This seems like a good time to link to Dana Goldstein's article on where John Edwards' supporters will drift.
« Edwards Out | Main | The Slowdown »
After Edwards
30 Jan 2008 11:23 am
Comments (32)
Way to keep the level of discourse on a high level there RKU. You're a friggin champ.
"Drift"?
You mean like aimless Schwärmerei?
"Drift" as opposed to "choose" or "decide"?
Sheesh, Matt. How do those cocktail wienies taste, anyhow?
Well, I was thinking about voting for Edwards in NY, but will now vote for Hillary.
I'll be happy with either one as the nominee. But the Clinton-bashing in the media and the liberal blogs has gotten to be way too much to take. As Matt says, the differences between them are minor. Given that, I'm giving in the the part of me that wants to send a great big Fuck You! to Matthews, Dowd, Herbert, Sullivan, Klein, et. al.
Dana Goldstein needs a more professional photo. This isn't Myspace.
In New York, it's hard to see how this doesn't help Clinton. Union families are at least half the Dem primary vote here, and with Edwards gone Clinton's endorsements are going to matter a lot more.
I thought she looked smart and attractive, neither of which lessened my respect for her or attention to the article. If the MySpace reference was an age crack, I'm not sure that gray eminences like Joe Klein or Tweety have covered tthemselves in glory, so what the hell.
According to Chuck Todd, Edwards people he's talked to say they think it'll help Obama, and that this is the intention.
John, do you have a link? I'd like to check out what Chuck Todd is saying
chick todd didn't talk to me. i'm with clinton.
i agree with gustav and posted something similar somewhere sometime. the media is has and will continue to be the biggest obstacle to progressive legislation. a hillary clinton administration would be a huge fuck you to the corporate media. it does not follow that hillary is the most progressive person out there. it does follow that smashing the media's hold on public opinion is the first step in moving this country forward. they will crap their pants when clinton wins and this would be a golden opportunity to crush the influence of cable news and talk radio.
and let's not forget about rush limbaugh. eff you, limbaugh.
Trying to send a message to the corporate media has *got* to be the second worst reason for voting for HRC, right behind the Vagina Litmus Test. This is an election for who is going to govern the (atm) most powerful nation in the world. Someone yesterday at least listed 6 or 7 reasons why they thought she was the superior candidate. I disagree, but I respect that.
There is a wonderful, completely blind irony, however to the idea that electing
Hillary Clinton
will "crush"
talk radio
Do ponder that a moment, won't you?
Re Matthew's comment "This seems like a good time to link to Dana Goldstein's article on where John Edwards' supporters will drift."
----------
Like Vietnamese boat people??
The sharks will eat them.
What Jen said.
Here's Todd. It's a video.
Also, english teacher, that fact that you are switching from Edwards to Clinton provides absolutely no evidence of what the general effect is going to be. Nobody is saying that everybody who was for Edwards is going to switch to Obama, just wondering what the net effect will be.
My personal sense is that it's not going to make much of a difference one way or the other, but it's hard to say - we'll really have to wait until we start getting some polls out of the two-person race.
I don't think Edwards voters will automatically go to Obama unless Edwards endorses him. Ted Kennedy might have asked Edwards to do just that.
Now Obama will have to debate Hillary alone tomorrow night. How will he fill up the time?
Trying to send a message to the corporate media has *got* to be the second worst reason for voting for HRC, right behind the Vagina Litmus Test.
Why? I already said that I see the two as otherwise equally qualified. I know others don't agree with me, but that's how I see it.
So given that I don't really care which one I get (of those two), why not send a message to those slimy bastards?
"Annoy the media -- elect Hillary"
You may be too young for that bumper sticker.
They can't be "equally qualified". You aren't filling a position of a line cook when the two candidates have previously been line cooks for the same amount of time -- flip a coin, who cares.
This is the president of the United States. Their style, their public speaking, their experience, their intelligence, their knowledge, their advisors, their attitudes, the message they will project to the world, the judicial nominees they will like, how they will work with Congress, their (ahem) stance on the war --*something substantive* has to be different. It can be somewhat intangible and still be substantive. I agree with Matt that the differences are not gaping chasms, but they are not the same person, and this is a tremendously important job, and they cannot be equally up to the task.
May I also point out the fairly obvious, that when you vote you don't get to put a little asterisk down there read by the MSM regarding why you voted that way. If Hillary wins the nomination, the MSM is likely to interpret that in every possible way short of a repudiation of them.
jen, i am forty darling. did you live through the nineties? yes or no, an honest question.
so for obama supporters, intangible = substantive. is that what you just said?
I think barring an Edwards endorsement of Obama, and it doesn't appear one is forthcoming, Hillary benefits more. The stereotypical Edwards voter is the exact demographic that has given Obama the most trouble.
Yes, "It can be somewhat intangible and still be substantive" means intangible = substantive, also ice cream is sometimes yummy and therefore "ice cream" and "yummy" are interchangeable. I thought you taught ENGLISH?
To reiterate my examples, the type of message you think someone's election would send to the world community is an intangible. Other than maybe some polling data which could be illustrative, it isn't measurable, it isn't like saying "how many years have you served in the Senate?" or "which bills did you vote yes or no on". But it can still be important for substantive reasons. That should have been fairly obvious.
I wasn't talking to you when I referenced the bumper sticker. I am old enough to remember seeing "Annoy the media -- re-elect George Bush" bumper stickers.
Yes, "It can be somewhat intangible and still be substantive" means intangible = substantive, also ice cream is sometimes yummy and therefore "ice cream" and "yummy" are interchangeable. I thought you taught ENGLISH?
To reiterate my examples, the type of message you think someone's election would send to the world community is an intangible. Other than maybe some polling data which could be illustrative, it isn't measurable, it isn't like saying "how many years have you served in the Senate?" or "which bills did you vote yes or no on". But it can still be important for substantive reasons. That should have been fairly obvious.
I wasn't talking to you when I referenced the bumper sticker. I am old enough to remember seeing "Annoy the media -- re-elect George Bush"
bumper stickers.
By the way, I *know* you're at least forty. You're a Clinton voter.
if obama wins the nomination, and the presidency, then what of rezko? do you really think it matters that there might not be any "there" there?
if obama is elected and aggressively pursues a progressive agenda which includes raising taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals, what then happens? will he still be the media darling? or do you think the media will pay people to make up shit about him that will then be used to bludgeon him with, even if it is not true, as they did with clinton, or gore, or kerry?
sorry, but the media is the number one problem with politics in this country today. the more obama supporters ignore or deny this basic fact of the past thirty years, the more i scratch my head and wonder where they have been and why i should listen to anything obama has to say if he does not grasp that basic fact.
but the media the Bush administration is the number one problem with politics in this country today.
Won't accept my strikethrough tag through "media", but an attempt to correct for accuracy.
that's great! obama's candidacy is like ice cream! yippee. it is *somewhat* intangible in that it melts when heat is applied, but it is substantive in that it is yummy.
got it.
Well, you can argue honestly or you can snark, but so far you suck at both.
Re english teacher's comment "sorry, but the media is the number one problem with politics in this country today "
------------
I strongly concur.
However, I think people are getting really fed up with the news media's record of deceit in support of power. I really wish someone would spend $30 Million to lay out the record of the past 7 years and show the damage the media has caused this country, then call for the destruction of the media via boycott. It would take --what ? -- $30 million to send a letter to half the US households and ask them to pass the letter on to their neighbors.
It's worth noting that the NY Times -- the paper of Judith Miller -- is not prospering. Even after Sept 11, its stock climbed. However, it started falling in Jan 2004 and has sunk from around $48 to the current $16.50 :
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NYT&t=5y
One day I hope to dance on it's fucking grave.
The Washington Post has declined some as well, but not nearly as much.
Unfortunately, it's much harder to unearth/document/disseminate the record of the TV networks --although Bill Moyers' "Buying the War" was a great start.
i'm just going on what you said. it's a very bad metaphor to cover up a glaring inconsistency in your previous comment.
Okay, now I *know* you're not an English teacher.
It's. Not. A. Metaphor. I am not comparing anyone to ice cream. It is an exercise in logical fallacies. You've heard those, right? All German shepherds are dogs, therefore all dogs are German shepherds is a logical fallacy..? Right? You realize I'm not calling Hillary a dog, right? You made a logical fallacy by saying "intangible=substantive" when I clearly did not say that.
There is *nothing* inconsistent about saying something can be intangible, yet substantive. It cannot be readily quantified, measured, touched, yet it is important and relevant to the issues which matter.
If you're going to argue that is inconsistent, then argue the freaking point rather than mangling the English language. We have a president for that.
There is certainly the appearance of a large difference between Obama and Clinton. I don't know for sure that Obama really is as honest and magnanimous as his image, but I do know for sure that the Clintons are as dishonest and opportunistic as their image. They sold out absolutely everyone the first time around. How can anyone be dumb enough to want more of that?
The media will have plenty of time to return the "eff you" to Hillary before November. In fact it will probably do that anyway, given she will be running against Mr. Straight Talk.
Matt, please note the exemplary use of "whither" in the headline of Dana's piece.
If it is okay for Obama supporters to vote for him because they don't want to 're-live the drama of the '90s' then it is okay for Clinton supporters to vote for her 'to send a message to the media.'
I am voting for whichever candidate promises to restore the dollar to its proper level versus the looney.
Comments closed February 13, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Well, all the Obamabots on this blogsite seem really, really happy about Edwards dropping out, since that now means that the vast anti-Clinton vote won't continue to be split. Bad news for Hillary!!
Me, I look at demographics, which tell a very different story. We'll know whos' right in a few days, or perhaps even a little sooner if the media starts doing some major post-Edwards polling.
This also pushes up Obama's necessary share of the non-black primary vote to maybe a little under 40%. Can't be *that* hard for such a super-charismatic wonder-boy...
Posted by RKU | January 30, 2008 11:38 AM