In my Jan. 15, 2008 entry, I gave my assessment of different pairings for a Democratic Dream Team. From various blogs, I see that I am not the only one who has thought of an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket as the solution to our indecision.
As I wrote earlier, I think the only two viable combos at the start of the campaign were Edwards/Obama or Clinton/Obama.
Today, given all the animosity that has been stirred up, largely by pundits and journalists looking for a fight, I think the chances for such a pairing have been reduced significantly. But I decided to look at the combos not from a political perspective but from a functional perspective.
Obama/Clinton
Obama plays the "big picture", inspirational leader while Hillary gets the budget and legislation drafted and pushed through the Congress. In short, this is the typical Manager/AA arrangement that has existed for decades in which the hardworking female AA does all the work for which the male boss gets credit. Unfortunately, this is another reason why Clinton is unlikely to accept such an arrangement.
Clinton/Obama
Clinton micro-manages everything and sends Obama around the world to win back our friends and allies. This has the additional advantage of keeping Barack and Bill away from each other. This gives Obama a fair amount of room for travel and seasoning for his own run for President. But it would require some humility and a willingness to wait for his turn at the top job . . . to say nothing of what Michelle would have to give up.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Democratic Dream Team?
Back at the start of the campaign season in 2007, it occurred to me that the perfect Democratic ticket might be Edwards/Obama. My logic: Edwards has somewhat more experience than Obama. He's not only been a Senator, he's been through a Presidentical campaign and he's built a business. And I figured that having a good-looking white southern male at the head of the ticket would negate most of whatever residual racism there might be against having an African-American on the ticket.
Anna Quindlen, in a similar vein in a July 23, 2007 Newsweek column, suggested that Hillary should put Obama on the ticket as VP.
So, I started to think about variations permutations and whether or not they would work:
1. Clinton/Edwards or Obama/Edwards
No. Elizabeth has cancer. I don't think either she or her husband would be willing to commit the time and energy needed to campaign, let alone serve, for 2nd place.
2. Edwards/Clinton or Obama/Clinton.
Here again, I don't think there's any way that Hillary would take 2nd place, and I don't think either Edwards or Obama would offer it. Why? Well, a cynic might say that Hillary was already 2nd for 8 years and isn't likely to go through that again. But I think the main reason is Bill. Neither Edwards nor Obama would, I think, rationally want as husband of the VP a former President, especially one as popular as Bill.
3. Clinton/Edwards
I think this would work as a ticket except for the point I made above about Elizabeth Edwards. Also, I suspect that being second on the ticket last time probably irked Edwards a lot, and I don't think he'd want to be in that position again.
4. Clinton/Obama
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
And I think that is a shame because a Clinton/Obama ticket would be the most audacious ticket in history.
Anna Quindlen, in a similar vein in a July 23, 2007 Newsweek column, suggested that Hillary should put Obama on the ticket as VP.
So, I started to think about variations permutations and whether or not they would work:
1. Clinton/Edwards or Obama/Edwards
No. Elizabeth has cancer. I don't think either she or her husband would be willing to commit the time and energy needed to campaign, let alone serve, for 2nd place.
2. Edwards/Clinton or Obama/Clinton.
Here again, I don't think there's any way that Hillary would take 2nd place, and I don't think either Edwards or Obama would offer it. Why? Well, a cynic might say that Hillary was already 2nd for 8 years and isn't likely to go through that again. But I think the main reason is Bill. Neither Edwards nor Obama would, I think, rationally want as husband of the VP a former President, especially one as popular as Bill.
3. Clinton/Edwards
I think this would work as a ticket except for the point I made above about Elizabeth Edwards. Also, I suspect that being second on the ticket last time probably irked Edwards a lot, and I don't think he'd want to be in that position again.
4. Clinton/Obama
Advantages:
- breaks two barriers at once;
- combines, as one characterization of the two goes, prose and poetry;
- would drive Matthews and Sully insane.
Disadvantages:
- breaks two barriers at once. Americans might be ready to vote for a woman or for an African-American, but would it be expecting too much of them to vote for both at once?
- egos: a few months back, I think Obama might have accepted second place, but the campaign has gotten nasty in the past weeks. I think it is the fault of the media for pushing Obama to attack Hillary; others will say that Hillary started the attacks. In either case, I fear the damage is done.
And I think that is a shame because a Clinton/Obama ticket would be the most audacious ticket in history.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Is Peggy Noonan channeling Chris Matthews?
Here's the final paragraph from Noonan's weekend column (Jan. 12-13, 2008; page W14) in the Wall Street Journal:
What struck me about it was the use of the word "destroy", the same word that Tweety used in discussing Hillary's strategy. I don't recall if it was before the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary, but he was his usual apoplectic self when he opined that Hillary would prefer that Edwards win if she didn't in order to destroy Obama. In fact, I think he said something like "anything to destroy Obama".
Have you ever heard the strategy of any other candidate in this or any other election being described this way? That the person was trying to "destroy" the other candidate? Is McCain trying to destroy Huckabee? Is Romney trying to destroy McCain?
The media seem to have forgotten, at least where Hillary is concerned, that the Presidential campaign is a zero-sum game: only one person can win. Now, I do not know to what extent any candidate is likely to waste time or resources getting some other candidate to win, but it does not seem unreasonable, in such a large field, for campaign workers to prefer one ranking over another if their candidate doesn't win.
Matthews and most of the press corps, however, apparently believe that Hillary doesn't have the right to fight for the nomination because Obama is the one who deserves to get it.
Between sobs she is going to try to destroy Mr. Obama. She is going to try to end him. She will pay a price for it--no one likes to see the end of a dream, no one likes a dream killer. But she will pay that price to win, and try to clean up the mess later."
What struck me about it was the use of the word "destroy", the same word that Tweety used in discussing Hillary's strategy. I don't recall if it was before the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary, but he was his usual apoplectic self when he opined that Hillary would prefer that Edwards win if she didn't in order to destroy Obama. In fact, I think he said something like "anything to destroy Obama".
Have you ever heard the strategy of any other candidate in this or any other election being described this way? That the person was trying to "destroy" the other candidate? Is McCain trying to destroy Huckabee? Is Romney trying to destroy McCain?
The media seem to have forgotten, at least where Hillary is concerned, that the Presidential campaign is a zero-sum game: only one person can win. Now, I do not know to what extent any candidate is likely to waste time or resources getting some other candidate to win, but it does not seem unreasonable, in such a large field, for campaign workers to prefer one ranking over another if their candidate doesn't win.
Matthews and most of the press corps, however, apparently believe that Hillary doesn't have the right to fight for the nomination because Obama is the one who deserves to get it.
Likability - Dorothy Rabinowitz gets it right
If you didn't see the N.H. debate in which Hillary was asked about her likability, all you probably know of her answer is that she said it "hurt her feelings" which makes it sound as if she were whining or asking for pity. It has certainly been characterized that way.
But if you watched the debate, you know how different her answer was, and the only person I've heard, seen or read who characterized it properly is Dorothy Rabinowitz in her Jan. 11, 2008 WSJ TV Review column:
Here is a transcript from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html
What makes Obama's answer sound so churlish is its contrast with the warm and funny way in which Clinton responded to this difficult (and rather insulting*) question.
*Has any male candidate ever been asked if he is likable enough to be elected?
But if you watched the debate, you know how different her answer was, and the only person I've heard, seen or read who characterized it properly is Dorothy Rabinowitz in her Jan. 11, 2008 WSJ TV Review column:
. . Sen. Hillary Clinton playfully [my emphasis] allowed that she was hurt at the suggestion that Sen. Barack Obama was better liked than she was
Here is a transcript from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html
MR. SPRADLING: Yeah, I did notice. And I'd like to ask you this.
The University of New Hampshire Survey Center has been consistently trying to probe the minds of New Hampshire voters and get a sense of what they think about all of you. I'd be happy to report that the experience-versus-change debate seems to be sinking in. And what I'd like to get is to this:
New Hampshire voters seem to believe that of those of you on the stage, you are the most experienced and the most electable. In terms of change, they see Senators Obama and Edwards as the agents of change, in New Hampshire mindset. My question to you is simply this: What can you say to the voters of New Hampshire on this stage tonight, who see a resume and like it but are hesitating on the likability issue, where they seem to like Barack Obama more.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, that hurts my feelings. (Laughter.)
MR. SPRADLING: I'm sorry, Senator. (Scattered applause.) I'm sorry.
SEN. CLINTON: But I'll try to go on. (Laughter.)
He's very likable. I agree with that. I don't think I'm that bad.
SEN. OBAMA: You're likable enough, Hillary. (Inaudible.)
What makes Obama's answer sound so churlish is its contrast with the warm and funny way in which Clinton responded to this difficult (and rather insulting*) question.
*Has any male candidate ever been asked if he is likable enough to be elected?
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The Race Card
During the past day or two, both Clintons have been accused of overt racist attacks. Given their history, and the oft-repeated trope prior to Hillary's NH win, that Bill Clinton was the first Black President, this is absurd.
The statements in question can be perceived as racist (Hillary's MLK* comment - truncated by the NYT & almost all other outlets - and Bill's "fairy tale" (which requires some incredible distortion to turn it into a racial attack) - only by deliberately misreading them.
Hillary haters appear to be so angry that Obama lost N.H. that they, in order to tar her beyond all redemption, are making race an issue in the campaign.
Unfortunately, this could easily turn out to be bad not just for Hillary's supporters but for Obama's as well. I've already noticed a response that is almost as bad as the attack: that Obama is using this in the same way that Hillary is supposed to have used tears: to get him a sympathy vote.
Let's be clear here: Hillary has no inborn right to win the nomination or the Presidency. But Obama doesn't either. He has tremendous support in the MSM and blog worlds (name me a MSM person or leading blogger who is actively supporting Hillary). They should start asking themselves why they feel it necessary to smear his major opponent.
*The Horses's Mouth
The statements in question can be perceived as racist (Hillary's MLK* comment - truncated by the NYT & almost all other outlets - and Bill's "fairy tale" (which requires some incredible distortion to turn it into a racial attack) - only by deliberately misreading them.
Hillary haters appear to be so angry that Obama lost N.H. that they, in order to tar her beyond all redemption, are making race an issue in the campaign.
Unfortunately, this could easily turn out to be bad not just for Hillary's supporters but for Obama's as well. I've already noticed a response that is almost as bad as the attack: that Obama is using this in the same way that Hillary is supposed to have used tears: to get him a sympathy vote.
Let's be clear here: Hillary has no inborn right to win the nomination or the Presidency. But Obama doesn't either. He has tremendous support in the MSM and blog worlds (name me a MSM person or leading blogger who is actively supporting Hillary). They should start asking themselves why they feel it necessary to smear his major opponent.
*The Horses's Mouth
Friday, January 11, 2008
Reasons for Voting for Hillary
Like many Democrats, I have been trying all year to make up my mind about which candidate to support. I have flirted with the 2nd-tier candidates (Biden, Dodd and Richardson) because of their experience. I have fallen under the charms of Obama and, even more so, under the power of Edwards' populist rhetoric. And then, of course, there is Hillary - a woman who raises many conflicting feelings, both personal and political.
During the past week, however, I made up my mind - largely due to the wholesale, misogynistic lynching of Hillary by members of the MSM and, unfortunately, by the liberal blogosphere as well.
Now, many would say, and are saying, that it is stupid to vote for a candidate just because the MSM hate her, but there is, actually, a method to the madness.
To begin with, I would more or less happily have voted for any of the Democratic candidates (including, ugh, Gravel) over any of the Republican candidates. I find this is not true for many Democrats, which brings us to
Reason 1. The company I would be keeping.
Andrew Sullivan loves Obama, thinks he is the new Messiah. Given Sullivan's previous political love affairs (Thatcher, Reagan, and the Shrub), one must seriously consider his judgment.
In my travels through the blogosphere, I have discovered (in a totally unscientific non-survey) that most Obama supporters, and a sizable number of Edwards' supporters, are prepared to pick up their marbles and go home if Hillary becomes the nominee. Hillary supporters, OTOH, have no objection to voting for whomever the Dem. nominee is.
One could hear this difference after the NH votes came in. Obama tossed off a one sentence "congratulations" to Hillary at the start of his "concession" speech with a request for applause that produced a smattering of tepid claps. Hillary, later in her speech, warmly praised all of her opponents, past and present, and was greeted with a warm round of unsolicited applause.
I do not want to be associated with people who think that any of the Republican candidates would be better than Hillary.
The liberal boycott of Hubert Humphrey after RFK's assassination gave us Nixon and 50 years of toxic, race-based, anti-women politics. Instead of learning the lesson that even a bad Democrat is better than a "good" Republican, too many liberals continue to believe that voting for the lesser evil is a copout. It is not. It is called reality.
Reason 2: The MSM lynching
To paraphrase an email posted on Andrew Sullivan's web, if one added up all the awful things the Clintons have actually done (not the wild imaginings of the Right Wing Nuts), they would still be buried under the mountain of catastrophes perpetrated on this country by George W. Bush.
The hatred of the Clintons has exceeded all rational boundaries and the justifications for the malevolence is about on a par with "my computer ate my thesis". I think even FDR & Eleanor would be shocked - and they came in for a boatload of abuse.
It appears that, as far as the media are concerned, political racism is dead but misogyny is alive and well - even on liberal blogs and Air America.
I have, quite simply, had it. Hillary is possibly the only woman who has a chance of becoming President in the next decade or so. She will be vilified every moment of her Presidency, but when it is over, I believe the next woman will be treated more fairly.
Obama can run in 2016, thus locking in 16 years of Democratic rule, perhaps enough to change the direction of the SCOTUS.
Reason 3: Obama
Too much of his rhetoric comes from the right-wing play book: dynasty, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, tired-old 60's "no-longer-relevant" divisiveness.
I fail to see how "I can bring us all together" is any different than Clinton's "triangulation". One either has enough power to pass whatever policies one wants or one compromises. That is the nature of the political game.
I also fail to see exactly how Obama plans to bridge the divide between pro-choice & anti-abortion foes, liberals who believe in a government that takes care of its citizens vs. conservatives who believe in social Darwinism, etc. When an NPR journalist asked Obama why he thought he could pass universal health care when all previous attempts have failed, he said he would do it by (I'm paraphrasing from memory) rousing the American people up to demand for it. Just how he expects to do this (by the force of his personality?), I have no idea.
The rhetoric that so entrances the MSM who have declared him to be the finest American orator since Lincoln does NOT move me. I appreciate the craft with which he drafts his speeches, but I sense no substance or honest feeling behind the words. His speeches remind me of Sunday-morning sermons, all flowery & lofty and meaningless. The speech he delivered after New Hampshire could have, minus the first sentence, been issued without change even if he had won. It didn't come from the heart.
I am also very uncomfortable with his constant invocation of God. We have traveled too far down that road already. The invasion of religion into both our government and our politics is toxic and must be stopped. Obama's faith is dangerous because so many in the media consider it to be "genuine" as opposed to, I assume, Bush's non-genuine faith?
Yes, Hillary invokes God, too. But one knows that she is uncomfortable doing so and can be sure that it will be kept to a minimum.
The final straw for me was the last debate before New Hampshire when he replied, looking down his nose, that she was "likable enough" - followed by a photo op of the 3 men chatting comfortably together with Hillary off to one side.
Reason 4: Edwards
His populist rhetoric appeals to me in a way that Obama's does not. But his voting record doesn't match his rhetoric. He might have still convinced me until he took advantage of Hillary's slightly teary eyes (Jon Stewart nailed the MSM right on) to issue a thinly veiled attack on her not being "strong enough" to be President.
Reason 5: Hillary
She is far from my idea of a perfect Democratic candidate. But she knows Washington and she knows the Senate. If anybody can get some semi-decent legislation through, she can. Most importantly, I know that the next SCOTUS justice, if appointed by Hillary, will be a person who respects the concept of justice. FEMA will be run by somebody competent. The EPA and the FDA will do their jobs.
I know what I will get with Hillary, a flawed but competent President. I do not know what I will get with Obama at this stage of his career, and I am not ready to take the risk.
And we should not forget that the only reason that the wives of Obama and Edwards can play such prominent, and unquestioned, roles in their campaigns is because of all the garbage thrown at Hillary in the 90's. Her continuing ability to smile in the face of the vicious attacks on her as a person is a true profile in courage.
During the past week, however, I made up my mind - largely due to the wholesale, misogynistic lynching of Hillary by members of the MSM and, unfortunately, by the liberal blogosphere as well.
Now, many would say, and are saying, that it is stupid to vote for a candidate just because the MSM hate her, but there is, actually, a method to the madness.
To begin with, I would more or less happily have voted for any of the Democratic candidates (including, ugh, Gravel) over any of the Republican candidates. I find this is not true for many Democrats, which brings us to
Reason 1. The company I would be keeping.
Andrew Sullivan loves Obama, thinks he is the new Messiah. Given Sullivan's previous political love affairs (Thatcher, Reagan, and the Shrub), one must seriously consider his judgment.
In my travels through the blogosphere, I have discovered (in a totally unscientific non-survey) that most Obama supporters, and a sizable number of Edwards' supporters, are prepared to pick up their marbles and go home if Hillary becomes the nominee. Hillary supporters, OTOH, have no objection to voting for whomever the Dem. nominee is.
One could hear this difference after the NH votes came in. Obama tossed off a one sentence "congratulations" to Hillary at the start of his "concession" speech with a request for applause that produced a smattering of tepid claps. Hillary, later in her speech, warmly praised all of her opponents, past and present, and was greeted with a warm round of unsolicited applause.
I do not want to be associated with people who think that any of the Republican candidates would be better than Hillary.
The liberal boycott of Hubert Humphrey after RFK's assassination gave us Nixon and 50 years of toxic, race-based, anti-women politics. Instead of learning the lesson that even a bad Democrat is better than a "good" Republican, too many liberals continue to believe that voting for the lesser evil is a copout. It is not. It is called reality.
Reason 2: The MSM lynching
To paraphrase an email posted on Andrew Sullivan's web, if one added up all the awful things the Clintons have actually done (not the wild imaginings of the Right Wing Nuts), they would still be buried under the mountain of catastrophes perpetrated on this country by George W. Bush.
The hatred of the Clintons has exceeded all rational boundaries and the justifications for the malevolence is about on a par with "my computer ate my thesis". I think even FDR & Eleanor would be shocked - and they came in for a boatload of abuse.
It appears that, as far as the media are concerned, political racism is dead but misogyny is alive and well - even on liberal blogs and Air America.
I have, quite simply, had it. Hillary is possibly the only woman who has a chance of becoming President in the next decade or so. She will be vilified every moment of her Presidency, but when it is over, I believe the next woman will be treated more fairly.
Obama can run in 2016, thus locking in 16 years of Democratic rule, perhaps enough to change the direction of the SCOTUS.
Reason 3: Obama
Too much of his rhetoric comes from the right-wing play book: dynasty, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, tired-old 60's "no-longer-relevant" divisiveness.
I fail to see how "I can bring us all together" is any different than Clinton's "triangulation". One either has enough power to pass whatever policies one wants or one compromises. That is the nature of the political game.
I also fail to see exactly how Obama plans to bridge the divide between pro-choice & anti-abortion foes, liberals who believe in a government that takes care of its citizens vs. conservatives who believe in social Darwinism, etc. When an NPR journalist asked Obama why he thought he could pass universal health care when all previous attempts have failed, he said he would do it by (I'm paraphrasing from memory) rousing the American people up to demand for it. Just how he expects to do this (by the force of his personality?), I have no idea.
The rhetoric that so entrances the MSM who have declared him to be the finest American orator since Lincoln does NOT move me. I appreciate the craft with which he drafts his speeches, but I sense no substance or honest feeling behind the words. His speeches remind me of Sunday-morning sermons, all flowery & lofty and meaningless. The speech he delivered after New Hampshire could have, minus the first sentence, been issued without change even if he had won. It didn't come from the heart.
I am also very uncomfortable with his constant invocation of God. We have traveled too far down that road already. The invasion of religion into both our government and our politics is toxic and must be stopped. Obama's faith is dangerous because so many in the media consider it to be "genuine" as opposed to, I assume, Bush's non-genuine faith?
Yes, Hillary invokes God, too. But one knows that she is uncomfortable doing so and can be sure that it will be kept to a minimum.
The final straw for me was the last debate before New Hampshire when he replied, looking down his nose, that she was "likable enough" - followed by a photo op of the 3 men chatting comfortably together with Hillary off to one side.
Reason 4: Edwards
His populist rhetoric appeals to me in a way that Obama's does not. But his voting record doesn't match his rhetoric. He might have still convinced me until he took advantage of Hillary's slightly teary eyes (Jon Stewart nailed the MSM right on) to issue a thinly veiled attack on her not being "strong enough" to be President.
Reason 5: Hillary
She is far from my idea of a perfect Democratic candidate. But she knows Washington and she knows the Senate. If anybody can get some semi-decent legislation through, she can. Most importantly, I know that the next SCOTUS justice, if appointed by Hillary, will be a person who respects the concept of justice. FEMA will be run by somebody competent. The EPA and the FDA will do their jobs.
I know what I will get with Hillary, a flawed but competent President. I do not know what I will get with Obama at this stage of his career, and I am not ready to take the risk.
And we should not forget that the only reason that the wives of Obama and Edwards can play such prominent, and unquestioned, roles in their campaigns is because of all the garbage thrown at Hillary in the 90's. Her continuing ability to smile in the face of the vicious attacks on her as a person is a true profile in courage.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
New Hampshire 2008 & The Pundits
Well, the pundits are trying to explain what went wrong with their predictions. Unfortunately, they don't understand why they were wrong because they are incapable of learning.
For the most part, they blame the mistake on the polls and the pollsters. One common explanation is that White voters lied about voting for a Black man (the so-called Bradley effect after the mayor of L.A.). See: the pundits aren't responsible for the voters' hidden racism. Dyson, even after hearing a report that the polls were right about Obama's percentage (thus negating any Bradley effect) and the problem was under-counting Clinton's support, insisted that there was racism. According to him, you could hear it in Hillary's comments & Bill Clinton's attack on Obama: that Black men aren't capable of doing the job. (So we can't criticize Obama for anything because any criticism has to contain at least a seed of racism?) Besides there's never been a Black President. Ahem.... there's never been a female President either.
Then they mine the exit polls for explanations, things they didn't see before. There isn't much, except the large turnout of women and the percentage of women who voted for Hillary. So, what do the pundits conclude? It was the "tearing up" moment which showed that Hillary had a human side. It is already the standard explanation. Pundits stick together. Original thought is not encouraged. On CNN, however, one woman made the astute and, I think, accurate assessment that women saw the endless replay of the moment and got mad. Did this assessment cause Wolf Blitzer to reconsider? Of course not: he repeated once again (as if the woman had never said what she said) that it was the humanity of the moment.
Some of the "outstanding" pundit moments:
1.) Tim Russert was beside himself with joy that 5 days into the primary campaign,they still didn't know who the winner would be. Imagine that: 5 whole days, 1 caucus & 1 primary and they couldn't crown a nominee in either party. Horrors.
2.) Tom Brokaw said "we don't have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process". Chris Matthews' response: well, what would we talk about? Unfortunately, Brokaw didn't seem to expect that response and, to my ears, kind of fumbled for an answer.
Gee, do you think the media might study the voting records of the candidates? Hillary's been in the Senate 6 years, Obama 2 (plus 8 in Illinois), Edwards also has a Senate record. Maybe they could interview legislators & community people who have worked with the candidates. How about an analysis of pork (the money kind) proposed by the candidates. Richardson has held many roles in government that I suspect most voters, like me, know absolutely nothing about.
3.) Joe Scarborough accurately suggested that it was due to the media savaging of Hillary - in which he was one of the primary figures. Did he acknowledge that he was one of those savagers? Don't be silly. Of course, not.
4.) The hyperbolic descriptions: greatest upset in American history, blow-out, etc., etc. But look at the numbers. Hillary beat Obama by 3%, in one primary. That's not a massive victory.
5.) The Comeback kids. Please. Hillary lost Iowa, the first test. She won NH. I fail to see how that qualifies as some overwhelming return from the dead. Maybe it is fair to apply it to McCain since he had not only been written off but had to fire almost his entire staff for lack of money. But there are a total of what? 40 primaries to come? When a baseball, basketball or football team wins one game after losing one game, do we call that a comeback? It apparently has never occurred to these cretins that the lead might, gosh, actually change hands several times before a winner appears.
6.) Kristol, the latest star on what used to be the Op Ed page of a great newspaper. Hillary's tears were fake, women felt sorry for her and voted for her. This is sooooo offensive on so many levels, it leaves one speechless.
7.) Pundits never learn. Within an hour of admitting they had goofed, I started hearing pronouncements that Obama HAD to win Nevada. And predictions for South Carolina were running hot & heavy within minutes. Geez. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Dan Abrams, not one of my favorite news personalities by far, provided the most original (for the media) explanation and one that resonates with me, as a Californian: that it was wrong for the media to call the primary season over after one caucus and one primary. He said it was the equivalent of ending a trial after the opening statement.
I can't prove it, but I think women voters decided that they didn't want anybody to be crowned King by the pundits - and they had finally had enough of the endless misogyny of the attacks on Hillary (even on Air America( - so they voted for the person the media had written off.
For the most part, they blame the mistake on the polls and the pollsters. One common explanation is that White voters lied about voting for a Black man (the so-called Bradley effect after the mayor of L.A.). See: the pundits aren't responsible for the voters' hidden racism. Dyson, even after hearing a report that the polls were right about Obama's percentage (thus negating any Bradley effect) and the problem was under-counting Clinton's support, insisted that there was racism. According to him, you could hear it in Hillary's comments & Bill Clinton's attack on Obama: that Black men aren't capable of doing the job. (So we can't criticize Obama for anything because any criticism has to contain at least a seed of racism?) Besides there's never been a Black President. Ahem.... there's never been a female President either.
Then they mine the exit polls for explanations, things they didn't see before. There isn't much, except the large turnout of women and the percentage of women who voted for Hillary. So, what do the pundits conclude? It was the "tearing up" moment which showed that Hillary had a human side. It is already the standard explanation. Pundits stick together. Original thought is not encouraged. On CNN, however, one woman made the astute and, I think, accurate assessment that women saw the endless replay of the moment and got mad. Did this assessment cause Wolf Blitzer to reconsider? Of course not: he repeated once again (as if the woman had never said what she said) that it was the humanity of the moment.
Some of the "outstanding" pundit moments:
1.) Tim Russert was beside himself with joy that 5 days into the primary campaign,they still didn't know who the winner would be. Imagine that: 5 whole days, 1 caucus & 1 primary and they couldn't crown a nominee in either party. Horrors.
2.) Tom Brokaw said "we don't have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process". Chris Matthews' response: well, what would we talk about? Unfortunately, Brokaw didn't seem to expect that response and, to my ears, kind of fumbled for an answer.
Gee, do you think the media might study the voting records of the candidates? Hillary's been in the Senate 6 years, Obama 2 (plus 8 in Illinois), Edwards also has a Senate record. Maybe they could interview legislators & community people who have worked with the candidates. How about an analysis of pork (the money kind) proposed by the candidates. Richardson has held many roles in government that I suspect most voters, like me, know absolutely nothing about.
3.) Joe Scarborough accurately suggested that it was due to the media savaging of Hillary - in which he was one of the primary figures. Did he acknowledge that he was one of those savagers? Don't be silly. Of course, not.
4.) The hyperbolic descriptions: greatest upset in American history, blow-out, etc., etc. But look at the numbers. Hillary beat Obama by 3%, in one primary. That's not a massive victory.
5.) The Comeback kids. Please. Hillary lost Iowa, the first test. She won NH. I fail to see how that qualifies as some overwhelming return from the dead. Maybe it is fair to apply it to McCain since he had not only been written off but had to fire almost his entire staff for lack of money. But there are a total of what? 40 primaries to come? When a baseball, basketball or football team wins one game after losing one game, do we call that a comeback? It apparently has never occurred to these cretins that the lead might, gosh, actually change hands several times before a winner appears.
6.) Kristol, the latest star on what used to be the Op Ed page of a great newspaper. Hillary's tears were fake, women felt sorry for her and voted for her. This is sooooo offensive on so many levels, it leaves one speechless.
7.) Pundits never learn. Within an hour of admitting they had goofed, I started hearing pronouncements that Obama HAD to win Nevada. And predictions for South Carolina were running hot & heavy within minutes. Geez. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Dan Abrams, not one of my favorite news personalities by far, provided the most original (for the media) explanation and one that resonates with me, as a Californian: that it was wrong for the media to call the primary season over after one caucus and one primary. He said it was the equivalent of ending a trial after the opening statement.
I can't prove it, but I think women voters decided that they didn't want anybody to be crowned King by the pundits - and they had finally had enough of the endless misogyny of the attacks on Hillary (even on Air America( - so they voted for the person the media had written off.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson
How did these two clowns get major cable shows? It's a rhetorical question, of course. They have shows because NBC and CNN need their own O'Reillys.
I've watched Carlson only a few times, but often enough to have heard him criticize a network for letting Dick Clark do the New Year countdown after he had had a stroke. Carlson thought it was disgusting. (Yes, of course, the disabled should be hidden away from public view so as not to upset delicate constitutions.) Then the other day he said he couldn't wait until every last baby boomer was dead - and emphasized that he meant it when the interviewee suggested he was maybe exaggerating. That's about 75 million people. Of course, Carlson is only parroting the latest Conservative trope: that all of our problems are due to the Boomers. I can't help but wonder at the response had he said the same thing about, oh, say, all evangelical Christians.
Carlson is nothing more than one of those shallow, sophomore frat boys who's never had an original thought - which is no doubt why he supported the Shrub.
Chris Matthews is a blowhard who has absolutely no personal insight. While touting his book, he used the same example over and over to show how he learned the importance of listening: that's how Bill Clinton got girls in college. Now, let's ignore the reason for that particular anecdote (the fact that Hillary is running for President) and focus on the "listening" part. The one thing that Matthews does not do is listen. He shoots rapid-fire questions at the people he "interviews" and, during the few seconds they get to reply, you can see him preparing his next question out. The interviewees are there basically to give him time to get a breath of air, nothing more. He is so used to non-stop talking that when Jon Stewart actually tried to engage him in a conversation about his book, Matthews accused Stewart of making this the worst interview he ever had.
And during this primary campaign season, this self-described "even-handed, get-the-truth-out" Matthews has become so pro-Obama, he should rename his program the "Elect Barack Obama Hour". Obama can do no wrong except when, according to the political expert Matthews, early in the campaign, Obama didn't go on the attack. When he did, Matthews was thrilled. Of course when Clinton issued a few attacks in return, she was being despicable. No sort of slander against Hillary is out of bounds for Matthews or most of his TV and blog and press cohort. He and they apply a double standard as wide as a 10-lane highway when it comes to Clinton and Obama.
My favorite example: some weeks back an NPR reporter ran two stories, one about Hillary's visiting a restaurant, not paying, and not leaving a tip. This got huge, nationawide media attention, all bad. (plus lots of confusion about what really happened.) Nobody reported the guy's other story about a woman at an Obama campaign stop. She asked a question related to health care because her husband had cancer. Obama got off his podium, went down and took her hand. That's fine, shows he cares. Then he went back to the podium, repeated what he'd heard and said "maybe I'll write him a note afterwards" [probably not a direct quote] and he didn't. But the woman excused him because he cared. Can you imagine the media coverage if that had been Hillary? "How does she think a note could help a man suffering from cancer? And then she didn't even have the courtesy to do it."
I like all the Democratic candidates and would be quite happy if one of a particular set of four got the nomination. But I am becoming so fed up with these misogynist attacks on Hillary, that I am beginning to think I should vote for her just to give Matthews, Sullivan, Carlson, et. al. a bad case of heartburn.
I've watched Carlson only a few times, but often enough to have heard him criticize a network for letting Dick Clark do the New Year countdown after he had had a stroke. Carlson thought it was disgusting. (Yes, of course, the disabled should be hidden away from public view so as not to upset delicate constitutions.) Then the other day he said he couldn't wait until every last baby boomer was dead - and emphasized that he meant it when the interviewee suggested he was maybe exaggerating. That's about 75 million people. Of course, Carlson is only parroting the latest Conservative trope: that all of our problems are due to the Boomers. I can't help but wonder at the response had he said the same thing about, oh, say, all evangelical Christians.
Carlson is nothing more than one of those shallow, sophomore frat boys who's never had an original thought - which is no doubt why he supported the Shrub.
Chris Matthews is a blowhard who has absolutely no personal insight. While touting his book, he used the same example over and over to show how he learned the importance of listening: that's how Bill Clinton got girls in college. Now, let's ignore the reason for that particular anecdote (the fact that Hillary is running for President) and focus on the "listening" part. The one thing that Matthews does not do is listen. He shoots rapid-fire questions at the people he "interviews" and, during the few seconds they get to reply, you can see him preparing his next question out. The interviewees are there basically to give him time to get a breath of air, nothing more. He is so used to non-stop talking that when Jon Stewart actually tried to engage him in a conversation about his book, Matthews accused Stewart of making this the worst interview he ever had.
And during this primary campaign season, this self-described "even-handed, get-the-truth-out" Matthews has become so pro-Obama, he should rename his program the "Elect Barack Obama Hour". Obama can do no wrong except when, according to the political expert Matthews, early in the campaign, Obama didn't go on the attack. When he did, Matthews was thrilled. Of course when Clinton issued a few attacks in return, she was being despicable. No sort of slander against Hillary is out of bounds for Matthews or most of his TV and blog and press cohort. He and they apply a double standard as wide as a 10-lane highway when it comes to Clinton and Obama.
My favorite example: some weeks back an NPR reporter ran two stories, one about Hillary's visiting a restaurant, not paying, and not leaving a tip. This got huge, nationawide media attention, all bad. (plus lots of confusion about what really happened.) Nobody reported the guy's other story about a woman at an Obama campaign stop. She asked a question related to health care because her husband had cancer. Obama got off his podium, went down and took her hand. That's fine, shows he cares. Then he went back to the podium, repeated what he'd heard and said "maybe I'll write him a note afterwards" [probably not a direct quote] and he didn't. But the woman excused him because he cared. Can you imagine the media coverage if that had been Hillary? "How does she think a note could help a man suffering from cancer? And then she didn't even have the courtesy to do it."
I like all the Democratic candidates and would be quite happy if one of a particular set of four got the nomination. But I am becoming so fed up with these misogynist attacks on Hillary, that I am beginning to think I should vote for her just to give Matthews, Sullivan, Carlson, et. al. a bad case of heartburn.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Poll Interpretation Hall of Infamy - Margin of Error: today's winner is CNN
We've been using political polls for what, 70 years? Barely a day goes by during the now almost endless political season without one poll or another being announced. But journalists still do not understand what the margin of error means.
For ex., this morning my local news program introduced a CNN report with the statement that the economy was now more important to voters than Iraq. The CNN reporter repeated that, rather breathlessly, as though a major shift, Richter Scale 7 at least, had occurred. She interviewed several "ordinary" people, all of whom explained their fears about the economy.
Then I saw the poll results (for which we should indeed be grateful): 29% ranked the economy first; 28% ranked Iraq second. Not exactly a major difference. And, luckily for me, the chart also indicated the margin of error: 4.5%.
Now, this is pretty basic statistics, sort of Stat 101, first week. The margin of error represents the sampling error, the degree to which the reported percentages may be wrong due to the size of the sample and other polling characteristics.
In short, the relative difference in importance between the economy and Iraq is impossible to determine from this particular sample.
It wouldn't be so bad if this were a one-off reporting error. But it isn't. For decades now, journalists at all levels, continue to cite major shifts of one kind or another based on polls in which the changes are all within the margin of error. What is even worse is that professional pollsters seem to have given up trying to get these thick-headed reporters to understand the MOE and blithely second all the idiotic statements about the significance of this or that "move" in the polling data.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
For ex., this morning my local news program introduced a CNN report with the statement that the economy was now more important to voters than Iraq. The CNN reporter repeated that, rather breathlessly, as though a major shift, Richter Scale 7 at least, had occurred. She interviewed several "ordinary" people, all of whom explained their fears about the economy.
Then I saw the poll results (for which we should indeed be grateful): 29% ranked the economy first; 28% ranked Iraq second. Not exactly a major difference. And, luckily for me, the chart also indicated the margin of error: 4.5%.
Now, this is pretty basic statistics, sort of Stat 101, first week. The margin of error represents the sampling error, the degree to which the reported percentages may be wrong due to the size of the sample and other polling characteristics.
In short, the relative difference in importance between the economy and Iraq is impossible to determine from this particular sample.
It wouldn't be so bad if this were a one-off reporting error. But it isn't. For decades now, journalists at all levels, continue to cite major shifts of one kind or another based on polls in which the changes are all within the margin of error. What is even worse is that professional pollsters seem to have given up trying to get these thick-headed reporters to understand the MOE and blithely second all the idiotic statements about the significance of this or that "move" in the polling data.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
MSM MISSES THE POINT AGAIN - IRAN, NIE, BUSH
Well, yet again the MSM has managed to miss the most crucial statement in Bush's press conference today.
But let's first go back to Bush's WWIII announcement. That got a lot of coverage, which it should have. But the MSM missed the more critical statement: that is was important to prevent Iran from "gaining the knowledge" [quote marks are mine] of how to make a bomb. Bush was implying that a justification for going to war against Iran or dropping bombs all over the country could be made if that would prevent Iran from learning how to make a bomb. How, exactly, does one stop the acquisition of knowledge? Kill every Iranian with an IQ over 120? It may be possible to prevent a country from getting the physical materials they need to create a bomb, but if Bush wants to prevent anybody anywhere in the world from learning how to make a nuclear bomb, he's going to have kill a sizable portion of the world's population.
Now, to the current NIE. The MSM did latch on to one obvious question: if the previous NIE was wrong, how can we be sure the current NIE is right? This is a reasonable question. But they didn't bother to analyze Bush's follow-up that "well, if they stopped the program once, they could start it again, so they are just as dangerous" [my paraphrase]. So, lets get this straight: if Iran does not do what we tell it to, it is a dangerous country; however, if it does do what we want it to do, it is still just as dangerous. In short, Iran can't win. Whether it tries to build a bomb or decides not to build a bomb, Bush will still want to hurt it, in some way. Catch-22, Bush style.
The depth and danger of this mindset is on full display in an Andrew Sullivan blog entry. Before and after he pretty much analyzes Bush's statement as I just have, he still insists (just like Bush) that Iran is a danger!
Oh, special kudos to Wolf Blitzer who managed to question Bolton (who doesn't believe the current NIE report and announced that 2 agencies disagreed with the conclusion) for about 5 minutes or so without asking him what intelligence reports he is relying on. Does he have his own private CIA?
As with Iraq, this government has Iran Derangement Syndrome. For whatever insane reason, they have decided that Iran is now the most dangerous country in the world. Not North Korea, which has the bomb. Not Pakistan and India, which both have the bomb and have come close to all-out war on more than one occasion. Not Saudi Arabia which continues to export militant Islam. Not China. Not, for that matter, Russia. The United States of America, the country's only Superpower, as the neocons never fail to remind us, least we forget, which fought and defeated Germany and Japan, could, apparently, be destroyed by what country? Iran. Sheeeesh. How low the great have fallen.
But let's first go back to Bush's WWIII announcement. That got a lot of coverage, which it should have. But the MSM missed the more critical statement: that is was important to prevent Iran from "gaining the knowledge" [quote marks are mine] of how to make a bomb. Bush was implying that a justification for going to war against Iran or dropping bombs all over the country could be made if that would prevent Iran from learning how to make a bomb. How, exactly, does one stop the acquisition of knowledge? Kill every Iranian with an IQ over 120? It may be possible to prevent a country from getting the physical materials they need to create a bomb, but if Bush wants to prevent anybody anywhere in the world from learning how to make a nuclear bomb, he's going to have kill a sizable portion of the world's population.
Now, to the current NIE. The MSM did latch on to one obvious question: if the previous NIE was wrong, how can we be sure the current NIE is right? This is a reasonable question. But they didn't bother to analyze Bush's follow-up that "well, if they stopped the program once, they could start it again, so they are just as dangerous" [my paraphrase]. So, lets get this straight: if Iran does not do what we tell it to, it is a dangerous country; however, if it does do what we want it to do, it is still just as dangerous. In short, Iran can't win. Whether it tries to build a bomb or decides not to build a bomb, Bush will still want to hurt it, in some way. Catch-22, Bush style.
The depth and danger of this mindset is on full display in an Andrew Sullivan blog entry. Before and after he pretty much analyzes Bush's statement as I just have, he still insists (just like Bush) that Iran is a danger!
Oh, special kudos to Wolf Blitzer who managed to question Bolton (who doesn't believe the current NIE report and announced that 2 agencies disagreed with the conclusion) for about 5 minutes or so without asking him what intelligence reports he is relying on. Does he have his own private CIA?
As with Iraq, this government has Iran Derangement Syndrome. For whatever insane reason, they have decided that Iran is now the most dangerous country in the world. Not North Korea, which has the bomb. Not Pakistan and India, which both have the bomb and have come close to all-out war on more than one occasion. Not Saudi Arabia which continues to export militant Islam. Not China. Not, for that matter, Russia. The United States of America, the country's only Superpower, as the neocons never fail to remind us, least we forget, which fought and defeated Germany and Japan, could, apparently, be destroyed by what country? Iran. Sheeeesh. How low the great have fallen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
