All I want to know
… is who are the dumbasses who voted for Biden and Dodd in the New Hampshire primary? THEY AREN’T RUNNING ANYMORE!
As for the actual results… I don’t want to talk about it.
It’s time for A Daily Show anyway.
… is who are the dumbasses who voted for Biden and Dodd in the New Hampshire primary? THEY AREN’T RUNNING ANYMORE!
As for the actual results… I don’t want to talk about it.
It’s time for A Daily Show anyway.
I’m not sure I would call getting the same number of delegates as the next guy a win. I think that is called a tie.
Heather
9 Jan 08 at 7:54 am
Why don’t you want to talk about it? Who are you for?
kate
9 Jan 08 at 12:29 pm
Oh, duh. I’m reading posts out of order. Am now reading your previous post and it makes sense.
kate
9 Jan 08 at 12:30 pm
I haven’t picked a final candidate yet, but I know it ain’t Clinton! There are way too many attacks and too much negativity coming from that camp. That was disappointing, but I agree that I don’t get why she has a “win” when they both receive the same number of delegates. I definitely like Obama’s energy and charisma (and the potential of a history-making election) but also respect Edwards, and feel like he has more of a background for us to judge him on. And i would LOVE for McCain (Paul I know is a pipe dream) to be the Republican nominee – can you imagine a race with two good candidates? Where we don’t just pick between mediocre and more mediocre? I don’t even know how to wrap my head around such a concept!
Sadia
9 Jan 08 at 1:47 pm
I agree with Sadia 100% so I guess I wont say any more
Aisha
9 Jan 08 at 9:43 pm
OH- except to add that: WHY IS THE MEDIA CALLING THIS THE HUGE TRIUMPH BY HILLARY? For real????????? They even said yesterday “Will Obama give up?” I mean really? At this point he was 37% and she was 39% Gimme a break.
Aisha
9 Jan 08 at 9:44 pm
Yeah, in the grand scheme of things, they got the same number of delegates, so it’s technically not really a win for either one. The issue for me is that if Obama had won the raw numbers game, it would have shaken up the wobbly Clinton campaign even more going into South Carolina. Now she’s got a second wind.
The other issue is that Obama was polling nine digits ahead, but when the votes came in, he was actually behind. This possibly says something about the way we poll, and possibly says something about Clinton getting emotional on camera.
I guess bottom line, there’s a LOT of votes left to be cast, and as an Obama supporter, I’d rather the Clinton camp be losing momentum right now.
Sadia, I think McCain is the one Republican I’d actually consider voting for. An Obama/McCain race would be AWESOME for exactly the reasons you said. It would be great for once to be able to define one candidate as “good” and the other as “better” (rather than “sucks” and “sucks more”).
huda
9 Jan 08 at 11:51 pm
I’d like to think those crocodile tears didn’t really impact the race the way they claim – I prefer to believe the polling methodology is inaccurate, rather than the other excuse, that women voters would change their votes based on something so ludicrous! Good thing is, an “emotional moment” is something she can really only use once – after that, it’ll make her look weak.
On the bright side, Obama’s endorsements are piling up
Although the Kerry endorsement is a slap in Edwards’ face!
Sadia
10 Jan 08 at 1:25 pm
Crocodile tears? Do you guys really think that whole thing was an act? I think that is incredibly cynical, and I’m a total cynic. I don’t think anyone, Hillary Clinton or anybody else, would fake something like that. Think about it — there was no way to know if it would help or hurt, and it’s just speculation that it helped. For all we know she would have won NH by a larger margin if she hadn’t showed emotion.
Also, can the press please stop talking about how she had a break-down? Or how she broke down in tears? I’ve seen the clip countless times and it was hardly the big deal people have made it out to be. Come on, let’s not over-state the case.
kate
11 Jan 08 at 12:10 pm
Here, read this. This sums it up a lot better than I could. I mean, let’s cut the woman some slack. You don’t have to want her to win to at least be remotely fair in your description or analysis of her behavior.
I’m not a huge Hillary fan, but I’m starting to become defensive on her behalf because she gets kicked around so much. It annoys me.
kate
11 Jan 08 at 12:18 pm
Okay, one more thing and then I’ll quit. I know, I’m hogging up the comments. But I have to respond to Aisha’s comment above.
Aisha, do you remember after Iowa when all the press was talking about was Hillary’s crushing defeat and how she was totally doomed? How is that any different from the press talking about Obama’s loss? So yeah, it’s dumb of the press to ask whether Obama will give up after NH. But equally dumb of them to ask wehther Hillary would give up after Iowa. One thing we can agree upon is that the press is sometimes, well, dumb. But you can’t for one minute convince me that they’re being unfairly harsh to Obama.
It seems to me that if anything, they’ve been way too lax in their coverage of Obama. Obama is a smart and inspiring guy, and I’d be happy to have him as our president. But he is unquestionably more vague than Edwards and Hillary when it comes to policy specifics. And the press gives him a pass again and again. I want to see him pressed for REAL ANSWERS to some of the questions he’s asked, not the trite generalizations that he throws out. I know all the candidates do this, but I do think his one weakness is that he’s less familiar with the ins and outs of all the issues, and the press doesn’t talk about that much.
kate
11 Jan 08 at 12:24 pm
I agree that Obama is talking more rhetoric than issues now, but I think – sadly – that’s what the public wants, so that’s what they’re getting. All the candidates are throwing out buzz phrases and sound bytes, as we can see in everyone jumping on the “No, I’M all about change” bandwagon.
I’m actually nowhere near being a cynic, but I do find the Clintons very, very calculating – from Bill Shaheen’s “unauthorized” comments on Obama being questioned for dealing drugs, to disguising their anti-Obama negative flyers as being from Edwards, all the way to suddenly claiming that she has 35 years of experience (what?? time as a lawyer counts??? I officially have 7 years of experience making change under my belt too, then!) and that colors how I see her “emotional” moment, which I also think has been blown out of proportion. Maybe the emotion was real, but I don’t think the impetus was that she just feels absolutely torn apart with the need to be President so she can make the world a better place for puppies and babies
Sadia
11 Jan 08 at 7:39 pm
I don’t think the emotion was faked. I might, however, wonder whether she strategically timed her emotional display knowing that it would help her shed the ice queen image before a big primary.
It bothers me that she’s the only major Democratic candidate still on the ballot in Michigan. Is she going to take the votes any way she can get them?
And the pre-New Hampshire bout of whining from Bill about the Obama “fairy tale” also bugs me. Obama’s gotten dinged over and over for his lack of experience; this current wave of good publicity is simply in response to his rising poll numbers and his win in Iowa. I don’t believe the media has any particular darlings (although I will admit that some may have it out for Hillary as she’s the most divisive candidate in the field).
Bottom line, I think Obama can bring over Republican voters. I also think those same Republican voters (plus some Dems) will go sprinting back to the red side if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. I think Obama can win the presidency if he gets the nomination. I don’t believe Hillary can.
huda
12 Jan 08 at 9:47 am