If I were Barack Obama I would tell my flaks in the news media to shut up in the final days before elections. The chattering crowd's frenzy for this man only raises expectations that he cannot meet.
As a result, what was otherwise not too shabby a night for Obama on Super Tuesday came across like a public relations defeat because so much more had been expected. Still, those who predicted a bigger night for Obama are invested in downplaying what actually happened, and will surely gin him up for the next contests.
Before Super Tuesday, gushing pundits predicted that the Kennedy family endorsements would, at a minimum, deliver Massachusetts. Didn’t happen. Feverish news reports of rising momentum for Obama led to hints that Obama could win New Jersey. Didn’t happen.
And, oh yeah, California’s returns were supposed to keep us up all night because the "force of nature" that is Obama had erased Clinton’s lead in the state. Oops, it turned out that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead was so substantial that the networks could call the state for her just after midnight.
The California surprise promoted a bit of mea culpa from former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, who has actually been a voice of reason as so many of his colleagues have lost their minds for Obama.
“Once again,” Brokaw said on MSNBC as Clinton’s early California win was announced, “in all of our conventional and collective wisdom, we were wrong.”
Comments
night craig.. night everyone
Posted by: tylenol
| February 6, 2008 12:51 AM
How about that MO!!
I am proud of my state, even if my candidate lost by 1%.
Posted by: truebeliever
| February 6, 2008 12:51 AM
good morning, Craig
I am sorry about the tornadoes...and the winds of change are upon us, but may not have BO on their breathe....
Did you get my MAD mag pdf?
Posted by: Blonde wino
| February 6, 2008 12:52 AM
I bet the tornados that came across the southern part of the state hurt Hillary. They came across around 5:00 pm. right when alot of people were voting after work. Hillary is very popular in the southern part of MO.
Posted by: truebeliever
| February 6, 2008 12:54 AM
Late deciders broke for Clinton.
I guess the Oprapalooza and the Kennedy express just did not do the job.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 12:56 AM
Uh, how is this projected as a public relations defeat?? I just listened to MSNBC go over how Obama is going to grind Clinton with his money advantage, which is EXACTLY what I thought would happen. Remember, Clinton was supposed to wrap up the nomination with artificial primary night because she'd be too financially formidable to compete against. Oops. I thought this night would be a split and now we're entering the fourth quarter. Expect Obama to start winning crushing victories over the next month or so because he'll have WAY too much money and organization for her.
Posted by: alpha1906
| February 6, 2008 1:00 AM
True believer
And she wiil still win. BO has a ton of money behind him and I believe an elitist vote. I also believe McCain will be McBush and no matter what , a dem will win.
I predict Pennsylvania and Texas will go to HRC. Perhaps weather prediction is not much different than political prediction. We call the weatherman 'liars' here in southern New Mexico. No matter how drunk they are.
I know I will never be selected to be on a jury tomorrow and if they find out I am the Blonde WIno, I am am in deep do-do.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| February 6, 2008 1:02 AM
You know it is scarier to vote for someone you don't know as well than it is for someone you have known for a long time, and are familiar with. Even if you think you might like them better.
Do you think that maybe Obama's reluctance to be specific and to reveal himself well enough to become familiar to people hurt him?
Posted by: truebeliever
| February 6, 2008 1:03 AM
Intrade New Mexico Presidential Futures market update:
The probabilty of Obama winning NM is right at 50%. Clinton's probability of winning NM is 45%. However, the money put into the market today favors Obama. The market opened today with Clinton at a 60% probability of a win, while Obama opened at 40%.
Never seen one go this close this long....
Posted by: spike
| February 6, 2008 1:06 AM
I mean promise after promise after promise only goes so far if you aren't laying it out there for people to see the substance.
Posted by: truebeliever
| February 6, 2008 1:06 AM
KGC - Love the "Oprapalooza" line. I think it had to backfire to a certain extent. I have always said that if Obama wins the nomination, I will support him. But even I was getting so sick of the hysteria, I was actually thinking - McCain wouldn't be so bad.
Of course, I dont really mean that. But at some point, all the people falling over themselves to endorse Obama reminds me of that Wendy's commercial where everyone is running and jumping into a giant pit.
Posted by: labber
| February 6, 2008 1:07 AM
Wonder if Ted Kennedy will continue to campaign for Obama? The Clintons might hope that he does, he could be hurting more than helping. I have not seen any exit poll numbers on his influence.
Posted by: GORDO | February 6, 2008 1:13 AM
G---
I didn't think his influence was important anyway. Caroline's was the only one of the Kennedy clan that really meant anything.
Posted by: truebeliever
| February 6, 2008 1:15 AM
I think that Bill Clinton watching the superbowl with Bill Richardson was a brilliant move. I think he managed to "get" an endorsement without really getting an endorsement. It had the appearance of one without Richardson having to commit. ------everybody's happy!!!
Posted by: truebeliever
| February 6, 2008 1:19 AM
Clinton says race will be over Feb. 5 - Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clinton13dec13,0,1986893.story?coll=la-home-center
Whoops !
Posted by: Rezdog
| February 6, 2008 1:21 AM
Good night...I will you updated on the winds of change here in New Mexico.
My carpet looks like a political map.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| February 6, 2008 1:28 AM
WOW I am a happy camper tonight. What a speech she gave, now thats the stuff that inspires me.
S he has the experience and the will to deliver.
I think she pressed on against what seemed to be unsurmountable odds and she came out smiling.
How could this happen with the MSNBC offices being turned into campaign offices for her opponent.
True, its not over, but with her sheer grit I have no doubt now she will overcome.
Thanks for listening, sorry I just think its a womans turn and if Obama were a woman I would have no problem voting for him, but he is a Man not a black man just a man.
Posted by: betty brock | February 6, 2008 1:35 AM
At least I may get to do a little Trail Spotting since it ain't over yet...somebody may yet come to Ohio to ask for my vote.
Toledo is just an hour away...my best shot to do a live report.
Posted by: Dexter
| February 6, 2008 1:38 AM
This was quite an evening. Observations
1. CNN had superior coverage
2. MSNBC was an embarrassment as usual
3. Both candidates did well, the fight goes on
4. The Latino vote is certainly a powerful force
5. It will be interesting to see how close the polls were..
My favorite moment of the night was the Mass. win. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry evidently didn't have
much positive effect.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 6, 2008 1:43 AM
The media isn't even being subtle anymore in their Obama bias. But the neat thing is the people still get to vote! And Clinton won Calif, NY, NJ, and Mass. despite their best efforts.
Posted by: annbca | February 6, 2008 1:44 AM
Craig---
I just saw the map of the breakdown of how Missouri went for clinton and obama. Now I am certain the weather hurt clinton--and for that matter Huckabee because they are both very popular in southern MO in their respective parties.
Those storms began on the western side of Mo about 3:30--4:00pm and crawled across the bottom of the state leaving on the eastern side about the time the polls closed at 7:00 pm.
I know some people were out voting anyway (I was driving some of them) But these storms were nasty---including tornado warning and softball size hail. I have no doubt that plenty of people stayed home.
Posted by: truebeliever
| February 6, 2008 1:52 AM
Bet Clinton and Huckabee would have won squeakers in MO.
Posted by: truebeliever
| February 6, 2008 1:55 AM
I agree HRC did great despite the press. I like your comments Craig, your friends at MSNBC are really losing me as a viewer, they are not objective, except who would have believed it, Pat Buchanan!
Craig did you hear Nora Odonnell say that in response to a comment about a dream ticket with Obama as VP Michelle Obama made a comment about it by saying sarcastically "she'd have to give that some serious consideration". Can you check that out and may write something about its' audacity from the wife of the second coming?
Posted by: elaine of tampa
| February 6, 2008 2:04 AM
Dexter I agreed completely with your analysis of the night.
Posted by: elaine of tampa
| February 6, 2008 2:06 AM
It's been fun...Night all...
Posted by: spike
| February 6, 2008 2:19 AM
Yup, the media got it all wrong. I live in California, am a staunch liberal (I'm a criminal defense attorney - that ought to let you know where I'm coming from) and I'm a woman. I have been amazed and surprised at the media coverage concerning the Feb. 5 primary out here. Granted, almost every black person I know voted for Obama (if only there were sisterhood so strong as that) but most everyone else I know - old, young, rich, poor, Latino, and a few black women who shared their preference me on the dl, voted for Hillary. They weren't impresses with Obama's performance and lack of subatance and found his effort to sermonize cloying. They found him young. And as for the issue of Hillary polarizing the Republicans in the upcoming general - does the media not think that Swift Boaters are doing opposition research on Obama at this very moment. Frankly, we all found is a little "briar patchy" to hear Ari Fleischer and others state that they are dying to run against Hillary implying that Obama would be tough to beat. We're too smart for that - my friends in California that is. What's up with the media?
So, that's that from the ground.
Posted by: Sue | February 6, 2008 2:23 AM
Craig:
I believe that a part of Clinton's victory in CA is attributable to (i) early voting, and (ii) the state is too damn big.
Barack could not get around the whole state, especially before this National Primary (which only months ago was supposed to coronate HRC - according to ALL of the media).
He wins on the ground game because he has the best case for this election and an energy you cannot deny.
Posted by: warren | February 6, 2008 2:49 AM
ELAINE:
That was Oregon Democrat's observations...generally , I think Obama really took a step backward because of unreached expectations.
Posted by: Dexter
| February 6, 2008 2:51 AM
Sue: the "lack of substance" argument against Barack is the conventional wisdom. It falls away when people get to see him for themselves and take a good look. As well as for anyone who may have the time to read his books.
As far as being young . . . the three youngest US Presidents are:
Theodore Roosevelt
JFK
Bill Clinton
Not bad company...
Posted by: warren | February 6, 2008 2:58 AM
Sue:
Did OJ do it?
We're gettin' pretty high-brow here, a few lawyers and a professor and a few computer geeks...and then a few of us who might have or did go college but made or are making careers in the trades. I am a UAW member, retired from an industry making clutches for those giant semi trucks
Do you defend folks from all walks of life?
Posted by: Dexter
| February 6, 2008 3:01 AM
"I think Obama really took a step backward because of unreached expectations."
Isn't that what they said after NH?
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 6, 2008 3:12 AM
No one said taking down the establishment would be easy.
Posted by: warren | February 6, 2008 3:15 AM
I was all for Kucinich, then Richardson, then Edwards...it has been hard to see them fall.
I used to be all for HRC, then when she sided with Bush on the war, I said I would never vote for her.
I never have voted for a repugg...what to do? No third party candidates interest me...so I have to decide: don't vote, or vote for BO or HRC.
I would be all for BO but for two issues. One is a statement he made in 2003 about how harsh we should treat Iran.
That story mysteriously disappeared from Tribune archives and Google searches, and BO has never backed away from it. He sounded every bit as hawkish towards Iran as does Lieberman.
The second issue is the war. Against it at first, as soon as he came to the Senate he joined the hawks in voting for every funding measure Bush wanted. He never stood with Feingold and Kennedy and others who voted against the rathole-spending, he did, for years, become a huge hawk on Iraq. Now he says he is a peace candidate. That is a lie, but when Bill Clinton simply reminded people of this, he was called a racist. This is blatantly ridiculous...just look at the votes!! Obama is nothing but a Bush Democrat on Iraq, and Hillary is worse.
But....what to do? I have forced myself to disregard Iraq, because if I don't , I won't be able to vote at all.
Right now I would feel more comfortable with "Clinton, Inc." in the White House.
Posted by: Dexter
| February 6, 2008 3:16 AM
"No one said taking down the establishment would be easy."
Yeah, that's why Hillary is having such a tough time with the media reporting the unvarnished truth--she's winning.
Posted by: Pandora | February 6, 2008 3:23 AM
Yeah, Brian, warren...maybe BO will come to Toledo and I can hear and see him in person. If I could see fit to support him, it would be easier on me from a family standpoint, as my nephew's partner is head of Illinois Women for Obama, my sis-in-law works at the law firm where Michele mentored Obama (Sidley-Austin, Chicago) , and my brother is a Chicago suburban activist and political candidate for a local office, and he and his wife are ardent Obama campaigners. *sigh*
Posted by: Dexter
| February 6, 2008 3:24 AM
And Dex since Hillary was supposed have it sewn up by now isn't it just as valid to say she took a step backward because of unreached expectations? All depends on from what vantage point you're going to spin from.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 6, 2008 3:24 AM
Dexter - pick up a copy of The Audacity of Hope.
Posted by: warren | February 6, 2008 3:29 AM
yep, Brian, 2-5-08 was supposed to be coronation day for Queen Hillary, that is true.
thanks, warren...I live just a three minute walk from a Carnegie lending library...I'll check it out.
Saturday morning we received about 9 inches of snow, this rain melted it that quick...my back yard is under water.
I guess I'll hit the rack now.
Posted by: Dexter
| February 6, 2008 3:44 AM
I have woken up to this great news. The best part is to see Brian so sure of himself that Obama would take California. Looks like the "estrogen mafia" blew your expectations Brian.
Oh if you think I am a racist you are even more stupid that I thought. Perhaps inside we all carry institutional racism, but calling Oprah the black-dalilama-wannabee was not a criticism of her race. But so you can sleep again Brian, I will backtrack and call Oprah the "Talk-Show-Host-AMERICAN-Dali-Lama-wannabee-billionaire-thinking-she-could-SELECT-the-next-President-of-the-United-States-because-she-knows-better-than-the-rest-of-us-mere-mortals."
SHE DOESN'T WALK ON WATER
SHE DOESN'T WALK ON WATER
SHE DOESN'T WALK ON WATER
Maybe she could have bought new cars for people would switch to Hillary.
Ok I gloat too much, but Brian, you were SOOOO sure! SOOOO sure!
kisses,
Tom
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 6, 2008 3:50 AM
Oh...the Crawfordslist meeting room is now stocked with fresh Krispy Kreme glazed doughnuts.
Too bad the folks observing Lent can't have any! Fat Tuesday is OVER!! I was REALLY PISSED OFF cuz I got to the bakery too late yesterday to get any Paczkis. Those are really ginormous filled round pastries only to be eaten on Fat Tuesday. I had forgotten to phone-in an order. Bollocks!!
Posted by: Dexter
| February 6, 2008 3:51 AM
Jesus Kresit, EuroTom...what kinda coffee do you drink over there? Powerful stuff, eh?
Posted by: Dexter
| February 6, 2008 3:53 AM
Good morning Dexter... I just woke up. I haven't had coffee yet. When I went to bed, I was tired, frustrated and tired of Brian's snippy comments. I actually laid down and said "please let Hillary take California". At this point the discussion had become very personal and I had to back track on some things I had said in anger. I have never been in a chat, or blog sphere that has so irritated me from day one (even the Republican members .. albeit all two of them weren't so annoying). I know we aren't supposed to take these things personally, but I just thought of my Grandmother, Mother, Sister and nieces and it was personal for me.
But I will again apologise for some of my below the belt comments of last night.
Cheers,
Tom
SHE DOESN'T WALK ON WATER
HE WAS SO SURE... SO SURE...
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 6, 2008 4:01 AM
EuroTom
The two highlights for me were:
The victory in Massachusetts..Ted Kennedy and John Kerry didn't produce as I'm sure they thought they would.
California..solid victory which which provided great annoyance for the MSNBC crowd.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 6, 2008 4:09 AM
My home state of Minnesota went solidly for BHO which was interesting. Given that the caucuses have brought out more politically active idealists hoping for a "change" I suspect my second home state of Washington will go for Obama.
I said it before and I say it again.
I'm for the ticket:
Clinton/Obama 2006 and yes, IN THAT ORDER :-)
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 6, 2008 4:33 AM
Clinton-Obama..that is my ticket
good night
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 6, 2008 4:40 AM
In the Senate dining room this morning, the esteemed Senators from Massachusetts call over the waiter, and ask what the Special is today.
We are serving crow this morning. How would you like yours cooked?
Posted by: Bowmanc
| February 6, 2008 4:42 AM
With 80 percent in, only 79 vote difference in New Mexico. New Mexico is always like this in recent elections.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 6, 2008 4:45 AM
Well I'm up!
I will say Congrats to all Clinton Supporters. It not over yet, but last night was yours. ;0)
I will also say I am VERY happy and Heartend to see the even thouugh his delegates are fewer, he won more states.
If you really take a look at the spread, Obama really Won a lot of America with his ideas. Its amazing!
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 4:48 AM
Tom,
I believe your emotions have been getting to best of you. Your too tied up in the Horse Race and you are going to have a heart attack!
listen. First of all, I understand that Brian is blunt. But if you sit back and read his posts (not his snarky ones) he is analysing and theorizing the situation at hand.
He is also playing counter to you guys so there IS discourse and debate.....the hallmark of Craigs Blog.
I have been watching since you came on the first day. All of you have been unusualy impassioned.
But Tom, I'm pleading with you, please hold back before expressing thoughts that you are going to regret later. Or even thoughts that are mean spirited and you think are funny to others.
But really ARE hurtful. Even if Oprah isn't here. ;0)
The Black Dali Lama remarks was a bit too much.
We aren't the enemy....Brian isn't the enemy. If you are with us for the long haul, you will find that after November, we will all be happy and after something else.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 4:57 AM
RECOMMENDED READING
Thomas B. Edsall Puts out a fine unemotional, objective piece on the breakdown of what happened on Super Tuesday.
""Super Tuesday Fallout: Where The Race Goes From Here"""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06/super-tuesday-fallout-wh_n_85249.html
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 5:08 AM
Morning Craig.....Or afternoon maybe?
Hope you have a nice light or soft blanket to sleep with so your leg doesn't suffer under the weight of it.
Do you think we could have a breakdow Commentary? That would be really interesting.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 5:15 AM
WOW......Missouri
If Barack doesn't get the NOM, he still won Missouri. I mean WOW.
OK, time for a shower. the boss leaves today. I get to come home and "Nest" for a little bit more. Tomorrow I am leaving for Palm Beach again.
I will be back in the long long days. So maybe I'll lose more weight!
Always looking for the brighter side of life!!
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 5:18 AM
Sheila, I know that you met and partied with Brian and so you feel you must always spring to his side. I understand that. But you cannot deny that he says snotty, negative things about women in general and Hillary in particular all the time. He can defend himself.
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 5:19 AM
Craig Got it Right Again!
You made HUFFPO as a featured Blog Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/media-gets-it-wrong-again_b_85235.html
Congrats Cahoona!
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 5:22 AM
Patsi,
I know he can. I am just trying to pull some highly damaging remarks down again and I would like some help from you too. help all of the rest of us to make the next transition. There will always be a winner.
What I've seen, really concerns me that we are going to get torn apart for something fleeting like a Primary.
I'm not taking sides, just trying to get ALL of you to....while you enjoy your hard earned wins, don't forget that a lot of rather over the line statements can hurt longer than a short lived win.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 5:27 AM
By the way, Just to get this straight.
Brian, does have a lot of very interesting theories. I'd say 50/50 on accuracy.
Until this race, we had a great time theorizing. I believe Brian has been the only one with enough guts to theorize about both tickets.
I also believe he's had enough guts to come back at some remarks that made a lot of people wince.
He's what I call the Frydaddy of the left and I get along with FRY too. So you can't say i'm not an equal opportunity friend.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 5:31 AM
Obama won mostly red states, which he can't count on winning in the general. Clinton won most of her delegates from traditional blue states.
Posted by: Dan | February 6, 2008 5:34 AM
"I get along with FRY too. So you can't say i'm not an equal opportunity friend. "
ROFL...that's true. Brian does, however, like to stir things up with snarky comments. Sometimes I take the bait and sometimes I don't.
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 5:36 AM
LOL I know. However, he is very smart and his NYC snark hurts. But he is really taken aback when you guys take him wrong. LOL then the Street fighter comes out and its a looooonnnngggg day! lol
Both Brian and Fry are really the ones that keep us going in what we like to do. AND regetably, they are right enough to make it sting sometimes. ;0)
Tom and the other newbies need practice not enabling. They also need to know when something "RIGHT OR WRONG" was a wincing comment.
ALL of us need to be reminded about what might hurt another. Like you reminded me the other day. I honestly didn't get the 'Used Car Saleman Like" comment until Horse said something. Then I took a step back and understood.
All I'm asking.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 5:46 AM
Reality Check:
* First, no one cares if the media "got it wrong." This assumes that: (a) voters are listening; and (B) that they are swayed by the media. Both assertions are dubious.
*Second, what the media is picking up on is the ENERGY of the Obama people. Obama is attracting huge crowds of young, passionate, idealistic people. Hillary is not.
*Third, Super Tue was a TIE, which is a win for Obama. Clinton is no longer "inevitable."
Posted by: nash
| February 6, 2008 5:48 AM
Well Proffessor Snark!
Come in here and have a picnic! LOL
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 5:50 AM
Heres a surprise.....NM is leaning toward Obama! I'm so shocked!
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 5:52 AM
The Dem race is all about the Clintons. If you like them, and think they would be effective advocates of Democratic principles, then you support them.
If you dislike them, and think that THEY are part of the problem, then you support Obama.
He's the un-Clinton.
Posted by: nash
| February 6, 2008 5:56 AM
The BIG News of the Night is Huckabee and its simply because he represents the Voting Fundamentalists of the Chrisitain Right.
He really speaks how most of them really feel and believe. This win is very telling. Don't let the Media fool you either.
He REPRESENTS what they really feel and believe. more help for the poor AND changing the Constitution toward God being more important. ;0)
Brian and I have been debating this point for months. I am going to take a public stand now that Huckabee will be McCains running mate. his VEEP position will sow up McCain's poor showing for that part of the base.
We were laughing last night, but if Clinton gets the NOD, she will have to gather some Jack Valenti Types to counter this. She can pull of the Presidency if she can over come that kind of Republican Ticket.
You guys can see this with closed minds or you can open your minds to the possibility and fight for a different outcome.
Heading for Work! Have a grea day. ;0)
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 6:02 AM
Patsi & Sheila: Good morning, ladies.
Don't be too hard on Brian. He can't help it. He lives in New York, the most in-your-face city on the planet. The first time I went there, I got mugged, propositioned, approached by by dozens of dealers, shoved by a homeless guy, and tossed out of a restaurant because they thought I was gay. (I still don't know why.) And that was just in the first 24 hours.
I wouldn't go back there without a native guide and and an armed escort.
Posted by: nash
| February 6, 2008 6:03 AM
""""We were laughing last night""""that's "Brian and I were laughing about a McCain/Huckabee ticket".
But its a bit more serious this morning.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 6:06 AM
Tag Team! You guys are it, I'm out the door!
Posted by: Sheila
| February 6, 2008 6:08 AM
Nash, I don't think she's been "inevitable" for a couple of months now. On the contrary, I have heard her obit read several times.
And yes, a lot of morons really do believe what the media feeds them. Over the years the misinformation, demonizing and outright lying shaped many opinions. Consider the march to war that people are now trying to hang around Hillary's neck, despite her impassioned speech at the time about the folly of invading until every diplomatic option was used.
There were many reasons to vote either way at that time. I had started thinking Bush was crazy some months earlier, so I was against the vote....HOWEVER -- I still remember thinking that "if" by some stretch, Iraq had a bomb and lobbed it into Israel, everyone who voted against giving Bush war powers would be impeached -- after the media strung them up.
Over the years I've seen "anti-war" turned into "anti-American," "Liberal" turned into "commie," feminist turned into "ball-breaking man hunter....and yes, a piddling $100,000 land deal in Arkansas turned into a scandal of Enron proportions.
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 6:09 AM
" I got mugged, propositioned, approached by by dozens of dealers, shoved by a homeless guy, and tossed out of a restaurant because they thought I was gay."
Jeez! Nash! I love NYC -- never had an ounce of trouble there, and I've spent a lot of time in the city. On the other hand, my car was run off the road here in Nashville by some skinheads who thought I'd cut them off in traffic...go figure!
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 6:33 AM
Sheila, I know you're gone, but you are the voice of reason.
Brian, I count myself as a long time feminist, but I do not find you offensive, just funny, and I often agree with your political point of view. I do believe that EuroTom has a secret crush on you which he is fighting with all his might, like a 3rd grader who says "I hate that boy" when really he/she wants to hold hands with him. It's so funny to watch.
And to all, I know I'm beating a dead horse, but once again I must implore you all to stop calling each other idiots, morons, etc. It doesn't help the discussion and is insulting to people with developmental disabilities.
Posted by: colleen | February 6, 2008 6:39 AM
Craig,
I can't help but think that the problem with the media is that as a group, you guys offer commentary without any regard to the total picture.
Just as in previous contests, you will see that Mrs. Clinton has had a significant benefit from early voting. She did especially well with people who voted well in advance of the primary date.
If you look at people who waited to vote until election day, I am sure you will see the spreads significantly closer.
If you review the comments from you media folk in the past week, you heard the point was raised about early voting, yet when the grand predictions are made, that very important fact is ignored.
Obama can't be faulted for not meeting the expectations of a group who bases them on analysis that is only 50% complete.
We have seen as a trend in this campaign that Obama has done better than expected with well educated voters.
It is therefore NO SHOCK TO ME THAT HE ISN'T DOING AS WELL WITH THE MEDIA SINCE AS A TOTAL GROUP, YOU AREN'T FITTING THAT MOLD...
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 6:40 AM
All you need to know about why I hate New York is that when I visited my mother's cemetery in the Bronx, I observed a woman in a brand new Cadilac stealing flowers from the graves to take outside the gates to resell.
Another reason is that some piece of shit actually stole the two earns we bought for the pedestal to keep flowers...they were there for less than a month. When I tried to file a police report, the cop basically told me to screw, he didn't want to do paperwork.
So F#$@ that city
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 6:43 AM
Okay, Colleen....from now on when I think someone is an idiot I'll quote Bugs Bunny and call them a maroon.
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 6:50 AM
believe that a part of Clinton's victory in CA is attributable to (i) early voting, and (ii) the state is too damn big.
except for the facts: late voters broke for Clinton,.
ooooothe states;s tooooo big...gee did that just happen
and he brought secret weapons Oprah all the Kennedys and the wife of the governor.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 6:56 AM
And so, after raging that the press has been down on Romney, MOJo started his own spin on last night's voting: Obama's Missouri win was monumental according to him, despite the fact that it was basically a dead heat.
No commentary on two elephants in the room. One, many of the states Obama won big will NEVER go Democratic in November: Georgia, Idaho, Alabama, Kansas.....Two: this caucus factor is very odd to me. In Kansas, people couldn't even figure out how to do it....my homestate, and people were saying it was all bout the party's control. And why, exactly, is Obama winning caucuses? I think it is due to the fact that it's winer and older voters may not be able to get out. Lots of young, aggressive people there....
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 6:56 AM
I am just looking for a Happy Ending.
yo soy Horsedooty!
Posted by: Horsedooty! | February 6, 2008 6:58 AM
senor dooty
are you looking for a pony?
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 7:04 AM
People keep suggesting that early voters would have changed their votes....that overlooks that early voters are ofter older voters. They made up their minds and wouldn't have changed.
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 7:14 AM
biggest loser Zogby
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 7:22 AM
All of professional Polls should be fired this year!
Posted by: Sheila Stone
| February 6, 2008 7:23 AM
Dear Mrs. Clinton,
A win is a win is a win. Carry on!!
Posted by: max | February 6, 2008 7:24 AM
One, many of the states Obama won big will NEVER go Democratic in November: Georgia, Idaho, Alabama, Kansas.....
Patsi, I am going to go on a limb and say Hillary doesn't have much of a shot in those states either...
I would like analysis about what states will genuinely be in play for the General Election. I ask this because if it was a McCain/ Obama race, the early narrative would be that they both scored primary wins in states their party doesn't normally carry in the general election. If it were Hillary, I would expect her to carry Arkansas but would she pick up other southern states? I think she would lose Florida to McCain, so what would she need to get instead to make up for that major loss?
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 7:29 AM
thank you, Patsi
Posted by: colleen | February 6, 2008 7:32 AM
bear
http://www.whistlingpastdixie.com/
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 7:32 AM
Katherine,
Thanks for the link...I will order the book online since I doubt I will find it in any bookstore in Fort Worth.
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 7:35 AM
Wonder how Ms. Winfrey is feeling this morning? Apparently, Ugly Betty trumps Oprah.
What is up with MoJo (and others)? He played a clip of Obama's speech & Joe was just in awe. (Again, this is a US presidential race, not Toastmasters.) Why? I just don't get it? What is he saying that is so inspiring? Unify the country under a tent of what?
At least Joe finally had the insight to say that it's experience vs change rather than a race race. I would amend that to being experience & competence vs the untried and, therefore, unknown.
W has a lot of experience being prez & look at the job he's doing. Hil'ry is very capable; Obama doesn't even have the fine motor skills to vote his intent when he actually cares enough to vote something other than "present."
Posted by: blueINdallas | February 6, 2008 7:36 AM
I went to NYC 2 years ago. I never had a problem while I was there. No rude people except the ones who were driving. But , I was walking. I just observed them from the sidewalk. I'm looking at the election like this: Its it better to root for someone to win because you believe in them and want them to win or root for someone to win simply because you can't stand the other candidate? I mean , I root for Ohio St. Notre Dame and Michigan St. to lose every weekend in football , but it's not because I like the teams they are playing against , it's because I hate those 3 teams a lot. And it IS a 2 way street as far as bashing each other's candidates.
Posted by: Corey
| February 6, 2008 7:42 AM
Blue,
If you aren't able to detach your political emotions and be impressed with how Obama delivers a speech and captivates and audience, you will never be able to see it. He is an impressive orator. It doesn't hurt that he has a rich sounding voice that does well when he needs to increase his volume.
I agree with a lot of Hillary says but I have some issues with her oratory style. When she tries to get louder she sounds shrill. Whereas Obama has a "poker face" when he speaks to the press, Hillary has her own version of the W smirk that is off putting. I don't think I am the only person who is put off by it, even though I like what I hear from her on most issues.
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 7:43 AM
You don't have to be a smooth talker to get elected President. Just look at who we have right now.
Posted by: Corey
| February 6, 2008 7:45 AM
Mike Barnicle just cannot admit he is wrong
and the load is right there with him
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 7:45 AM
hey Mrs Greenspan Tom Daschle is a friggin lobbyist
and Clinton wasn't president when Daschle lost
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 7:47 AM
"Patsi, I am going to go on a limb and say Hillary doesn't have much of a shot in those states either..."
That was my point, Bear. Those are red states and no Dem is gonna "change" that...
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 7:51 AM
Bear....add SC to the list of states which will never go democratic
Posted by: sturgeone | February 6, 2008 7:52 AM
Sheila, I think you are spot on about Huckabee. His influence and potential pull have been underestimated all along....
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 7:52 AM
I cant see McCain picking Huck for his VP.... i dont think that will happen
Posted by: sturgeone | February 6, 2008 7:56 AM
"If you aren't able to detach your political emotions and be impressed with how Obama delivers a speech and captivates and audience, you will never be able to see it. He is an impressive orator. It doesn't hurt that he has a rich sounding voice that does well when he needs to increase his volume."
Now that scares me. Is that now what we base the future of our country on? How someone delivers a speech? The "timbre" of the voice? It's that kind of thinking that for me, at least, is troublesome.
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 7:57 AM
Obama gives good speech. Big deal. There's just no there there. Sorry, bear, but I was looking for content.
How ticked off is Romney at Huckabee today? I like Mike.
Posted by: blueINdallas | February 6, 2008 8:01 AM
In 1998, Barnicle was forced to resign from the Boston Globe amid questions about the sources of two of his columns. The first column, dated August 2, 1998, allegedly contained unattributed material from the 1997 book Brain Droppings by George Carlin[1].
Review of previous Barnicle columns by the Globe revealed another possible fabrication in an October 8, 1995 piece. The column recounted the story of two sets of parents with cancer-stricken children. When one of the boys, a black child, died, the parents of the other boy, a white child who had begun to recover, sent the dead child's parents a check for $10,000 USD. When the Globe could not locate the people in the story, Barnicle claimed said he did not obtain the story from any of the parents, but from a nurse, yet did not produce the name of the nurse. When editors could not find a death that matched that of the child's in the piece, Barnicle was asked to resign[2]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Barnicle
Posted by: GORDO | February 6, 2008 8:03 AM
Patsi,
Any tornado's in your region? I just saw the news on the weather last night. Not good.
Posted by: dnd | February 6, 2008 8:05 AM
Craig hit another one out of the park. The Hillary campaign consistently is in the business of lowering expectations once they figured out that the "inevitable" thing was working against her. By doing that, and using the machine to get out the vote, she always wins in the MSM.
Posted by: dnd | February 6, 2008 8:12 AM
Patsi,
You need to take a deep breath and count to ten...
If you think ones ability to deliver a speech isn't important than you are being, in my opinion, a bit naive.
One of the major criticisms W will have after he is out of office is that he couldn't deliver a speech without looking like a stuttering idiot. Letterman's daily "Great moments in presidential speeches" did nothing but make W look every bit the idiot we think him to be.
If you are not able to clearly and concisely convey to people what you stand for, whether you are right or wrong on an issue is inconsequential because you will never be able to convince others of that point.
I have posted many the following point before on this blog...
How something is said, the visual behind what is said carries just as much weight as what is actually being said. We live in a short attention span world and those things are often more resounding than the points being made.
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 8:14 AM
Craig.. Well i guess we can say Hillary gave Ted a Big Take That!!
Posted by: Tan | February 6, 2008 8:15 AM
Anyone else pick up on the point that many of Clinton's donors are maxed out while Obama's nickel and dimers aren't?
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 8:16 AM
dnd....no -- no tornados in Music City....but then, I don't get excited at the alerts...I grew up in a Kansas town that was smack in the middle of "tornado alley" -- the end of our roof got clipped off twice. I guess I'm kind of like those folks in the Keys who sit ou opn their patios with cocktails waiting for the hurricane.
PS -- Everybody played down expectations. At least "try" to look at things with an objective eye! :)
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 8:17 AM
Anyone else pick up on the point that many of Clinton's donors are maxed out while Obama's nickel and dimers aren't?
Posted by: Bear | February 6, 2008 8:16 AM
stop listening to morning load
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 8:18 AM
Patsi-------Hitler was able to "move" the German people with his speechs. It can be dangerous!
Posted by: GORDO | February 6, 2008 8:18 AM
Thank god super Tuesday has come and gone....
but before I make any political comments......
Patsi.... I am sooooo relieved to see you posting this morning....... I was praying for your safety last night....
yup.... Clinton won the night..... and Obama is nipping at her heels....
it's an exciting time to be a political junkie.....
I watched CNN last night...... their coverage was superb....
I tuned in MSNBC for a few minutes...... just in time to see Tweety trying to twist Martinez's arm in New Jersey to change his super delegate vote pledge from Clinton to Obama if he took the state..... good god..... what an ass!
I don't get how any of you can continue to watch such idiotic coverage at this point.
GO DEMOCRATS!
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | February 6, 2008 8:19 AM
Bear -- I think Hillary will find donations when she needs them.
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 8:19 AM
Has anyone else considered that Kennedy was asked to endorse Obama by the Clinton campaign?
Consider that if she is the nominee and the pale elephants try to break out the liberal tag, she can say if the liberal wing of her party endorsed her opponent, she is truly the real moderate in the race. Tactically, this is brilliant because McCain will have to run to the right to shore up his party support first.
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 8:20 AM
Bear,
I am one of those small doners and I'm not finished yet. I think it worth it. My conscience won't let me do anything else.
Posted by: Sheila Stone
| February 6, 2008 8:21 AM
Just opened my eyes so don't know if anyone put this up yet
Marharishi Yogi has died
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/06/db0603.xml
Posted by: Jamie | February 6, 2008 8:22 AM
Nice article Craig!!
I was just doing some research on the media and brainwashing. One of the articles; http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/TV.html The history of American using brain washing is interesting to those of you who like that sort of thing..........I do!!
I caught Jay Leno last night with his "Jay Walkers" and was reminded that few people even know who the political candidates are by facial recognition. Hard to believe with us here who see them in our sleep. As I watched I was thinking of the report from the Center for Media & Public Affairs with media reporting being 83% positive for OB, and 47% positive for HC. http://www.cmpa.com/
So, if we have around 300 million people in the US, 62 million voted in 2004, (and I understand it will be more in 2008.) My question is how many people really know who they are voting for freely without being brainwashed?
Posted by: Linda-in-Wiscosnin | February 6, 2008 8:23 AM
Tom Brokaw has been a voice of reason. The rest of them all all caught up in the movement
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 6, 2008 8:23 AM
Bear....
wow.....
your theory on why Teddy endorsed Obama.....
now THAT is what can be called spin...... LOL!
I do agree with you on your comments on oratory skills....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | February 6, 2008 8:25 AM
The big story of the night is how Huckie is preventing Mitt from getting the nomination. It's causing the Right wing radio guys to go nuts.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 6, 2008 8:26 AM
What happened in WVA is a prime example. Back door politics at it's best.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 6, 2008 8:27 AM
Obama doesn't have to worry about his flacks doing the wrong things because his nbc campaign staff is able to pivot and spin all on their own.
Every story begins with "This is what Barack has to do ...." nice going chuckie todd
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 8:29 AM
Renee,
That just came to me as I was enjoying a cup of Hot Dunkin Donuts...
now to change the subject...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fGw16YrZxF8
One of the best Beatles songs ever...
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 8:29 AM
BTW, everyone good morning. Where did you all go last night? When I was done tutoring, I checked in to find no one from the blog yesterday listing on that site. Do I need a secret password?? LOL
Posted by: Linda-in-Wiscosnin | February 6, 2008 8:30 AM
"Has anyone else considered that Kennedy was asked to endorse Obama by the Clinton campaign?"
ROFL, Bear! You've officially jumped the shark.
But as far as that great orator thing goes....you followed your praise of Obama by saying you thought Hillary's voice was irritating. Sorry she doesn't sound like a preacher.
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 8:30 AM
Our new Sue said
"Obama's performance and lack of subatance and found his effort to sermonize cloying. They found him young."
It's nice to know we are all sisters under the skin. :)
I should have had more faith that California wouldn't fail me... such lovely lovely numbers.
Posted by: Jamie | February 6, 2008 8:30 AM
VADaryl,
Was Larry Craig involved in those backdoor politics? lol
Sorry, couldn't resist
Gordo, please ditch the Hitler references please. To keep up the theme of the campaign, you should have said that "Jesse Jackson was the best orator of the 84 and 88 campaign and where did he end up..."
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 8:31 AM
Bear------A big problem (with the Right-wing) for McCain is that he has worked with Ted Kennedy.
Posted by: GORDO | February 6, 2008 8:32 AM
mornin' all.
Interesting night, no? Not to be too simplistic about this, but Craig's piece is pretty well spot on IMHO. Looks like this will indeed go to the convention - but don't forget, the allimportant WV Primary is May 13. (LOL, but WV would have won the nomination for Gore in '00 but for the lies of the NRA).
I thought Massachusetts may have been the biggest story of the night - in Kennedyland,Ted and Caroline couldn't deliver. And in Claifornia, Oprah, the Kennedies AND Maria couldn't deliver. Apparently the non-black ethnic vote isn'tconcernedwith what they say - those were the California demos that Hillary won. Talk all you want about the red states Obama won- they won't help in November,and neither he nor Hillary stands much of a chance in them.
Bear, the comment that Hillary can't beat McCain in FLmeans exactly what? Obama couldn't beat Hillary in FL even though neither of them compaigned there and they were both on the ballot. Could Obama deliver FL if Hillary were not on the ballot? Maybe, but I'd put my money on the candidat e that drew more support there when dem voters were given the choice between them, which was Hillary - her appeal to the Hispanic and geriatric groups has been demonstrated to be stronger than his (AZ & CA f''rinstance), and there are a few folks in those groups in FL.
From a personal perspective, the states that surprised me most were the southern states that Obama won, oncluding my home stae of AL - there is without a doubt a tremendous change that has taken place down there. I need to dig into the voting among the demo groups to see how he won them, but nonetheless, it is heartening to an old southern boy to see a black man do as well as he did in the heart of the KKK.
I had to laugh this morning - Little Pogo hears election coverage wince I watch either CNN or MSNBC most of the time. That little 11 year old said "Everybody says they stand for change."
All I can say is that while Obama is a gifted speaker, and does indeed have the ability to inspre folks, he better be ablet o better articulate his positions or he will not win this race, Hillary's offputting smirk notwithstanding. And I'd recommend to his campaign staff that he stay away from the debates - they haven't helped him much against HIllary.
Posted by: pogo
| February 6, 2008 8:33 AM
Hillary sounds best the quieter she speaks into the microphone. Anyone who meets her is always impressed with how she is one on one. She needs to do that with an audience is my point. It's a matter of realizing what you do best and then doing it.
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 8:35 AM
Life would be perfect if only there were a "Dewey Bets Truman" version of the L. A. Times to hold up.
Someboddy pass a croissant .. another sacrilege, I don't like Krispy Kream
Posted by: Jamie | February 6, 2008 8:36 AM
Patsi,
Glad no tornado's.
"PS -- Everybody played down expectations. At least "try" to look at things with an objective eye! :)"
Well by everybody, if you mean the media, I agree. The Clinton campaign plays the media like a fiddle. I can't count the number of times I saw Hillary saying it was going to be close and that they needed a big turnout to win. That's what she told me in her call to me yesterday in an effort to get me out to caucus for her.
Posted by: dnd | February 6, 2008 8:39 AM
For those that enjoy good satire, P.J. O'Rourke:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9121
Posted by: dnd | February 6, 2008 8:41 AM
Boy those New Mexicans are certainly split evenly
Clinton is currently ahead by 198 votes
I think the state was carried by 500 votes in the last presidential election.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 8:42 AM
"For those that enjoy good rightwing satire, P.J. O'Rourke:"
fixed your typo
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 8:43 AM
Pogo,
I didn't say that Hillary can't beat McCain in Florida, just that I don't expect her to.
I don't think she would win the Riviera Rednecks and while she does well with Hispanics, Florida has the Cubans who are still bitter about the Elian Gonzalez thing. Furthermore, I think the RNC will overspend to make sure they win there. I agree that I am not sure Obama would do much better there...I don't know so that is why I was asking the question since I am curious about the groups opinion.
With regards to Massachusetts, Clinton's win did not surprise me. What did is that her percentage of the vote was less than expected. If you look at the city by city breakdown, Obama won all the areas that the Kennedy family had at one time a physical presence. He did well in the cities and academic areas.
Hillary did impress me with how well she did in the Portugese communities between the RI border and the Cape. She also did very well in the more rural parts of the state, but as I think about it, that isn't as shocking to me.
Without the Kennedy endorsement, I think she would have gotten over 60% of the vote IMO. Kerry's endorsement was useless though.
Lastly, you can't discount the California endorsements from this past weekend because it was such big news nationally, it was incredible free publicity that transcended the CA borders. To what effect, who knows yets...
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 8:46 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SVUzTZ5dgwQ
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 8:48 AM
Obama voted against radio marti more than once
I don't think he would do well in Florida at all
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 8:49 AM
Lastly, you can't discount the California endorsements from this past weekend because it was such big news nationally, it was incredible free publicity that transcended the CA borders. To what effect, who knows yets...
Well it didn't work in California . so now you are spinning it for the future. Kennedy endorsed Obama two cycles ago and what about John Kerry --apparently his endorsement also worthless.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 8:51 AM
dnd, WADR, Hillary always wins in the MSM? What MSM are you watching? It's not the same one I am.
Bear,
"If you are not able to clearly and concisely convey to people what you stand for, whether you are right or wrong on an issue is inconsequential because you will never be able to convince others of that point.
I have posted many the following point before on this blog...
How something is said, the visual behind what is said carries just as much weight as what is actually being said. We live in a short attention span world and those things are often more resounding than the points being made."
That is true, cynical, and the root of my problem with Obama. What does he stand for? Change? That's all I hear. So far, the peple that are represented by about 80 electoral votes that are in Clinton's column and aren't in Obama's disagree with that.
Renee, I agree with you aout CNN's coverage - I watched them for all but about 10 minutes of the evening last night and didn't throw anything, including epithets, at the screen even once. I watched them this morning as well, and enjoyed my coffee more than I have in months - I could make a habit of this.
VADaryl - don't make too much of the WV Repug convention - Repugs are few and far between here - only 1200 participated in that contest - and they can't hold a candle to the backdoor politics practiced by Dems here.
Posted by: pogo
| February 6, 2008 8:52 AM
What happened to Joe? I hope he didn't get dizzy and fall off his chair, from all his "spin" this morning.
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 6, 2008 8:53 AM
KGC,
""For those that enjoy good satire, P.J. O'Rourke:"
Fixed your typo of fixing my typo. Good satire is good satire regardless of the perspective of the author.
Posted by: dnd | February 6, 2008 8:53 AM
The Cubans are far worse than any Mexican coming across the border with regards to an unwillingness to learn English or assimilate into American culture...
No wonder the Republicans love them...
BTW, the following is video of secret plans from the Obamacampaign...lol
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=894123160
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 8:54 AM
The news out of Missouri (or should be poor AP, got suckered again.)
The Saint Louis machine did it again!!!
When I last checked the Saint Louis web site 83% of the returns had come in with the vote going just under 70%, I did a quick estimate of the remaining 17% and had Obama coming in just short of victory. so I went to bed. The Saint Louis folks didn't
Just playing with final numbers The final 17% of the Saint Louis vote came in with 84% voting for Obama.
I'm not saying they voted in alphabetical order or anything..........
For those of us in Missouri this is nothing new. I have come to believe the Saint Louis machine is up for sale to the highest bidder. They did the same thing for Kit Bond several years ago and made CBS look foolish.
I could name more.
I know the idealists out there find this kind of thing terrible but in the long run it is just politics. I'm all infavor of politics. Because the alternative is the gun and I'm too old to be running around dodging bullets
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | February 6, 2008 8:55 AM
Bear------I will not go into detail, but there is great worry (in some circles) about Mika's father being an advisor to Obama. He has been described as an unreconstructed "Cold War" warrior with an obsesson about Moscow.
Posted by: GORDO | February 6, 2008 8:56 AM
Linda-in-Wisconsin
There were lots of people here, until well after midnight.
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 6, 2008 8:57 AM
Fixed your typo of fixing my typo. Good satire is good satire regardless of the perspective of the author
that's not true. Good satire should not have a political point of view but should poke holes evently
he doesn't meet that test
try Swift
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 8:58 AM
Amazon.com: Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut ...Third, and not really far up there on the scale, but still worth mentioning: in most ways, P. J. O'Rourke is a tremendous boon to the right-wing American.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 8:59 AM
Gordo,
You owe me a new laptop because I just spit up after reading your comment. The first time I ever hear my father swear in English was when he described Zbignew as a crazy F-in idiot...
I hope to God you are wrong
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 9:00 AM
True, true, the Media should wax less poetic and more pragmatic, but Obama did take the black vote big time away from Hillary amd his white vote is up to 43 percent . Also, I think overall Barak's outcome was phenomenal when you consider that he was largely an unknown a year ago; Senator Clinton has been around for years and she still could not score overwhelmingly. As a matter of fact, although she is staying steady with older women, she could not do better than parity overall. It is a very close horse race yet. I will not praise him too much though!
Posted by: Clemmieo
| February 6, 2008 9:02 AM
GORDO You are nuts....But Funny Nuts! LOLOLLOL
Posted by: Sheila Stone
| February 6, 2008 9:02 AM
6"-12" of snow headed my way today. Hooray.
Posted by: Corey
| February 6, 2008 9:02 AM
KGC,
"Good satire should not have a political point of view but should poke holes evently
he doesn't meet that test"
Apparently you didn't read it.
Posted by: dnd | February 6, 2008 9:04 AM
dnd
blah blah blah
he is a rightwing humorist
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 6, 2008 9:08 AM
Bear, if I mistook your questionning Hillary's ability to win FL against McCain as a suggestion that you think Obama can, I apologize. I do agree with you that Hillary could not carry the Redneck Riviera - but neither could Obama - I will go visit CNN's site and look at what happened in that part of the state if they still have that analysis posted, but I'm betting that Huckleberry took it on the Repug side, and for good reason - bible thumping rednecks comprise a huge proporation of the population in the panhandle. And while the results there are of limited (read none) value in the delegate race, the patterns should suggest how the two dems could do there in Nov.
For what it's worth, I think Huckleberry is very close to the end of his run - the states he can get with his religion and southern aw shucksness are just about done now, and I don't hink his appeal will be as strong in the flintier areas of the country. I do think he will be on McCain's short list, though. He needs a strong "base" running mate, and I can't see it being Romney with all the challeges his religion and past positions on conservative issues bring to the table. And Romney ison life support now - with well funded medical care, but the end is ineveitable.
Posted by: pogo
| February 6, 2008 9:09 AM
It's just fun to watching Mitt and McCain go at it. While Huckie steals the votes away.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 6, 2008 9:10 AM
Glad Edwards pulled out
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 6, 2008 9:11 AM
Bear,
I agree that the ability to make a good speech with rhythms and tones that please the ear is a wonderful and useful talent to have. When I first hear Obama speak at the convention, it was a thing of beauty. Lately he just irritates me. All that beautiful sound and forcefulness with empty words.
I've commented before that Hillary should be sent to the Elizabeth Dole School of Oratory. When she is conversational she has a lovely voice (when it isn't cracking from fatigue). When she tries to be oratorical, she sounds screechy. She's getting better, and even more important when she speaks she says something worth hearing.
Posted by: Jamie | February 6, 2008 9:15 AM
LOL, media still gets it wrong. How is winning Red States during the primaries (especially with more activist Liberals voters in caucuses) meaningful? Utah? Now rreally. Most of Obama's victories were in States that will vote for McCain come November. How many pundits are talking about that this morning?
Hillary slapped Teddy around, took New Jersey, New York and California. That is what wins elections. It was not close in these States. What saved Obama was winning those caucuses in Red States and this hardly shows Obama the betre chance come November. I see that and perhaps Brian sees that now.
Ohio, Texas and Penn will likely go Clinton and despite the media, Liberal endorsements, race charges, internet and Republican attacks on Hillary, the "hope" and "dreams" roll forward. The people are not buying the spin from the Obama side. If Barak gets nasty now, he sinks faster. He might think of something more than "Obama is Obama".
Did you here? Hillary got the Devil to make bad weather and win in Tenn. Same deal, she beats Teddy and the Giants beat Brady. Hey, MSNBC is not beyond such thinking. I get better analysis from Carl Rove.
Posted by: Maxtrue | February 6, 2008 9:19 AM
Why does this race need to be about beer drinking v wine drinking;
old v young;
black v white;
rich v poor;
educated v uneducated;
white v black v hispanic v asian
married v unmarried
etc.
If they ask me to poll after voting I am going to tell them a bunch of lies just to screw with their minds, or tell them to figure it out!!
Posted by: Linda-in-Wiscosnin | February 6, 2008 9:21 AM
I would like to know who is coaching Obama. That guy is doing a great job. He is getting better by the day but is he really ready. Soon the media will turn on him and the reps with Hannity and crew will be going after him with all they got. This reminds me of the movie The Candidate with Robert Refford. His character became a good candidate, won the election but at the end he goes into a room and says now what. I am not convinced he is ready yet, but in 4 or 8 years he will be more than ready. Good VP choice or stay where he is. Maybe become a governor so he can run something, instead of just relying on his war vote.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 6, 2008 9:21 AM
Max,
Most of Obama's victories were in States that will vote for McCain come November. How many pundits are talking about that this morning?
Don't limit your vision here. Don't look at how many RED states, look at how many people want change in those states.
Look at the Mandate given by those people. This race is like no other.
If you really want to be smart in this, start look at your candidate's opposition and their numbers. Then turn it into what it could possibly mean for them in the General.
Whether or not Obama did well in Red States is moot. I saw a Heck of a lot of New Voters for the Democratic Party. People willing to fight maybe????
Posted by: Sheila Stone
| February 6, 2008 9:24 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vk_NQAWV5Mw&feature=related
Posted by: Bear
| February 6, 2008 9:25 AM
Who was it a few days ago who said they had "dust storms" that would be breeding "killer tornados" ? Unfortunately, they were right.
Posted by: Jamie | February 6, 2008 9:26 AM
Let's hear it for the Estrogen Mafia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZhmZxPWni0
Posted by: Jamie | February 6, 2008 9:28 AM
Jamie,
"Who was it a few days ago who said they had "dust storms" that would be breeding "killer tornados" ? Unfortunately, they were right."
It was Blonde wino.
Posted by: dnd | February 6, 2008 9:30 AM
But it WAS close dnd...at least by states. personally discount the solidly red states because they are meaningless to Dems.
Posted by: Patsi | February 6, 2008 9:33 AM
I understand it is all about delegates, c