I'll go ahead and blame racist ass white people again.
Fucking honkeys.
Eh, the cares about race margin was 59-41 Clinton and 20% of the vote. So she gained four points on the racist white guy vs. black guy voting for the black guy battle.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
My mom, who barely speaks English, realizes that Clinton needed a bigger margin to catch up in the delegates.
I'm not too worried about the narrative.
But was she put on national television for her ability to yell over people? No, so evidence would suggest she's at least 50% smarter than say, Chris Matthews. Whose conclusion is going to be that Barack Obama cannot possibly win "normal people" who are defined as being not-black and not-well educated.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'll go ahead and blame racist ass white people again.
Fucking honkeys.
Eh, the cares about race margin was 59-41 Clinton and 20% of the vote. So she gained four points on the racist white guy vs. black guy voting for the black guy battle.
I don't mind the black guy voting black guy thing. It's a hypocrisy I'm willing to accept in order for me to hate on whitey more.
I have a problem with the way it's specifically not being addressed, as in 'Hey, is it an issue?' and the row of folks on CNN saying 'Well, not in the least.' It is, it's just not something they want to talk about.
Thanks to you, we won a critically important victory tonight in Pennsylvania. It's a giant step forward that will transform the landscape of the presidential race. And it couldn't have happened without you.
There will be much more to do beginning tomorrow. But tonight, let's just celebrate the fact that you and I are part of a remarkable community of people tough enough, passionate enough, and determined enough to win big when everything is on the line.
Thanks to you, we won a critically important victory tonight in Pennsylvania. It's a giant step forward that will transform the landscape of the presidential race. And it couldn't have happened without you.
There will be much more to do beginning tomorrow. But tonight, let's just celebrate the fact that you and I are part of a remarkable community of people tough enough, passionate enough, and determined enough to win big when everything is on the line.
Thanks so much for all you do.
Sincerely,
Hillary
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I don't think she's running to win it. The entire language of that email betrays the fact that she doesn't expect to be able to actually take the nomination, merely play a role in it.
In all honesty, I think she is running for VP. She knows the position won't be offered to her, but she may be able to force her way into it.
Thanks to you, we won a critically important victory tonight in Pennsylvania. It's a giant step forward that will transform the landscape of the presidential race. And it couldn't have happened without you.
There will be much more to do beginning tomorrow. But tonight, let's just celebrate the fact that you and I are part of a remarkable community of people tough enough, passionate enough, and determined enough to win big when everything is on the line.
Thanks so much for all you do.
Sincerely,
Hillary
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I don't think she's running to win it. The entire language of that email betrays the fact that she doesn't expect to be able to actually take the nomination, merely play a role in it.
In all honesty, I think she is running for VP. She knows the position won't be offered to her, but she may be able to force her way into it.
8-12%, well I was right. Anyway, fun fact: Before PA, she needed 64% of all remaining pledged delegates to catch up. Now she needs 68% of all remaining pledged delegates. I wonder what this number is going to look like after May 6.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
A campaign that needs a win to seal the deal is in good shape. A campaign that needs a win to justify continuing is in bad shape.
Hillary just about scraped her double-digit victory, and has scored about ten delegates on Obama, a gain that could possibly be negated by the Indiana/North Carolina primaries. There are some saying that Obama failed because he spent lots of cash and still didn't win. I still say whittling down Hillary's lead by 15 points is quite an impressive feat in a state that's demographically stacked against him.
I'll give it a week to see if superdelegates react. If they don't react strongly one way or the other, I'll wait for the IN/NC primaries. Then I'm reposting that music video of all the puppets singing for Margaret Thatcher to resign. The resemblance to Hillary's position is somewhat striking.
I always get this vibe from Clinton campaign or campaign surrogate copy that they're very subtly, but very consistently, playing a rather subversive gender card. I know that sometimes they can be very overt with it, but it's the much more subtle memes that have taken root that irk me -- it's just, I'm sort of hyperattuned to the subject, so I have no idea if it's something that's actually happening at all.
On the one hand, someone's gender is infinitely more pervasive than someone's skin color or ethnic background -- the former has its own set of nouns (on all levels), and the traditional expressions and turns of phrase one turns to are different. These aren't necessarily bad differences, and it's not necessarily exploitative. It's hard because if you, or I, here, right now, want to look at this appropriately we need to look at the whole semiotics and it's just messy.
"Yes she can" as opposed to "yes we can" falls into a grey area because you're reappropriating someone else's catchphrase, and if you don't want to copy it verbatim you don't have anywhere else to turn. The meme of "Hill's our girl," on the other hand, is an entirely different sort of grey area -- a gray area, if you will -- where you're possibly coining the verbage just because it rolls off the tongue better than the alternatives, or maybe you really do want to appeal to the connotations of the word that matches up with 'sugar and spice' instead of whatever 'woman' has come to mean in this era --
"woman," really, having become an increasingly sterile and uncharged word -- a word that, by definition of losing its charge, has taken on a sort of metacharge where demographics turn away from it because it's come to represent the modern, working woman who's not so different from the modern, working man.
It's just really hard to draw any conclusions from lines drawn in sand, and the Clinton campaign is fantastically adept at erasing their own footsteps. It's possibly my own hyperattentiveness to the subject, but more and more I feel like the stubbornness of the female demographic that clings to Hillary has something to do with their chosen diction and constant subtle use of 'the gender card.'
I will predict the media narrative tomorrow to be: Hillary can't win the primary but Obama can't win the general because (massive leap of logic that makes no god damn sense).
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I always get this vibe from Clinton campaign or campaign surrogate copy that they're very subtly, but very consistently, playing a rather subversive gender card. I know that sometimes they can be very overt with it, but it's the much more subtle memes that have taken root that irk me -- it's just, I'm sort of hyperattuned to the subject, so I have no idea if it's something that's actually happening at all.
On the one hand, someone's gender is infinitely more pervasive than someone's skin color or ethnic background -- the former has its own set of nouns (on all levels), and the traditional expressions and turns of phrase one turns to are different. These aren't necessarily bad differences, and it's not necessarily exploitative. It's hard because if you, or I, here, right now, want to look at this appropriately we need to look at the whole semiotics and it's just messy.
"Yes she can" as opposed to "yes we can" falls into a grey area because you're reappropriating someone else's catchphrase, and if you don't want to copy it verbatim you don't have anywhere else to turn. The meme of "Hill's our girl," on the other hand, is an entirely different sort of grey area -- a gray area, if you will -- where you're possibly coining the verbage just because it rolls off the tongue better than the alternatives, or maybe you really do want to appeal to the connotations of the word that matches up with 'sugar and spice' instead of whatever 'woman' has come to mean in this era --
"woman," really, having become an increasingly sterile and uncharged word -- a word that, by definition of losing its charge, has taken on a sort of metacharge where demographics turn away from it because it's come to represent the modern, working woman who's not so different from the modern, working man.
It's just really hard to draw any conclusions from lines drawn in sand, and the Clinton campaign is fantastically adept at erasing their own footsteps. It's possibly my own hyperattentiveness to the subject, but more and more I feel like the stubbornness of the female demographic that clings to Hillary has something to do with their chosen diction and constant subtle use of 'the gender card.'
I haven't really found them to be subtle at all. I mean, Clinton outright started talking about how "It would be a great deal of change to have a woman in the White House" in debates.
That's not nearly as insidious as the stuff that I'm talking about. One of the recent Clinton e-mails signed by Bill Clinton (I'm not going to say it was written by him, but we could say it was ostensibly written by him, if not attributed to him) included his -- he, her husband -- using the "she's your girl!" meme.
To say "it would be a great deal of change to have a woman in the White House" is sexist mostly in the logical sense of the word -- as a premise, it has the ideas that 1) a woman has not been "in" the White House and 2) that a woman is not a man. The implication is left to the individual. It's completely for interpretation. You're not feeding them, you're baiting them.
The over-proliferation of the "Hill's your girl" meme is more insidious, in my eyes, because you're not simply baiting people, you're feeding. The connotations are packaged -- you are playing away from the more technically-correct verbage to use one that would not normally be used for a woman of Hillary Clinton's age and status.
This, I think, is a key element of what confounds people outside of Hillary's best demographics; the cognitive dissonance we see, the "disingenuous" trait that Hillary had in spades before she even began having gaffes, can probably be largely attributed to this.
Subconsciously, and for some of us consciously, the narrative penned by the Clinton campaign of a sassy 'girl' does not mesh with even the most basic elements of her appearance and stature as we typically see her. We are not buying in, because we have no impetus to -- the narrative passes us by. The Clinton campaign has tried to write this off as sexism, when really it's the Clinton campaign subdividing sexism into two kinds:
that which promotes Hillary,
and that which they can use to attack those who are not promoting Hillary.
The truly fiendish nature of this all is that because most supporters of Obama, or detractors of Hillary, are busy playing defensively to ward off accusations of the latter, no one is in a position to point out the former -- nor, really, is the American public intellectually-prepared or even educated enough to recognize the distinction between the two.
The Clinton campaign is preying not only on the ignorance of the American public, but especially on the reflexive sexism of previous generations' women to hold onto that demographic. The Clinton campaign holds onto their vote by denigrating women; by transforming Hillary Clinton, in the eyes of those starry-eyed women, into a black-and-white era sitcom mother who mustered the courage to make it in a man's world.
The necessity, however, of transforming her into that icon of an older generation, is not feminine empowerment -- it is denigration. The Clinton campaign is simultaneously espousing a narrative that promotes women and one that degrades them, and sickeningly it's the latter narrative that has been far more successful.
EDIT: Public Service Announcement: This is post #1337 in this thread. Take heed.
Elizabeth Edwards campaigning with Clinton in NC. Interesting if only because, while we've known she supports Clinton, one would expect her to not actively campaign without her husband's agreement.
First of all, a couple of things to amuse you from the UK here:
On the BBC Page:
Why the fuck does she insist on standing there like Jesus? Also the women behind her, holding up the poster, looks either totally drunk, stoned, or just plain dumb...
Meanwhile, in the BBC's Have Your Say section, a Liam from Stockholm says this:
I would love to see Clinton stand aside, but she is the anointed one and will be the next US president in service of the european bankers who own her and who choose her for the presidential seat years ago.
I know you wont print this since I just insulted your owners and those who tell you what you can and can´t print...Im just trying too reach the tiny part of your shrivelled souls.
Well guess what Liam; it was printed. The Beeb must have souls!
For some reason i sniggered at that.
Also:
It is a sad indictment of the American people, and US politics, that a presidential candidate can earn brownie points by threatening to "obliterate" a sovereign country in defense of a corrupt, apartheid state which flouts internal laws and conventions, illegally occupies Palestinian territory, tortures prisoners, disregards UN Resolutions, operates a policy of collective punishment and which has amassed huge stockpiles of (real, not imaginary) nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Epic Fail! I presume she's wittering on about Israel. Sadly she has 17 recommendations. Sigh.
Isreal would have tunred Iran into glass well before the US gave a launch order anyway, they don't have something like 100 nukes cos they like to polish them at weekends.
But yeah, throw out those soundbites to get the crowd whooping and hollering, alienating one of the few mid east countries with a chance of becoming a true democracy (the religious theocrats seem to be slipping to the power of the capitalists and young people who want to go skieing and have SUV's). Half of their saber ratteling stems from the Iranian govt needing to seem strong in the face of constant threats from the US.
But derail aside, I sincerly hope that wizened dried up old sow sets her shit to receive soon and stops damaging her party, would some senior democrats man the fuck up and ask her to step down? what are they afraid of?
Elizabeth Edwards campaigning with Clinton in NC. Interesting if only because, while we've known she supports Clinton, one would expect her to not actively campaign without her husband's agreement.
Her husband is no longer a candidate, so I don't see why he needs to agree to anything.
Elki on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited April 2008
Edwards' comment during the EdWORD segment of the Colbert report made me think that he would lean a bit closer to Hillary anyways, what with the "Healthcare for every man woman and child in the nation" thing, which echoed back to the SC debate where he flat out said that Obama, unlike Hillary and himself, did not support such a thing.
But he is playing it very safe right now, because I don't think he wants to put his weight behind a losing team.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
When I went to sleep, Clinton's lead was 10%. I'd hoped it would be reduced by the time I woke up, but I was wrong.
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
I projected 7, I got 10.
Well, okay, Hillary wins the night. She didn't win the math, though; important to remember that. She needed a 23-pointer to win in the math. We simply pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off, and move forward.
Remember that we are now in the endgame. The schedule is ripe with opportunities to end this:
*The next one is right in front of us. Sweep Indiana and North Carolina. NC's ours, IN can be ours with enough of Obama's hometown posse swarming the state.
*West Virginia. Not likely; it's the same what-if-but-won't-happen PA was.
*Kentucky and Oregon is my bet to be the end of it. That's when Obama looks to clinch the pledged-delegate lead, thus allowing him a powerful argument to give to Dean- "Dude. I've won the support of the voters. There's no need to prolong this any further. The voters have made their decision. Just call for unity already and let's move on to McCain."
*And if that doesn't work, Puerto Rico, regardless of outcome. At that point all the primaries are done, and Hillary can no longer make the argument to let the voters have their say because they all have.
Four opportunities, three of them feasible. The next one's in two weeks, so NC and IN, let's see if you can do this.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
This guy lists five reasons why Obama couldn't clinch Pennsylvania:
RACE: The jury is still out on whether a black man can overcome America's original sin and be elected president.
About one in five Pennsylvania voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in deciding how to vote, according to exit polls, and white voters who cited race supported Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.
...
WORKING-CLASS VOTERS: Obama can't win the presidency unless he starts connecting better with blue-collar voters.
The New York senator easily won among Pennsylvania voters without college degrees and those from families earning less than $50,000 a year. Gun owners, rural voters and churchgoing Democrats also backed Clinton.
...
FRIENDS IN TROUBLE: The longer the campaign goes, the more questions Obama faces about his friends and associates.
He was forced onto the defensive by incendiary comments by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko faces corruption charges. And McCain is raising questions about Obama's relationship with former 1960s radical William Ayers, who has been quoted in an interview as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs" decades ago.
...
INEXPERIENCE: It's true that Clinton has never run a government or a business, but many voters give her credit for proximity. They consider her experience as first lady preparation for the presidency.
By any measure, Obama is relatively inexperienced, having left the Illinois Legislature less than four years ago.
...
METTLE: Clinton's backers love the fact that she fought Republicans — not to mention the "right-wing conspiracy" — during her husband's presidency. Many Democrats wonder whether Obama is tough enough, a charge that he should be putting to rest in this brass-knuckle nominating contest. But he hasn't.
Headed into Pennsylvania, the cash-strapped Clinton had to defeat Obama by a wide enough margin to stay in the race, raise money and eventually persuade a majority of party regulars — the so-called superdelegates — to side against Obama.
Victory in hand, she must keep winning — Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico and beyond, all tall orders, and catch every break along the way.
"He broke every spending record in this state, trying to knock us out of the race," Clinton crowed in victory Tuesday night. "Well, the people of Pennsylvania had other ideas."
The question is whether superdelegates will get other ideas. Will they start wondering why can't Obama put her away?
The article is quite pro-Clinton, but it does raise a point: will the perception of Obama's inability to deliver a knock-out blow rattle the supers? And will he be able to connect with Hillary's demographics after she's gone, and not lose them all to McCain?
RMS Oceanic on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Oh, and by the way, the math now shows that, if she wants to take the lead without any of the remaining supers, she must win by a margin of 67-33 from now on.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
The article is quite pro-Clinton, but it does raise a point: will the perception of Obama's inability to deliver a knock-out blow rattle the supers?
Eh, Joe Scarborough (and lots of other people) was yelling that over and over again on NBC last night, citing the money Obama spent on ads as further evidence of his inabilities, but I don't buy it. Clinton's base has been entrenched there for so long, it's no surprise that he didn't do well, and the fact that he spent so much effort campaigning there shouldn't be evidence to his ineffectiveness, it's really just evidence of how entrenched Clinton was there.
Also, if Clinton wasn't so nasty and negative in her attacks, this would have been mopped up long ago. Clinton's ability to not be knocked-out is just a demonstration of how good she is at doing anything to win (or in this case, not lose, I guess).
Oh, and by the way, the math now shows that, if she wants to take the lead without any of the remaining supers, she must win by a margin of 67-33 from now on.
Is that including NC?
Cheezy on
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
Oh, and by the way, the math now shows that, if she wants to take the lead without any of the remaining supers, she must win by a margin of 67-33 from now on.
Meanwhile, if Obama takes the remaining contests by 76% he doesn't need superdelegates to lock up the nomination.
There is no such magic number for Clinton to do so.
Holy fuck, Carousel has gotten 10 million in Federal funds? I believe it's gotten more than that in local PILOT breaks and cheap land deals as well. The sad thing is half the city is fucking pissed about it and doesn't want it to go forward.
I fucking hate Congel.
geckahn on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Well, okay, Hillary wins the night. She didn't win the math, though; important to remember that. She needed a 23-pointer to win in the math. We simply pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off, and move forward.
Remember that we are now in the endgame. The schedule is ripe with opportunities to end this:
*The next one is right in front of us. Sweep Indiana and North Carolina. NC's ours, IN can be ours with enough of Obama's hometown posse swarming the state.
*West Virginia. Not likely; it's the same what-if-but-won't-happen PA was.
*Kentucky and Oregon is my bet to be the end of it. That's when Obama looks to clinch the pledged-delegate lead, thus allowing him a powerful argument to give to Dean- "Dude. I've won the support of the voters. There's no need to prolong this any further. The voters have made their decision. Just call for unity already and let's move on to McCain."
*And if that doesn't work, Puerto Rico, regardless of outcome. At that point all the primaries are done, and Hillary can no longer make the argument to let the voters have their say because they all have.
Four opportunities, three of them feasible. The next one's in two weeks, so NC and IN, let's see if you can do this.
I'm working the polls in Indiana. I'll do what I can to stuff a few ballot boxes in my precinct.
Of course I won't.
Though I might.
But not really.
:?:
Hedgethorn on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Oh, and by the way, the math now shows that, if she wants to take the lead without any of the remaining supers, she must win by a margin of 67-33 from now on.
Is that including NC?
That includes all the races post-Pennsylvania.
I have e-mailed American Morning to this effect after seeing their goddamned stupid poll, "Is Clinton's win enough to make her the Comeback Kid?"
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Is there a relation between race and working-class voters?
Because I honestly can't see any other reason why Clinton would attract working class voters more then Obama. Quite the opposite actually, since "the little people" are the driving force behind Obama's campaign, instead of lobbyists or something.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Brown County?
Dammit, Feingold, get back down here to Jefferson County so I can take a run at applying for your staff. (I fully intend to take a run at it when he shows up. It'd be my fourth appearance in two years, his local aide recognizes me now after I've gotten there early enough to help set up chairs, I'd like to think I've shown a varied base of knowledge and a decent set of ideas through what I've asked him previously. Should help to shield me from the rather thin resume. I figure asking in person would give me a much better shot than e-mail.)
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Posts
I'm not too worried about the narrative.
Eh, the cares about race margin was 59-41 Clinton and 20% of the vote. So she gained four points on the racist white guy vs. black guy voting for the black guy battle.
But was she put on national television for her ability to yell over people? No, so evidence would suggest she's at least 50% smarter than say, Chris Matthews. Whose conclusion is going to be that Barack Obama cannot possibly win "normal people" who are defined as being not-black and not-well educated.
I don't mind the black guy voting black guy thing. It's a hypocrisy I'm willing to accept in order for me to hate on whitey more.
I have a problem with the way it's specifically not being addressed, as in 'Hey, is it an issue?' and the row of folks on CNN saying 'Well, not in the least.' It is, it's just not something they want to talk about.
I don't think she's running to win it. The entire language of that email betrays the fact that she doesn't expect to be able to actually take the nomination, merely play a role in it.
In all honesty, I think she is running for VP. She knows the position won't be offered to her, but she may be able to force her way into it.
Over my dead body.
Hillary just about scraped her double-digit victory, and has scored about ten delegates on Obama, a gain that could possibly be negated by the Indiana/North Carolina primaries. There are some saying that Obama failed because he spent lots of cash and still didn't win. I still say whittling down Hillary's lead by 15 points is quite an impressive feat in a state that's demographically stacked against him.
I'll give it a week to see if superdelegates react. If they don't react strongly one way or the other, I'll wait for the IN/NC primaries. Then I'm reposting that music video of all the puppets singing for Margaret Thatcher to resign. The resemblance to Hillary's position is somewhat striking.
On the one hand, someone's gender is infinitely more pervasive than someone's skin color or ethnic background -- the former has its own set of nouns (on all levels), and the traditional expressions and turns of phrase one turns to are different. These aren't necessarily bad differences, and it's not necessarily exploitative. It's hard because if you, or I, here, right now, want to look at this appropriately we need to look at the whole semiotics and it's just messy.
"Yes she can" as opposed to "yes we can" falls into a grey area because you're reappropriating someone else's catchphrase, and if you don't want to copy it verbatim you don't have anywhere else to turn. The meme of "Hill's our girl," on the other hand, is an entirely different sort of grey area -- a gray area, if you will -- where you're possibly coining the verbage just because it rolls off the tongue better than the alternatives, or maybe you really do want to appeal to the connotations of the word that matches up with 'sugar and spice' instead of whatever 'woman' has come to mean in this era --
"woman," really, having become an increasingly sterile and uncharged word -- a word that, by definition of losing its charge, has taken on a sort of metacharge where demographics turn away from it because it's come to represent the modern, working woman who's not so different from the modern, working man.
It's just really hard to draw any conclusions from lines drawn in sand, and the Clinton campaign is fantastically adept at erasing their own footsteps. It's possibly my own hyperattentiveness to the subject, but more and more I feel like the stubbornness of the female demographic that clings to Hillary has something to do with their chosen diction and constant subtle use of 'the gender card.'
I haven't really found them to be subtle at all. I mean, Clinton outright started talking about how "It would be a great deal of change to have a woman in the White House" in debates.
To say "it would be a great deal of change to have a woman in the White House" is sexist mostly in the logical sense of the word -- as a premise, it has the ideas that 1) a woman has not been "in" the White House and 2) that a woman is not a man. The implication is left to the individual. It's completely for interpretation. You're not feeding them, you're baiting them.
The over-proliferation of the "Hill's your girl" meme is more insidious, in my eyes, because you're not simply baiting people, you're feeding. The connotations are packaged -- you are playing away from the more technically-correct verbage to use one that would not normally be used for a woman of Hillary Clinton's age and status.
This, I think, is a key element of what confounds people outside of Hillary's best demographics; the cognitive dissonance we see, the "disingenuous" trait that Hillary had in spades before she even began having gaffes, can probably be largely attributed to this.
Subconsciously, and for some of us consciously, the narrative penned by the Clinton campaign of a sassy 'girl' does not mesh with even the most basic elements of her appearance and stature as we typically see her. We are not buying in, because we have no impetus to -- the narrative passes us by. The Clinton campaign has tried to write this off as sexism, when really it's the Clinton campaign subdividing sexism into two kinds:
that which promotes Hillary,
and that which they can use to attack those who are not promoting Hillary.
The truly fiendish nature of this all is that because most supporters of Obama, or detractors of Hillary, are busy playing defensively to ward off accusations of the latter, no one is in a position to point out the former -- nor, really, is the American public intellectually-prepared or even educated enough to recognize the distinction between the two.
The Clinton campaign is preying not only on the ignorance of the American public, but especially on the reflexive sexism of previous generations' women to hold onto that demographic. The Clinton campaign holds onto their vote by denigrating women; by transforming Hillary Clinton, in the eyes of those starry-eyed women, into a black-and-white era sitcom mother who mustered the courage to make it in a man's world.
The necessity, however, of transforming her into that icon of an older generation, is not feminine empowerment -- it is denigration. The Clinton campaign is simultaneously espousing a narrative that promotes women and one that degrades them, and sickeningly it's the latter narrative that has been far more successful.
EDIT: Public Service Announcement: This is post #1337 in this thread. Take heed.
damn
i was hoping she didn't get double digits
oh well, still pretty good, still roughly 140 delegates apart.
i hope that superdelegate thing is true
Hmmmm...
On the black screen
On the BBC Page:
Why the fuck does she insist on standing there like Jesus? Also the women behind her, holding up the poster, looks either totally drunk, stoned, or just plain dumb...
Meanwhile, in the BBC's Have Your Say section, a Liam from Stockholm says this:
Well guess what Liam; it was printed. The Beeb must have souls!
For some reason i sniggered at that.
Also:
Epic Fail! I presume she's wittering on about Israel. Sadly she has 17 recommendations. Sigh.
The world spins on.
But yeah, throw out those soundbites to get the crowd whooping and hollering, alienating one of the few mid east countries with a chance of becoming a true democracy (the religious theocrats seem to be slipping to the power of the capitalists and young people who want to go skieing and have SUV's). Half of their saber ratteling stems from the Iranian govt needing to seem strong in the face of constant threats from the US.
But derail aside, I sincerly hope that wizened dried up old sow sets her shit to receive soon and stops damaging her party, would some senior democrats man the fuck up and ask her to step down? what are they afraid of?
Her husband is no longer a candidate, so I don't see why he needs to agree to anything.
But he is playing it very safe right now, because I don't think he wants to put his weight behind a losing team.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I blame the old people. Like my grandmother.
My Backloggery
Well, okay, Hillary wins the night. She didn't win the math, though; important to remember that. She needed a 23-pointer to win in the math. We simply pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off, and move forward.
Remember that we are now in the endgame. The schedule is ripe with opportunities to end this:
*The next one is right in front of us. Sweep Indiana and North Carolina. NC's ours, IN can be ours with enough of Obama's hometown posse swarming the state.
*West Virginia. Not likely; it's the same what-if-but-won't-happen PA was.
*Kentucky and Oregon is my bet to be the end of it. That's when Obama looks to clinch the pledged-delegate lead, thus allowing him a powerful argument to give to Dean- "Dude. I've won the support of the voters. There's no need to prolong this any further. The voters have made their decision. Just call for unity already and let's move on to McCain."
*And if that doesn't work, Puerto Rico, regardless of outcome. At that point all the primaries are done, and Hillary can no longer make the argument to let the voters have their say because they all have.
Four opportunities, three of them feasible. The next one's in two weeks, so NC and IN, let's see if you can do this.
The article is quite pro-Clinton, but it does raise a point: will the perception of Obama's inability to deliver a knock-out blow rattle the supers? And will he be able to connect with Hillary's demographics after she's gone, and not lose them all to McCain?
Eh, Joe Scarborough (and lots of other people) was yelling that over and over again on NBC last night, citing the money Obama spent on ads as further evidence of his inabilities, but I don't buy it. Clinton's base has been entrenched there for so long, it's no surprise that he didn't do well, and the fact that he spent so much effort campaigning there shouldn't be evidence to his ineffectiveness, it's really just evidence of how entrenched Clinton was there.
Also, if Clinton wasn't so nasty and negative in her attacks, this would have been mopped up long ago. Clinton's ability to not be knocked-out is just a demonstration of how good she is at doing anything to win (or in this case, not lose, I guess).
Is that including NC?
Meanwhile, if Obama takes the remaining contests by 76% he doesn't need superdelegates to lock up the nomination.
There is no such magic number for Clinton to do so.
I fucking hate Congel.
I'm working the polls in Indiana. I'll do what I can to stuff a few ballot boxes in my precinct.
I have e-mailed American Morning to this effect after seeing their goddamned stupid poll, "Is Clinton's win enough to make her the Comeback Kid?"
Because I honestly can't see any other reason why Clinton would attract working class voters more then Obama. Quite the opposite actually, since "the little people" are the driving force behind Obama's campaign, instead of lobbyists or something.
Dammit, Feingold, get back down here to Jefferson County so I can take a run at applying for your staff. (I fully intend to take a run at it when he shows up. It'd be my fourth appearance in two years, his local aide recognizes me now after I've gotten there early enough to help set up chairs, I'd like to think I've shown a varied base of knowledge and a decent set of ideas through what I've asked him previously. Should help to shield me from the rather thin resume. I figure asking in person would give me a much better shot than e-mail.)
No.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation