A more interesting comment: look at the huge difference in backdrop tonight behind Hillary. Gone are Madeline Albright & Wesley Clark and even Bill. Instead, all youth. Interesting.
The good news is that once again the polls were wrong. When are people going to stop believing? People aren’t available or won’t cooperate, and it’s increasingly hard to get a valid sample. Stop the madness! And for heaven’s sake, next fall, don’t believe an exit poll if you haven’t cast your own vote yet.
I guess that the college football season was predictive of the primaries, namely if you are number one that week, you will probably lose. In the Democrat debate Saturday, other than her temper tantrum, Hillary outperformed the other candidates in that she demonstrated a much better grasp of the complexities and nuances of the issues than did the others. McCain did likewise on the GOP side. Fasten your seatbelts folks, the coming 4 weeks should be quite interesting.
What some see as a temper tantrum, others see as an expression of reality. All the fancy, flowing words don’t mean a thing if reality is put on the back burner. “Change” is just a word after all, as she pointed out. Why is it when a woman is assertive – she is having a temper tantrum. When a woman shows emotion – it is questioned as to whether it is real or acting.
What amazes me about the news reporting today is the notion that women voted for Hillary Clinton because she teared up on the campaign trail. I certainly hope women in New Hampshire and around the US have more going on then to be swayed by a tear – good grief – what next? And, – if this was a calculated move on Hillary’s part then shame on her (actually I don’t think it was; just a lot of frustration and exhaustion showing up) for using cheap tricks.
[i]What some see as a temper tantrum, others see as an expression of reality. All the fancy, flowing words don’t mean a thing if reality is put on the back burner. “Change” is just a word after all, as she pointed out. Why is it when a woman is assertive – she is having a temper tantrum. When a woman shows emotion – it is questioned as to whether it is real or acting. [/i]
Simply because the Clintons never do anything without calculation, and for the greatest effect. If she thought tears would get the best media, she would have used them. That’s reality.
The main question is: If H. can’t take a few potshots from Chris Wallace or Barak Obama, then how is she going to handle it when Putin or Ahminijad or some other world leader ‘gets tough’ with her?
IF women actually voted for Hillary only because she teared up, then I am embarrassed for our sex. We do have minds, you know. I prefer to use mine when I vote.
You have a point #11 – my cynical side agrees with you, but my trying hard to less judgmental in the new year side was giving her the benefit of the doubt. Also agree with #12 – this is one member of the fairer sex who will use her mind to vote!
Remember the same pundits who said this was all about that one emotional moment are the same ones who were writing Hillary’s political obituary the day before yesterday. Do give the people of NH more credit. I find pundits and polls interesting, but I don’t believe for a moment that they are determinative.
I don’t know what to think of Hillary’s tears. They could have been calculated. They could have been genuine. Personally I think it’s possible she truly was under stress, not at being hammered by the other candidates, but at the thought that she was going to lose (as she did in Iowa, and as everyone was saying she would in NH), and that it came out. But I don’t know. libraryjim seems to have a window on her soul, some of us do not (You can’t say “everything” they do is calculated, if so Monica Lewinsky was a very bad calculation).
You know, it would be good to get the facts right before having a discussion. There were no “tears” in that scene, and most reporters have gone to great lengths to affirm that. There was deep emotion in her voice, as well there might have been. But no tears. (Those who use the word “tears” are likely making an assumption from one reporter’s use of the term “welling up.” But again, it was heartfelt emotion that was “wlling up,” not tears.)
#15 – Tears, deep emotion – same thing, same result. She got very emotional that’s the point. If you want to quibble about tears or no tears – go ahead. The bottom line is her emotional display – however you wish to describe it – seems to have had an impact. If it was genuine – OK – but if it wasn’t – then it was a cheap campaign trick (and an insulting one to women at that) that I hope she doesn’t repeat, like Rudy’s wife calling him in the middle of speeches. Another Good Grief! Our country needs serious debates, by serious people who are seriously interested in moving this country forward (see the President’s speech at the end of the film The American President). We do not need cheap campaign tricks or negative attacks – and my hope is voters will take the time to tell the difference and not fall for gimmicks.
The episode of emotion which Mrs. Clinton displayed at the cafe is neither here nor there in my opinion. I have no doubt that it was genuine; this is a person with a very grueling, very stressful schedule, always focused on the “other” and someone took the time to ask about her. Her husband would have done the same thing as would I am sure most other folk. She is human. The same could be said about the tantrum (I call it that not because she is a woman but because it was a tantrum at a time where she would have been better served by keeping her cool). I do have issues with her and probably will not vote for her in the AL primary, but am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt overall since if she does get the nomination I am almost certain that I will be voting for her in November. (I know that some of you will jump on me because of her pro-choice stand. I vehemently disagree with her on this issue, but feel equally as strongly that we need to get the church in line on this and through the church to get the message out to the public. I do not think that laws will resolve the abortion crisis, anymore than laws create Christian believers.)
Pro-abortion, pro-socialism, pro-big government, anti-business, anti-captilaism, etc. These are a few of the reasons I’m NOT in favor of her in the role of President.
Oh, by the way, the President appoints Judges to the Supreme Court, which is where the battles on abortion, prayer in schools, gun rights, etc. will be fought. The people appointed reflect, often (but not always) the President’s view. So if the president is a strict constructionist, the court will look much different than if the President is an ‘interpretationalist’ (I don’t think that this is the right word). So, yes, this does make a difference in the long run.
I forgot to mention pro-raising taxes! ugh. I don’t want to go back to the Clinton years when I had to pay income taxes on a paltry 25,000 income with some stock holdings — those capital gains were killing me! Thank heaven for the Bush tax cuts! They need to be made permanent.
Unfortunately for my side, if I remember correctly the two oldest judges on the SC at the moment are both liberals; so even if a Democrat wins the White House this year the best-case scenario from a liberal perspective if Stevens or Ginsburg retire is that they are replaced with other liberals and the balance of power on the court remains relatively unchanged. We’d have to retain those seats and also replace a conservative — say, Scalia, who is in his early 70s if the internets are to be believed — to swing the court back in our favor.
The sad fact is, when GWB won in 2004 we pretty much lost the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.
Looks like Obama shares on Intrade did about as well today as the Dow Jones did.
A more interesting comment: look at the huge difference in backdrop tonight behind Hillary. Gone are Madeline Albright & Wesley Clark and even Bill. Instead, all youth. Interesting.
All the polls were wrong about Obama? Ron Paul came in 5th place?
Well, with Diebold voting machines counting the votes, they are helping to change democracy one vote at a time!
-Vincent
It’s deja vu all over again.
The good news is that once again the polls were wrong. When are people going to stop believing? People aren’t available or won’t cooperate, and it’s increasingly hard to get a valid sample. Stop the madness! And for heaven’s sake, next fall, don’t believe an exit poll if you haven’t cast your own vote yet.
#2 – Most of the youth in the backdrop seemed female to me. Good observation.
I guess that the college football season was predictive of the primaries, namely if you are number one that week, you will probably lose. In the Democrat debate Saturday, other than her temper tantrum, Hillary outperformed the other candidates in that she demonstrated a much better grasp of the complexities and nuances of the issues than did the others. McCain did likewise on the GOP side. Fasten your seatbelts folks, the coming 4 weeks should be quite interesting.
What some see as a temper tantrum, others see as an expression of reality. All the fancy, flowing words don’t mean a thing if reality is put on the back burner. “Change” is just a word after all, as she pointed out. Why is it when a woman is assertive – she is having a temper tantrum. When a woman shows emotion – it is questioned as to whether it is real or acting.
What amazes me about the news reporting today is the notion that women voted for Hillary Clinton because she teared up on the campaign trail. I certainly hope women in New Hampshire and around the US have more going on then to be swayed by a tear – good grief – what next? And, – if this was a calculated move on Hillary’s part then shame on her (actually I don’t think it was; just a lot of frustration and exhaustion showing up) for using cheap tricks.
Amen, #5 and #8!!!
Does a long, hard slog mean the rest of us actually get to vote and the media isn’t choosing the winner, instead?! 🙂
[i]What some see as a temper tantrum, others see as an expression of reality. All the fancy, flowing words don’t mean a thing if reality is put on the back burner. “Change” is just a word after all, as she pointed out. Why is it when a woman is assertive – she is having a temper tantrum. When a woman shows emotion – it is questioned as to whether it is real or acting. [/i]
Simply because the Clintons never do anything without calculation, and for the greatest effect. If she thought tears would get the best media, she would have used them. That’s reality.
The main question is: If H. can’t take a few potshots from Chris Wallace or Barak Obama, then how is she going to handle it when Putin or Ahminijad or some other world leader ‘gets tough’ with her?
IF women actually voted for Hillary only because she teared up, then I am embarrassed for our sex. We do have minds, you know. I prefer to use mine when I vote.
You have a point #11 – my cynical side agrees with you, but my trying hard to less judgmental in the new year side was giving her the benefit of the doubt. Also agree with #12 – this is one member of the fairer sex who will use her mind to vote!
Remember the same pundits who said this was all about that one emotional moment are the same ones who were writing Hillary’s political obituary the day before yesterday. Do give the people of NH more credit. I find pundits and polls interesting, but I don’t believe for a moment that they are determinative.
I don’t know what to think of Hillary’s tears. They could have been calculated. They could have been genuine. Personally I think it’s possible she truly was under stress, not at being hammered by the other candidates, but at the thought that she was going to lose (as she did in Iowa, and as everyone was saying she would in NH), and that it came out. But I don’t know. libraryjim seems to have a window on her soul, some of us do not (You can’t say “everything” they do is calculated, if so Monica Lewinsky was a very bad calculation).
You know, it would be good to get the facts right before having a discussion. There were no “tears” in that scene, and most reporters have gone to great lengths to affirm that. There was deep emotion in her voice, as well there might have been. But no tears. (Those who use the word “tears” are likely making an assumption from one reporter’s use of the term “welling up.” But again, it was heartfelt emotion that was “wlling up,” not tears.)
Bill, I saw the video and stand corrected. Thanks.
#15 – Tears, deep emotion – same thing, same result. She got very emotional that’s the point. If you want to quibble about tears or no tears – go ahead. The bottom line is her emotional display – however you wish to describe it – seems to have had an impact. If it was genuine – OK – but if it wasn’t – then it was a cheap campaign trick (and an insulting one to women at that) that I hope she doesn’t repeat, like Rudy’s wife calling him in the middle of speeches. Another Good Grief! Our country needs serious debates, by serious people who are seriously interested in moving this country forward (see the President’s speech at the end of the film The American President). We do not need cheap campaign tricks or negative attacks – and my hope is voters will take the time to tell the difference and not fall for gimmicks.
The episode of emotion which Mrs. Clinton displayed at the cafe is neither here nor there in my opinion. I have no doubt that it was genuine; this is a person with a very grueling, very stressful schedule, always focused on the “other” and someone took the time to ask about her. Her husband would have done the same thing as would I am sure most other folk. She is human. The same could be said about the tantrum (I call it that not because she is a woman but because it was a tantrum at a time where she would have been better served by keeping her cool). I do have issues with her and probably will not vote for her in the AL primary, but am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt overall since if she does get the nomination I am almost certain that I will be voting for her in November. (I know that some of you will jump on me because of her pro-choice stand. I vehemently disagree with her on this issue, but feel equally as strongly that we need to get the church in line on this and through the church to get the message out to the public. I do not think that laws will resolve the abortion crisis, anymore than laws create Christian believers.)
Pro-abortion, pro-socialism, pro-big government, anti-business, anti-captilaism, etc. These are a few of the reasons I’m NOT in favor of her in the role of President.
Oh, by the way, the President appoints Judges to the Supreme Court, which is where the battles on abortion, prayer in schools, gun rights, etc. will be fought. The people appointed reflect, often (but not always) the President’s view. So if the president is a strict constructionist, the court will look much different than if the President is an ‘interpretationalist’ (I don’t think that this is the right word). So, yes, this does make a difference in the long run.
I forgot to mention pro-raising taxes! ugh. I don’t want to go back to the Clinton years when I had to pay income taxes on a paltry 25,000 income with some stock holdings — those capital gains were killing me! Thank heaven for the Bush tax cuts! They need to be made permanent.
#20 libraryjim:
Unfortunately for my side, if I remember correctly the two oldest judges on the SC at the moment are both liberals; so even if a Democrat wins the White House this year the best-case scenario from a liberal perspective if Stevens or Ginsburg retire is that they are replaced with other liberals and the balance of power on the court remains relatively unchanged. We’d have to retain those seats and also replace a conservative — say, Scalia, who is in his early 70s if the internets are to be believed — to swing the court back in our favor.
The sad fact is, when GWB won in 2004 we pretty much lost the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.