./ I’m missing this. Is it a sign that he’s going nowhere or hanging tough?
Before yesterday at least we were being told Hillary was in a free fall and people held out te hope Edwards would pick up some of all the votes she was losing. So, staying steady is not a good thing. Ecqwards himself framed the choice as between himself and Obmama s the only real change candidates. I guess trhe uidae was that since people want cahnge at least some of them would come around to him. they didn’t. they stuck with Hillary. So maintaining 17% isn’t good for Edwards. Somem polls has him @ 19-20 and i was hoping he’d break 20. If he hasddn’t been written off before, he is now. But is kinda circular. He’s written off before Iowa, so he doesn’t get much traction, so he does bad in NH, so he REALLY gets written off. He got fucked in IA.
Yes, and I’m sure Edwards will point out the contradictions.
#120 doesn’t compute; don’t recall any prior conversations wrt HRC contributors.
I can understand how the optical scanners can be “rigged”; how did they rigged the CNN exit poll?
The Repugs are historically brilliant at speaking with one voice (eventually). Hammer home themes. Four-part harmony, no matter what’s going on behind the scenes. Dems are a fractious lot and have never mastered that art. The good news is that it means we are less inclined to phony up the message. The bad news is that we’re all over the freaking map. With the advent of all media, all the time, every pimple and butt boil of our undisciplined party is on display for the world to see. I guess that’s a good thing, but it doesn’t play well in Peoria. (I know this, because I have family living there.) *another huge sigh*
Yes the Change of Direction is Left. The Media can ignore reality all it wants that just means that come election day Karl and the MSM will be all smiles about “the math “
When election day reality hits in November they will be completely unprepared. Bwahhahaha!
It was nice of the ‘Iranians’ to explain in English that they were going to ‘explode’ the massive US warships with their 20 foot Miami Vice boats.
I know I was scared.
-G
I’m confused by this comment. If you go to the Politico NH primary page, you can see that Edwards received a pretty wide range of percentages of the vote from precinct to precinct, from about 11% to about 24%.
http://www.politico.com/nhprim…..popup.html
I have no idea if this result is good or bad, I do know before this primary I wanted hillary over oboma, edwards over both of them
now to see this election being fixed is just frightening to me
I have no other take then the fact that is is frightening that edwards percentage remained at a constant 17 percent
if the percentage was fluid and moved down I would say he needed to make a positive movement in the next primary to stay viable
this election he moved down, this is bad for him, but I am not so sure that is really what happened, I cannot believe his percentage was constantly at 17 percent
Hey I want you as Pres!!!
It’s not who votes it’s who counts the votes. 81% of the machines in NH are accu-vote optical scanners. The trail of possession is none too clear, and the issue of security and hackability is all too real. 17% steady for Edwards – easy if you manipulate the easily manipulative machines.
Exit polls and polls beforehand not matching up are par for the course of hacked elections. We’ve got to wake up. If we had a 10% handcount of the paper ballots I wouldn’t be so worried. Close races Hil and Obama are perfect set-ups for this.
Sorry to be a broken record, but this is real and if we don’t address it it won’t matter who had the best positions or support.
Raven, remember the computer program in Georgia called Rob-Georgia?
What a load of Tottenham. Å steaming pile of Hotspur. Hillary was bound to rise from the dead. She’s a zombie after all in the notorious Clinton tradition.
I think this list should be posted everywhere. It says it all for me. One doesnt stand up to these folks and take their money.
Re:
One of my local Democratic acquaintances said precisely that. She’s determined to vote for Hillary on one criteria only. Sex. I was dumbstruck. She was just dumb. We don’t talk much anymore. Fortunately I’ve got dozens of other friends and acquaintances who have expressed support for all of the other candidates. OK, I had to declare for Mike Gravel. He’s a hard sell.
Though I’m coming around to think I may just vote for that other woman. Cynthia McKinney on the Green Party ticket.
that’s a good point, I don’t think you can rig an exit poll…if the pollsters are legitimate
were you there counting the poll?…are they even monitored at all other then by themselves?
Say it out loud, Perris. We don’t trust the voting machines.
aha, this is something I missed
I was watching the polling live and it never varied, how can that be with the numbers you’ve posted?
Interesting about the exit polls. When were they called? In ‘04 the exit polls were adjusted to match the results. Exit polls disparities are one of the main ways that election monitors sus out fraud.
Of Matthews; “He is a nut who is obsessed with Hillary.”
He sure is; and so are ALL the rest of the conservatives and an assload of independents, not to mention a lot of “moderates”.
So, where are the votes to elect her going to come from?
Same old story; we nominate Clinton, and every issue-stick we have that we can beat them with (and we have some BEAUTS!) instantly turns into a nerfbat.
Hillary will be the issue.
I guarantee you that Rove and the GOP braintrust were toasting her win far into the night.
Perris, your claims that NH ‘fixed’ the election is pretty out there.
I was working in a polling place yesterday. I know the moderators and election folks in town.
The Sec. State has a sterling record of honesty.
The election was not fixed. The media fixed conventional wisdom in the 5 days from Iowa to NH.
-G
I’m savoring your evil laugh, TCU.
“When election day reality hits in November they will be completely unprepared.” It’ll make all the hard work between now & then even more satisfying, victory even sweeter.
these are real time figures or after the fact figures?
during the night edwards numbers did not reflect these, they were a constant 17 percent
I spent the entire day (except for a soup and a potty break) at the polls did not see one exit poller. I am in Ward 1, Portsmouth the most democratic ward in the state. I think CNN and the other MSM just make this stuff up to help big business control elections.
I believe the boat that hit the USS Cole was about the same size. So the size of the “attacking” craft makes no difference.
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing.’
Good people have been silent for far too long – the nation, humanity have suffered terribly for it. It would be long overdo if they actually do something about this year and throw the criminal cult of republicanism into the trash heap.
.
Will the eventual winner be able to stand up to the torrent of Republic dirty tricks soon to be unleashed? Will they prevent the election from becoming about Republic nonsense issues like gay marriage or porn?
It’s not about the secretary of state it’s about Silvestre who counts the votes. Check out Blackboxvoting.org for a good analysis of the problems.
Based on your upthread comments I’m thinking this is not serious. But I want to answer anyway, because I’ve heard this said elsewhere.
These guys are all amazingly progressive for mainstream candidates. Think of what we’ve had in the past. Mondale? Carter? The last time we had a genuine “progressive” as the nominee was McGovern (Dukakis is debatable). Looking at voting records on domestic issues, all three are more progressive than I have come to expect from a successful Democratic party nominee. All three will be 175 degrees to the left of the Republican nominee on domestic issues. And as long as Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee, all three will be more likely to keep us out of more war in the Middle East, although I am not happy about some of their records on foreign policy. Somehow we got through this without a Lieberman type ending up in the mix. I realize that there are distinctions to be made, and I myself have reservations about aspects of all three candidates. But it is worth taking a moment and savoring the moment.
greg, this is the first comfort I am given, you are confident there was no fixing of these numbers and you are confident the exit polls reflect the exit voters choices as they declared them?
PetePierce@137; damn good points. With Iraqi women regularly being beaten and killed in “stabilized” Iraq, especially down in Basra, can any of her supporters come up with a quote from Clinton about that situation?
Well, actually, I just realized that the numbers you get from the Politico Web page are per town, not per precinct. And each town contains multiple precincts. But the percentages per town definitely range from about 11% to 24%. If that is the case, then there is no way mathematically for all the precincts to equal 17%.
thank you professor
There were a number of folks who pointed out last night that the 17% figure was due to rounding and that in fact Edwards’ state wide figure varied between 16.2 and 16.8 or thereabouts. And that was real time looking at the numbers.
Depends on the size of the town as to whether they have multiple precincts. Many towns are considered a precinct by themselves. Especially the smaller ones. Everyone goes and votes at the town hall through the day. Only the larger towns such as Manchester, Nashua, Concord, Portsmouth, etc have multiple precincts
From Fox News:
“She pretended to cry, the women felt sorry for her and they went for her,” said Dick Morris, a former Bill Clinton adviser and current FOX News contributor……….
I realise it was a rounding of the numbers but really, that’s only a .6 percent swing throught the night!
I just do not believe that is possible
I hope so. Edwards would be a splendid candidate as far as I’m concerned, but I’m working for Obama. I don’t want 4/8 more years of a lot of Bush agendas from her. That’s what she has supported consistently in the Senate.
No about flames.
Perris, I simply don’t see that this was a black-bag job.
The narrative was turned on its head after Iowa. I would be curious as to the sampling. It obviously showed a significant Obama bounce, but it could have reflected ‘irrational exuberance’ numbers for Obama.
Also, the Hillary moment in the diner is something that I am sure caused lots and lots of women to come back home to Hillary. I am sure of it.
Bill didn’t have his meltdown until election day so that didn’t really factor in.
I am convinced that the factors included in the varying numbers were the Iranian incident, the Hillary moment and the fact that large numbers of voters were undecided up until they got to the polls.
My dad was handing out ballots and he said a significant percent of voters, when asked what party ballot they wanted, were undecided while standing in front of him.
Imagine that, election day, at the polls and not knowing if you are going to vote for the D’s or the R’s. He said he was shocked at how many people were undecided on that matter alone.
-G
So much has been made of New Hampshire’s purported reaction to Hillary by MSM,during the last few days in New Hampshire. I don’t think a cold, objective analytical analysis of the votes will show reaction to anything Hillary did since Iowa so much as long intended votes from the nearly all white population of New Hampshire, largely working class voters.
Re:
While I agree with you that the results from yesterday do not appear to have been fixed, I would also like to point out that there is a potential flaw in your electoral system whereby your Secretary of State could be Snow White and fraud could still be perpetrated.
Somehow in this nation we have come to rely on private corporations using proprietary software which the public has no right to access to count our votes. There’s a short video available about
1/3 of the way down this page which describes in some detail how your optical scan machines can be manipulated by the vendor, a notoriously unsavory character according to Bev Harris and Brad Friedman, without anyone being the wiser.
New Hampshire recently approved easily hackable, non-papertrail Deibolds that accounted for 81% of the ballots. Given that the MIT team could hack them in less than five minutes, they hardly inspire confidence and raise all kinds of questions.
That’s the type of machine that is going to dominate throughout the primaries and 14 caucuses leading up to the general, and then dominate the general.
It reflects poorly on us as a country, but then so do the DOJ and what’ in the White House now, and most of all the pathetic Congress, particularly the Dems in it.
“She could have done the right thing and followed party discipline…”
Goodness, but that sounds very Stalinist/Maoist.
The stark defining difference is in the way Hillary presents the line. Had she said “YOU were speaking out and in the process, We heard your voices, the people’s voice” it would have been a great line. IMHO.
Scarecrow: Nice analogy about “Yes, we can” being translated to “Si, Se Puede” Barack gracious handed the Latinos a bit more hope.
Re:
Perhaps we define “progressive” differently.
Here’s my platform in a nutshell:
Me: Anti-war, anti-military-industrial complex. Hillary? Prowar, pro complex.
Me: Universal not-for-profit health care for all. Hillary: Corporate bandaids.
Me: Return to full civil liberties. Hillary: Voted for PATRIOT Act, Military Commission Act, OK with illegal wiretapping and torture.
Me: Demand return to progresssive taxation not excluding fat cat hedge fund and private equity executives. Hillary: Playing footsy with Wall Street funders.
Me: Exclusive public financing of all political campaigns. An end to “money is free speech” fraud. Hillary: Never met a corporate donation she didn’t like. Vast cash collection bundler schemes and scams are A-OK, unless she gets caught.
So how in the heck can you say that Hillary is a Progressive?
Re:
Your friend’s analysis seems bassackwards to me. If anything, Hillary will have an itchy trigger finger so she can prove she’s macho, so she can emulate Margaret Thatcher and just like Margaret Thatcher Hillary Clinton will be looking for oppportunities for foreign adventures because she understands just how popular the Falklands War made Thatcher with the British public.
Hi Carmen,
Re:
Was that the 2002 election when Max Cleland was upset by Saxby Chambliss? That one stunk to high heaven.
“I listened to you, and in the process, I found my own voice.”
I was impressed by what I saw in her warm, melting, caring moment, but watching Hillary deliver this and the rest of her speech, I got the sense that “the moment” had passed. She looked calculating as she focused not on the crowd but on a talking points card in her mind. It wasn’t that she had not been saying the things she thought would work, but that she had finally figured out or been told what we wanted to hear and she delivered it.
“The moment” seems to me to have been like the alcoholic, the addict, the self-defined sinner, seeing briefly that there weres reasons why their support was melting away, crying, I will reform, I’ll be better, I’ll do what’s good. Unfortunately, after being supported in that decision, when the next dawn finds that person returning to their old ways. She will have the support until her supporters discover that she has not changed, only appeared to in order to rally her enablers.
*shrugs* I don’t know if the change in Hillary is real or opportunistic. I only know that all my alarm bells are ringing still.
For Democratic nominees. That’s my whole point.
In 2004 after Iowa we were left with Kerry and pre-catharsis Edwards. In 2000 it was Gore or Bradley. We had two cycles of Bill Clinton before that. In 1984 Jackson and Hart lost out to Mondale. Before that, Carter edged out Jerry Brown and Mo Udall.
I remember attending a Mondale speech at the Kennedy School in college and being shocked at how it seemed primarily concerned with assuring the establishment he wouldn’t rock the boat.
So my point is not that these are ideal progressive candidates but on the whole they are not the sort of centrist (often centrist southerner) that the party has wrongly thought was an electoral necessity.
“Here’s my platform in a nutshell:
Me: Anti-war, anti-military-industrial complex. Hillary? Prowar, pro complex.
Me: Universal not-for-profit health care for all. Hillary: Corporate bandaids.
Me: Return to full civil liberties. Hillary: Voted for PATRIOT Act, Military Commission Act, OK with illegal wiretapping and torture.
Me: Demand return to progresssive taxation not excluding fat cat hedge fund and private equity executives. Hillary: Playing footsy with Wall Street funders.
Me: Exclusive public financing of all political campaigns. An end to “money is free speech” fraud. Hillary: Never met a corporate donation she didn’t like. Vast cash collection bundler schemes and scams are A-OK, unless she gets caught. “
Finally, a platform I support! Now to find a candidate…
I think it was comparatively progressive. Maybe so, on balance, but you point out some problematic stuff.
Re:
Omigod, it’s over. We can stick a fork in the Republic and kiss it goodbye.
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” –Thomas Jefferson
Re:
Please consider speaking out of one side of your mouth. Earlier you said: “These guys are all amazingly progressive for mainstream candidates.”
Man, you are still wrong. Hillary Clinton is right of center, as is Barack Obama. That’s how they are campaigning, and that is what their speeches say. John Edwards current rhetorical flourishes make him sound like a progressive.
This might be the appropriate time to introduce the thread to the Political Compass. Here is a chart of the current crop of candidates created by a UK based Political Science Professor so that some of the vast confusion among Americans about the political spectrum can be sorted out.
And for those who have a little time for self-examination, I highly recommend that you take the test yourself.
Just to let y’all know. I’m proud to be a -4, -4 Left, Libertarian. That puts me in the same range as Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Tony Benn, George Galloway and to the left of Kucinich, Gravel and Segolene Royal. As they say YMMV. On other forums, we’ve had some fun comparing notes on who we really turn out to be. I’d hazard a guess that I’m about as far Left as anyone on this forum. Any takers? :)
Cheerio!
Re:
It’d be a heck of a lot easier if we were in Europe. Compared to our barbarity, they seem to be a remarkably Enlightened lot.
So you think acknowledging and living within a democratically (little d) chosen plan of action is Stalinist/Maoist?
What a crock.
I’m going to say it again, s-l-o-w-l-y for you:
The Democratic National COMMITTEE voted for a schedule. Democratic members of the Congressional delegation and the state’s government that support HRC pointedly chose to ignore a democratic (little d) vote.
How is insisting that candidates who run as a party’s member both listen and adhere to the vote of the party in how they conduct their campaigns Stalinist/Maoist?
How is insisting that a state’s party acknowledge the will of the rank-and-file in conducting its primary Stalinist/Maoist? (Believe me, the rank-and-file are PISSED OFF about this situation.)
Democracy, whether government or organization, requires adherence to democratically-chosen rules and laws that are a social contract. How is advocating compliance Stalinist/Maoist?
I’ll check back for an explanation, but I’ll bet I don’t get one.
She listened and found her own voice? We’ll see. If she starts taking up AGAINST the corporatocracy (ala John Edwards) and actively FOR progressivism (ala Edwards AND Obama of late) then she will prove that she actually listens rather than pretends to listen. If she drops any idea of forcing people to give health insurance companies profits through federal law, then she will have proven that she is listening. If she drops any and all aggressiveness against sovereign countries and drops any pretense that we have a right to impose our corporate ways upon other countries or that we have a right to other country’s natural resources, then she will have proven that she listens.
Until she demonstrates that she is NOT still a mere DLC corporate shill, then she hasn’t listened and is merely doing some calculated emoting.
Ray, I like your other posts but you have twice grossly missed the point of my posts. The reason I spend much of both posts talking about past primaries is that I’m making a point about the historical difficulty of progressives getting the democratic nomination. How can you continually decontextualize my comments?
Further, you’re totally wrong about “Hillary Clinton is right of center, as is Barack Obama.”
ADA senate voting records from 2006, the most recent year online:
Obama 95% liberal, Clinton 95% liberal
In 2004, the last year they rated him, Edwards was 60% liberal. See http://www.adaction.org/index.htm
Re:
I just tried a Google search and could not find this item. Do you have a link?
In my post @195. Click on “voting records”.
Mark
“So you think acknowledging and living within a democratically (little d) chosen plan of action is Stalinist/Maoist?”
Ummm, no. I said *points up* that “She could have done the right thing and followed party discipline” sounds Stalinist/Maoist. The meme/frame you called up equating party discipline with the right thing evokes Stalinist/Maoist images. The party is always right. You must do as the party decides.
Your clear admiration for this brand of authoritarianism is apparent in your statement above: “the Republican Party: they obtained a majority in Congress, the White House and now the SCOTUS because of party discipline.” Yes, the Republicans did what they did because they maintained party discipline, but most Americans believe that what they did was NOT the right thing to do.
I can feel your anger at what Republicans have done but the solution is NOT to emulate their tactics. As the histories of Stalin and Mao have shown us evil can come roaring out of the left through party discipline just as well as through the right. Party discipline is NOT a good thing, it is the antithesis of democracy.
(And I’m done speaking with you on this so if you’d like to say again that you bet you won’t get a reply: this time you’ll be right.)
Re:
I can be a simpleton when it serves my purposes. (grin)
Actually, what I should say is that I understand now, I believe, what you are attempting to say. To paraphrase it would be along the lines of “due to the constraints upon the Left, the current crop of candidates are about as progresive as we’re likely to be offered, so we might as well label ‘em progressives.” Or words to that effect. I stand by my prior proof that according to world standards, Clinton/Barack and Edwards are all right wingers. And, let’s leave it at that, shall we? Thanks.
This aggregation of voting records to give a score of liberal/conservatism obscures the nature and value of the votes. Does a vote against a flag burning amendment (a liberal vote) equal a vote for authorizing the invasion of a sovereign nation or for the Patriot Act? Aggregation of voting records according to some scheme of what’s liberal and what isn’t is a subjective judgment, but more importantly this sort of thing makes fallacious use of averages by “hiding” the relative importance of the issues voted on. For example, false average say that everyone in Eutopia is rich because the average wealth is one million dollars. The fact is that one guy has nine million and another $999,920 the rest have ten bucks apiece. The value that each holds is hidden by averaging. I suggest the same holds for Congressional votes; some of them have a lot more meaning than others.
It would also be good to know how NV’s (didn’t vote) are treated in the method because Obama has a marked tendency to abstain from voting on issues where his vote might be used as political leverage against him.
Re:
Whitebeard, you are the grey eminence of well-considered logic and astute observation. I didn’t want to get into bashing the ADA, but I’m New Left and as far as I’m concerned those liberal twits were an irrelevancy on the Left when I first analyzed them in 1968 and they’ve only become more irrelevant with every passing generation.
One of the things that I really dislike about the American Left is that the socialist/anarchist/communist roots of the movement were eviscerated by anti-communist and corporate friendly groups like the ADA that acted more or less in the same fashion as company unions and other ersatz populist front organizations. Let’s leave it at that. I’m glad to have gotten your contribution on the ADA. You nailed ‘em.
spot on.
it’s about her. it will always be about her.
“i found my voice.” give me a f’in break.
i don’t care. if you want my vote, you better
be channeling MY voice.
(i have not supported her since her move to NY
and her decision to run in the first cycle for sen.
i thot she should wait. too opportunistic.)
Absolutely.
Hillary looks calculating because in a group of people who are always calculating, she is the most calculating at all times, in every choice she makes.
What strikes me the most about recent events is the degree to which she has learned to mimic, copy, and plaguerize from Obama.
Re:
I would think that Hillary and her handlers know perfectly well that they’ll never get called on such louche behavior. And they also realize that most of their audience are so naive and casual about the political game that the theft of concept won’t be understood a’tall by 98% of the audience.
if only hillary actually co-opted edwards mission instead of his message.. except it’s easy to change your speeches, harder to change your mission when you’re the largest recipient of donations from the industries that you’re now vowing to stand up to.
When I heard that the electorate thought Hillary was to the left of Obama and Edwards I knew they were very confused. Still, I find it curious that the chart puts Obama so far North, into Authoritarianism, especially compared to Hillary.
There are, of course, some other ways to measure the candidates left v. right positions. Which are more tied in to corporate money? Is Hillary to the right because of that? I guess I prefer her to Obama in part because I read his Republican rhetoric and think authoritarian instead of just right v. left and I personally have some libertarian instincts (muted), so Hillary satisfies that more than anyone else except Edwards.
One that amazes me is Kucinich. Sure, he’s to the left. There’s no doubt about that, but isn’t he quite authoritarian too? I guess I don’t know his policies as well as I thought.
I’m not too surprised almost all the candidates are on the Northern side of the middle line. America is a powerful country and we use that power, ergo authoritarian appearing policies. But, there could still be distinctions made between enabling vs. oppressing policies within the authoritarian upper half of the chart.
Left v. Right is again no surprise. We reject socialism because it has been tied so closely to authoritarian German/Italian Fascism and Russian Communism. Perhaps we should find our recent Fascism unappealing too and find a way South for a while.
I wonder where they’d place Dubya on that chart.