John Edwards.
I fully admit that my reason for doing so is probably stupid, but it’s mine and I’ll stick to it. The reason I’m pulling for Edwards is because when the WGA had a rally in Washington Square Park a few weeks ago, Edwards was the only presidential candidate who actually showed up to address us (as he had in a similar gathering on the West Coast.)
By contrast, Hillary and Obama merely sent letters of support…letters that, as it happened, had grammatical errors. Never a good idea, sending letters with grammatical errors to a gathering of cranky writers.
And by the way, considering how much of a hullabaloo the media made over his $400 haircuts, I have to say…dámņ, the man has good hair.
In any event, my simplistic view is that if he took the time to support us, then it’s the least I can do in return.
So John Edwards gets my vote come the Democratic primary.
PAD
• 
If you do a text-search for this page, you will see that you literally introduced the word “payback” to it. Your failure to comprehend this seems to say more about your comprehension skills rather than the comprehensibility to what I say.
At no point did I say you introduced the word “payback”. I merely pointed out that it was unclear what, if any, idea you were trying to express. You have that problem, you see, though you tend to blame your inability to make sense to people to those very same people. Oh well. As the T-shirt says, If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bûllšhìŧ.
You seem to be suffering from an inability to reconcile Hillary having the most qualifying experience, her outspending Edwards by about five or six, and her losing to Edwards in Iowa. The solution is simple: as things stand now she simply isn’t going to be the democratic candidate for president for 2008. If you don’t like it, that isn’t my problem, and I don’t owe you an alternate explanation.
No, you seem to be completely unable to reconcile your support for John Edwards–which is a perfectly valid position to take–with the reality that he LOST Iowa after putting all of his eggs into that basket. While the average, sane person would just shrug off the disappointment, you, to the hilarity of many, tried to spin off his defeat as some kind of evidence of his bad-assery. Lost? Why he shoved Hillary Clinton right out of the race! Errrr…except she then WON New Hampshire, getting over twice the Bad Úš’s totals in doing so.
Now you’re doubling down, claiming that “she simply isn’t going to be the democratic candidate for president for 2008.” One can only imagine (and look forward to) the mental contortions you will have to go through should she actually win it. When you are so personally invested in being proven right you should really avoid politics and horse races. It isn’t getting a prediction wrong that makes you look stupid–no guts, no glory, says I–but the pathetic neediness that drives you to insist that you were right even when you weren’t is what makes you…you.
It’s almost endearing. Some things change. You don’t.
Also, I don’t know which is creepier:
1. that along with lennie green footballs you read scrappleface, an unfunny Andy Borowitz (like Andy Borowitz is all that funny) catering to Ðìçk Cheney/Karl Rove reactionaries,
Well, since you have actually POSTED to Little Green Footballs…contributed to them, if you will…I can only assume your attempt to shame us from reading the site is to shelter you from your shame.
And I don’t actually frequent the scrappleface site. A site I do read linked to it and I passed it on. Your familiarity with the site (who the hëll is Andy Borowitz? He didn’t write that piece I posted. I guess Borowitz is the guy in charge of the site? The editor? I’ll defer to your superior knowledge of the site) indicates, yet again, that you read sites that you would deny to others. Interesting. As is your choice of the word creepy to describe those who read those sites. The ones you read.
that when some semblance of sense was restored to your world by Hillary winning NH, you dropped your guard and mentioned you frequent the site — demonstrating when your guard is up, you don’t let the people here you portray as friends know you frequently visit it.
You’re a liiiiiiar, Mike Leung. How many things are wrong with this sentence? A-I don’t frequent the site. B-I didn’t mention that I frequent the site (hence A) C- Even if A & C were true they would not in any way demonstrate that I have deliberately hidden the “fact” that I have gone to the site and D- the idea that anyone other than you would be at all horrified that I go to stupid right wing comedy sites. Like the ones you read.
Your Charlie Daniels reference in the Mary Jane thread would have exceeded the hilarity of the entire scrappleface archive if you had somehow managed to post it there in its full context. Anyone can go over there and see for themselves that is the case. Your post treating scrappleface as some kind of cultural packleader is a demonstration how whatever talents you have are wasted on you. You don’t have to live in the shadow of the pretense of invulnerability, Bill; you can choose to measure strength by something other than dominance.
Ok, did someone at scappleface (maybe the mysterious Andy Borowitz) turn down a suggestion from you for a funny article? Did they make fun of one of your posts? If so, talk to a therapist–not my problem. If you want people to think of you as a funny guy, try to take yourself a little less seriously. Though I have to admit, you’re getting plenty of laughs. I mean, John Edwards-bad ášš. Funny stuff, man.
Considering Hillary was portrayed as on the ropes for the 4 days between Iowa and NH, my need you refer to is simply a fidelity to accuracy.
You claim she is helpless now, subject to forces beyond her control. One can only wonder how such a delicate flower whupped the bad-ášš.
the Oprah-backed Obama
Yeah, that’s why Obama is such a phenom. He’s got support from Oprah. I roll my eyes at your desperation.
I have no idea whether Hillary or Obama will win the nomination. This race is too awesomely close to be sure. They’re both gifted politicians, though in very different ways. Outside events could influence the voters and even without them the voters have been pretty hard to read. I can even see a slim tiny chance for Edwards, should he stick it out (though it will from simply surviving a Clinton/Obama mutual bloodbath than from any bad-assery. In fact, his best chance now is the old play dead routine while the real bad áššëš bloody themselves up.)
But there’s one prediction I can make with almost no chance of coming up short; you will say stupid stuff and get angry when you are called on it and in your anger make yourself look even worse than before.
Think about it.
I explicitly said an underdog portrayal is incompatible with the lust for revenge you introduced into this discussion. The conventional analysis has been that partisanship drives away younger democrats because they don’t care about — your word — payback. This is how Obama benefits from the youth vote by portraying himself as a change agent.
Conventional wisdom is often wrong, but your inability to simply comprehend it demonstrates you aren’t the person to go to to confirm or deny observations of what simply takes place in our shared reality.
I reconciled it by referring to the 4 days Hillary enjoyed being portrayed in the press as the underdog. See? Reconciled. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery
Any “doubling down” took place when I said she was shoved out after Iowa. This is another example how your comprehension problem has a whole life of its own.
Between Obama and Hillary, she should win it, because she’ll give us single-payer healthcare. You are so detached from reality, you don’t seem to understand that that which should take place doesn’t always happen. I think it comes from how you measure strength by dominance. It obstructs you from considering alternatives to the way things are.
What pretense of invulnerability on my part are you referring to? I know of no pretense of invulnerability on my part — why would I then abstain from making a prediction on the outcome of the primary?
Your shame in reading lennie green footballs is from no contribution by me. You only mention to the people you portray as your friends here you read reactionary sites to refer to the month or so I challenged them ridiculing a dead girl. They didn’t even have the guts to focus their annual disgust-fest on someone alive and under 70.
Thanks for not denying you frequent lennie green footballs. So who links to scrappleface who manages to keep his froth in his mouth?
Ahhh, the classic “How dare you infer I read something I don’t, but if I did what’s the big deal?”
Thank you for admitting scrappleface is stupid and right wing. It makes it a wonder you felt any urgency in citing one of its post.
Since I think only you would consider this plausible, let me give my answer soley for your benefit: no.
If you’re talking about in the forum, they don’t put any effort into the pretense of fairness for me to care if they have.
Considering your conditions, I’m glad you can refer to no detachment from reality on my part requiring intervention by a practicing professional.
I guess you heard it here first, folks: Hillary will win because Edwards can’t beat her.
By submitted my use of the phrase “the Oprah-backed Obama” as evidence of my desperation, you seem to be defining “desperate” as having some kind of fidelity to the plain observation of reality.
I guess there’s gotta be a first for everything.
Oh, sorry, Bill, “losing” Iowa is what the press was saying Hillary did, so when I saw you call Edwards a loser, I thought you were referring to NH.
How do I reconcile my preference for Edwards with him losing Iowa? I simply remember that he beat a $100 million candidate — you know, the simple truth I’ve been referring to all along. If you didn’t have so much of a fidelity to the pretense of invulnerability and didn’t measure strength by dominance, you might have an easier time picking up that which is plainly observable.
Bill predicts–But there’s one prediction I can make with almost no chance of coming up short; you will say stupid stuff and get angry when you are called on it and in your anger make yourself look even worse than before.
Mike says (see above two posts)
Wow, I feel like Nostradamas. Only accurate.
You know, I’m no fan of John Edwards as a presidential candidate but I’ll say this for him; nothing he’s done so far makes him deserve having Mike Leung as an acolyte.
I’ve been mocking the folks who are crying “Fixed Election” at the NH results but it may not be limited to the crazy fringe. At Dailykos (which certainly has fringe elements but is not what I would consider the epitome of the far left crazies) this kind of talk has even spawned a poll where 50% are saying the election was rigged and another 11% are saying maybe.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/9/134532/8188
Giving credit where it’s due, kos himself doesn’t seem to be buying this foolishness (and the slight discrepancies between the hand counted ballots and the Deibold machines can be far more easily explained in ways that do not require a massive conspiracy). Many of the commentators aren’t buying it either. As one pointed out: 2000? Stolen! 2004? Rigged! 2006? No problems! NH 2008? The Empire Strikes back! November 2008? Depends on who wins!
You literally haven’t invalidated anything I said. Because you can’t.
Your post is literally absent any observation demonstrating a fidelity to that which is plainly observable. Your need to be right isn’t proof you are right. However right your criticism may be, no one is ever going to pick up on it from what you say. You are a poor servant to the truth, which may explain why your indifference to it.
That should be: Your post as it refers to me is literally absent any observation demonstrating a fidelity to that which is plainly observable.
*Sigh*
Well, it was almost nice while it lasted. Whichever one of you picked ‘The Evening of January 9th’ in the “When Will Mike Finally Lose it in This Thread” pool, your prize can be picked up at the door. You have to hunt like hëll to find the door, but it’s a nice prize nonetheless.
However right your criticism may be, no one is ever going to pick up on it from what you say.
I have enough confidence in the intelligence of the average reader here–and in the sheer loony bin nature of your posts above–to simply let you bury yourself.
When you are arguing with a guy so foolish as to accuse others of “comprehension problems” yet somehow is able to read No, you seem to be completely unable to reconcile your support for John Edwards–which is a perfectly valid position to take–with the reality that he LOST Iowa after putting all of his eggs into that basket. as referring to New Hampshire…
Your irrationality, hypocrisy and general nuttiness is on full display to anyone still reading the thread. Going through on a point by point basis almost seems cruel. Though I am flattered by your need for my attention.
Feel free to continue to flail away. try not to hurt yourself.
When you and Bill make accusations without referring to anything I say, you are presenting your need for me to be wrong as evidence I am wrong. I don’t see how that doesn’t qualify as sniveling.
I required no correction, and I’m not holding anyone to a standard I refuse to be held to. Otherwise, I guess you have nothing to complain about, Bill.
I’m pretty sure someone could create a random generator that would save you the time of actually writing out these pathetic responses. A simple mix of words and phrases like “I don’t see how that doesn’t” “I inferred” “literally” “pretense of invulnerability” “sheltering” “you heard it here first” “Thanks for not denying” “it’s a wonder you felt the need to” “lennie-like” “not rocket surgery” “TM” “nurse ratchet” “are you unwell” and a few others, along with random cut and pastes from other, smarter posters (i.e., anyone), toss in a few references to Jung and Vonnegut, simmer to near boiling, add something bitter and voila! A Mike Leung Post! Chock full of nuts and flakes!
You are again presenting your need for me to be wrong as evidence I am wrong. By the standards of debating as its known to western civilization, your sniveling is no proof you have anything to complain about.
Who’s more pathetic, the writer of pathetic responses, or the sniveler taken hostage by them?
I forgot “sniveling”.
And sorry Mike, I’m not going to give you any more attention than I chose to. Deal. Besides, if I try to make you look more foolish than you are already doing to yourself I may make a mistake. When someone is beating themselves up it makes no sense to jump in with a punch of one’s own. (That’s metaphorical, Mike. Nobody is threatening to punch you. Don’t call CNN)
Mike: “Who’s more pathetic, the writer of pathetic responses, or the sniveler taken hostage by them?”
So, that’s A) your admissionyour posts are in fact “pathetic” or B) you claiming that Mulligan’s post and Mulligan himself are “pathetic”, but that you are in fact even more “pathetic” then he is for being a constant hostage to his posts? That’s really the only two ways you can go from that line.
Think about it.
Anywho…
It’s late news by now and even later news by the time any of you read it, but what’s the general feel on Richardson dropping out and where do you think his, admittedly minor, support and supporters are going?
I haven’t tried to make my needs relevant. I haven’t presented my needs as proof of anything, as you have. You are merely ordering me to do that which I’m already doing.
Yeah, it’s a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say.
B is you again submitting your need to demonstrate I’m wrong as your proof I’m wrong. Jerry, your persistent sniveling demonstrates the authority to enforce the law is wasted on you, because no law is founded on the resolve to snivel. You are a poor servant of the law.
You are a poor servant of the law.
You are a poor representative of mankind.
Only, you have yet to realize it.
As I said before, seek professional help, Mike. Otherwise, I fear your desperate and never ending need for attention is going to wind up with you hurting somebody.
Guys…you know you’ve reached the point where this amounts to little more than, as the saying goes, kicking a cripple, right?
I mean, it’s your time, free to waste as you see fit, and I only shut down threads when I feel there’s no other way. This hasn’t reached that point yet. It has, however, in my humble opinion, reached the point where anyone who engages Mike in prolonged discussion is just embarrassing themselves.
I’m sure anyone with reasonable intelligence realizes by this point that arguing with Mike is a waste of time. He’s like a higher functioning version of Rain Man, except not as useful since he can’t be used to rake in money in Vegas. So why bother?
PAD
Actually, I’m more interested in getting an answer to my Richardson query then a response from Mike. I’ve also been watching the morning talking heads over my coffee and they’ve thrown out a nice little spin on the faulty polls that might actually be much, much closer to the truth then al of the “fixed election” conspiracies being bandied about.
The new spin is that the polls weren’t wrong, it was just the reporting of the polls that was wrong. It seems that almost every reputable poll out there had Obama getting roughly the same results that he got in actual votes while Clinton was usually in second place by 6% or 9%. The talking heads went with those numbers because it’s a better, more gripping, more flashy and better story to talk about hard numbers like that. The thing is, they ignored those same polls’ numbers for undecideds. It seems that if you add in the majority of undecided votes to Clinton’s final totals and give a smattering of them to Obama, you get an almost exact match of the final results on poll after poll.
It raises an interesting question. Are a lot of people out there really undecided or are they too embarrassed (either in voting against Obama or for a candidate who carries the stigma and baggage that Hillary is seen by many to have) to tell someone that they’re for Hillary? Or, even more obvious answer, are a lot of people just deciding that it’s nobody’s business but theirs who they vote for?
Either way, it could be fun interpreting the early polls now. Is candidate B really in second place or is candidate B in first place because most of the candidates supporters filled in blank X? Next big caucus is gonna be fun. ~8?)
I doubt it’s that they embarrassed to admit to voting for Hillary. I think there’s just a lot of sway in opinions, especially with people not some people not making up their mind until election day. Like you said, there were a lot of undecideds. Plus, some of the support for each candidate was soft support, people who are only moderately sure that they’ll vote for a candidate. So Hillary getting her soft support and Obama not getting his equals a big gain for her. Since the networks boil it down to simple numbers without mentioning independents and soft support, it all gets thrown out of proportion.
Which comes out as a big win for the media. They *like* that it comes out wrong every now and then, the same way that football fans like the concept of “any given Sunday” meaning that the results of a game aren’t completely predictable. The polls are still accurate enough for them to talk about them, but they’re not so accurate that they take anything away from the actual election coverage. So essentially, the media gets to report on every election twice. That gets them more ratings, so it’s a win for them.
Jerry wrote: are a lot of people just deciding that it’s nobody’s business but theirs who they vote for?
That’s pretty much my stance when it comes to polls of most types.
Granted, at this point I truly am undecided, and will likely remain so until the elections come to NY.
PAD; point taken, sir.
To answer Jerry’s question, I doubt that Richardson’s exit does much except get us a little bit closer to the two person race this more or less already is.
Edwards will serve as a possibly useful foil for the others. If he attacks Hillary, Obama can even show some gallantry in mildly defending her. She, in turn, can claim that the boys are beating on her. If he attacks Obama it gives Obama the opportunity to defend himself without attacking Hillary directly. Or maybe they just treat him with benign neglect and concentrate the firepower on each other. In which case you might give her the edge because she and her people can throw punches. The remaining question is how well Obama can recover from a hard hit. So far they haven’t been able to hurt him–even NH can’t be considered a major blow when he was only the frontrunner for a little while after Iowa.
How well will Obama react when someone draws blood? So far he has done very well by adopting an aura of calm unflappability by what happens if he gets flapped?
The other factor for Richardson is that getting out now allows him to not have to say anything that will further diminish his chances of getting the VP slot.
It raises an interesting question. Are a lot of people out there really undecided or are they too embarrassed (either in voting against Obama or for a candidate who carries the stigma and baggage that Hillary is seen by many to have) to tell someone that they’re for Hillary? Or, even more obvious answer, are a lot of people just deciding that it’s nobody’s business but theirs who they vote for?
***
SER: There is an interesting article about this in the Chicago Tribune. It answered my question about why the polls were pitch perfect about the Republicans and not about the Democrats.
Basically, poorer, uneducated white voters tend to not respond to requests for polls (makes sense) and those voters unimaniously picked Clinton over Obama.
I’m fine with the gender split, but it would pain me as a Clinton supporter from the ’90s to see Sen. Clinton keep her campaign afloat due to potential reticence among a demographic about voting for a black candidate.
And Kerry just endorsed Obama. Don’t know if it helps much (was anyone waiting to make an opinion based on Kerry’s plans?) but it must seem like a slap in the face to Edwards.
With this and the the Culinary Workers Union endorsement, Obama is having a good day. When’s the next debate?
The remaining question is how well Obama can recover from a hard hit. So far they haven’t been able to hurt him–even NH can’t be considered a major blow when he was only the frontrunner for a little while after Iowa.
*********
SER: That’s what’s nuts about this. I think it’s unfortunate the media hype paints this as a setback to Obama. He is still gaining. Months ago, Clinton was considered a foregone conclusion. She was going into NH with double digit lead. She wound up winning by just three points. And she’s basically an incumbent candidate, as her popular husband is stumping for her.
It’s amazing that the media spending 2 days painting her as an underdog allows her to claim “comeback” status, when it’s really a brutally close race with Obama gaining in support.
We’ll see how things go in other states and the campaign progresses.
Bill Mulligan queried: How well will Obama react when someone draws blood? So far he has done very well by adopting an aura of calm unflappability by what happens if he gets flapped?
Let’s hope he doesn’t turn big and green.
SER wrote: Basically, poorer, uneducated white voters tend to not respond to requests for polls (makes sense)
What do you mean it “makes sense”? There are educated people (like myself) who prefer not to be part of polls; and there are those uneducated who cannot resist having their opinions known.
Let’s hope he doesn’t turn big and green.
That’d be GREAT! But I’d prefer Black Bolt. Strong, silent type. Proven leader Continues the tradition of presidents with brothers who are political liabilities. State of the Union address would be memorable.
Or Stilt-Man, Just to say to the world “Ha Ha Ha, we have so many nuclear bombs we can even elect Stilt-Man! THAT’S how confident we are!”
Except we ELECTED the one who was the political liability…
I’m sure anyone with reasonable intelligence realizes by this point that arguing with Mike is a waste of time. He’s like a higher functioning version of Rain Man, except not as useful since he can’t be used to rake in money in Vegas. So why bother?
PAD
As a high-functioning autistic (Asperger’s Syndrome), I was going to take exception to this, and state that we exhibit at least some grasp of basic logic.
And then I started arguing with some of the antivaccine types at WrongPlanet.net – including one fanatical defender of homeopathic “medicine”. (“Sure, they dilute it down to like one molecule of active ingredient in one cc of water suspension, but then they shake it and that activates it!”)
So – point taken, PAD. Point taken.
[insert sheepish grin here]
(Apologies if this post shows up more than once. I tried several hours ago to post– using two different computers– but one just twiddled its thumbs for several minutes; so I hit the stop button; the other gave me a weird error message. Other posts have shown up since I made my attempts, which suggests mine didn’t get through; but who knows how long ago they tried? Anyway, if the following message does appear more than once, it didn’t really. You’re just experiencing deja vu. Don’t worry about it).
Addressing the issue of polls in general, I’ve always taken them with a huge grain of salt. And I can sum up why in three words:
“Dewey defeats Truman.”
Who you poll and how you conduct your poll can impact the answers you receive (never mind that respondents might give pollsters the answer they think the pollster wants to hear). If you conduct a telephone poll in an era when most of the people who had phones were Republicans (and if I remember correctly, the enclave(s) in which the poll(s) were taken leaned Republican anyway), then your result will show the Republican candidate winning the 1948 presidential election.
Likewise, the poll results in Iowa and/or New Hampshire would be skewed depending on the questions asked and to whom they were asked.
I didn’t pay any attention to any of the polls, and pretty much never do. After all, as Twain said, there are “lies, dámņëd lies, and statistics.”
Of the election in general, it’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out in the Clinton/Obama struggle. Who will win the nomination? Her? Him? Or will Edwards somehow surge ahead?
What will happen in the Michigan primary next Tuesday? Clinton’s the only “major” Democratic candidate whose name is on the ballot. Will Democrats who don’t support her stay home (or cross over and vote in the Republican primary), or will they do as Sen. Carl Levin urges and vote for “uncommitted?” The delegates “uncommitted” gets would then be free to vote for whomever they choose at the convention (assuming the Democratic leadership backs down on its promise/threat to refuse to seat Michigan’s delegates). If the majority of Democrats (who actually turn out at the polls) vote for “uncommitted” over Clinton, and if Michigan’s delegates are seated, it might be interesting to see to whom the delegates give those “uncommitted” votes.
On the Republican side, most, if not all, of the candidates’ names are on the ballot and the RNC has promised/threatened to withhold only half the delegates because Michigan violated party rules and scheduled an early primary. Will McCain win in Michigan like he did in 2000 (despite then Gov. Engler’s campaigning for Bush)? If he doesn’t win, can he stay in the race?
Can Romney stay in the race if he doesn’t win? After all, Romney was born in Michigan and his father is a former governor. To lose would be a bit embarrassing, but would it end his campaign?
By the way, speaking of Clinton, I almost wrote “Hillary” further up in this post, and I’m pretty sure I’ve both read and heard various venues in which people addressed by her first name. That presumed familiarity strikes me as a bit odd, given that most people don’t know the woman personally- and she hasn’t historically come across as approachable. In fact, one would think, given his attempts to reach out to the youth vote and to connect with people on a personal level, that there’d be a tendency to address Sen. Obama as “Barack” then Sen. Clinton as “Hillary.”
Is the fact that some people have addressed Sen. Clinton as “Hillary” (unless I’m imagining that) an indication of some sort of sexism, or is it something else?
As to my preferred candidate for president, I’m torn between Gracie Allen, candidate on the Surprise Party ticket, and myself, candidate of the Good For Nothing Party.
Yes, I know Gracie Allen is dead, but hey, so was Bill the Cat.
Rick
P.S. Speaking of presidential elections and unpredictable twists in same, I’m reminded of an issue of the original What If? series (I forget the number off hand), entitled, “What if Captain America were elected president?” In that story Cap wins the 1980 presidential election, but campaigned as “Captain America.” He didn’t reveal his identity until inauguration day. Question: if superheroes/crime fighters/mystery men (and women) operated in our world, could one get elected president at all, let alone without telling us his or her name until after the election? If it were someone like Captain America (or Superman, elected in an Armageddon 2001 alternate future), would whatever cult of personality might surround him/her be enough to carry her/him into the White House over a candidate with actual political experience?
For that matter, given our celebrity-obsessed culture, could a rich enough celebrity (in whatever sense that word might apply) get elected president over someone of substance because of that celebrity? I’d like to think the answer is “no”, but a lot of people voted for G. W. Bush twice because he came across as akin to “Joe six-pack” and not as someone the average person couldn’t connect with.
While candidates should connect with the average person (or at least provide the illusion that they can), we can’t afford to have an “average person” (or a person who’s famous for being famous) in the White House. Not so long as the U.S. is the “leader of the free world.” Early 19th century, sure, why not? Early 21st century? Not a good idea.
So let’s hope the candidates (and eventual winner) in the 2008 general election (and those elections to come) are truly presidential. Some of the current crop are, but not all of them.
Is the fact that some people have addressed Sen. Clinton as “Hillary” (unless I’m imagining that) an indication of some sort of sexism, or is it something else?
Part of it is that just saying Clinton immediately raises the problem of “which one?”. The same could be said of “Bush” but the elder Bush is not nearly as much in the news as Bill C still is.
Beyond that, Hillary Clinton has actively sought to go by that name. Go to Hillaryclinton.com. and you’ll see what I mean. It has, among other features Ask Hillary, The Hillary I Know, Join Team Hillary, Hillayhub (THE source for Hillary news!), Women for Hillary, and a place to sign up for your free bumper sticker which simply says Hillary for President
So I think it’s safe to use her first name without fear of looking sexist. It’s what she wants you to do.
I can understand the point. Familiarity with one candidate that isn’t used with the other.
For me, it’s because she was Hillary long before she was a candidate for anything. Bill and Hillary do this, Bill and Hillary do that, I’ve been hearing her referred to by her first name for almost half my life. As Mulligan said, that’s been necessary to keep her separate from her husband, who until a few years ago was the primary Clinton in the news.
And let’s not forget that for the first couple years of the current administration, everyone referred to the President as “Dubya” to distinguish him from his father. I’d say that’s even more informal than a first name.
“Question: if superheroes/crime fighters/mystery men (and women) operated in our world, could one get elected president at all, let alone without telling us his or her name until after the election?”
Superheroes couldn’t do squat in our world. Vigilantism is illegal.
Even if we had something like the superhero registration act, they still couldn’t do anything for the government without a name, social security number, and all that crap. Look what Stephen Colbert had to go through so they’d even consider letting him run. There’s plenty of paperwork to be signed and they’re not going to accept a name that isn’t on a birth certificate.
Jason,
Let me rephrase. If our world had a Captain America or a Superman (with all their positive traits) would the people be willing to vote for them? Would they say, “Hey, he’s Captain America. I don’t care what his real name is?”
In point of fact, during the campaign in the What If…? issue, we saw an unmasked Steve Rogers talking with his staff and his eventual vice presidential pick (a Black senator named Andrew Jackson Hawk, for the record; I’ve no idea if he’s a regular supporting character in the Marvel universe or someone created for that issue), so his identity wasn’t a total secret. I think we can also assume the necessary bureaucrats knew who he was, too, so that he could get on the balllot.
But again, would Fred and Mary Anne Average (cousins of Joe and Jane) be willing to vote for someone like Captain America- if such a person existed- just because he was Captain America?
For some people the answer would be “yes.” After all, how many times have we heard someone say they voted against A instead of for B? These same people likely belong to the “Anybody but _____” camp; and might very well say to themselves, “O.K. this guy says he fought in WW II, but looks kinda young and wears a cowl, so I have no idea who he really is, but at least he’s not ______. He’s got my vote.”
Rick
P.S. In the case of Superman in the Armageddon 2001 tie in, his identity had been exposed when as Clark he was hit by bullets meant for then -candidate Pete Ross (a few of which hit Ross, I believe, forcing him to drop out). So, in that story, Supes’ I.D. had become public knowledge.
P.P.S. Re Hillary Clinton: I see your point (and Bill Mulligan’s).
As to Bush the Younger, I always thought “Dubya” was too folksy and familiar- especially if he’s the one that encouraged it’s use. That’s a far cry from James Carter inviting people to call him “Jimmy.” If Bush Jr. had said, “Call me George” (or even “G.W.”), that would’ve been better. Especially since I don’t recall his father inviting people to call him George.
Going by the criteria of whether or not people would vote for a masked man…
I don’t see it happening at all.
The reason we have all these laws about disclosure is because we *want* to know these things. That’s something that can be ignored in a piece of heroic fiction, but once you say, “in our world,” it can’t be ignored. In our world a guy in a mask would be slaughtered.
Every time a woman came forward with a story about a one night stand, the masked candidate would have to ignore it because he’d have no way to say where he actually was that night in his civilian identity. Every time a “Swift Vote” style attack ad popped up claiming he’d done horrible things, he’d have to say, “I’m not the guy who did that, but I can’t tell you who I really am.”
There’s been at least one election where a Presidential candidates took flak for not making his *medical* records public fast enough. There’s no way people in our world would come remotely close to elected someone who didn’t trust them enough to tell them his name.
You aren’t disagreeing with me, and I accept no payment to represent mankind.
Your need to pay attention to me is not proof of such a need on my part. I wasn’t talking to you. You don’t have to respond to anything I say.
I’ve been saying all along it’s a wonder anyone feels a need to challenge what I say.
And Kerry just endorsed Obama. Don’t know if it helps much (was anyone waiting to make an opinion based on Kerry’s plans?) but it must seem like a slap in the face to Edwards.
Regardless of how one feels of Kerry and his campaign in ’04, he did get 59 million to Bush’s 62 million popular votes. And that was a combined 20 million more votes than cast for Bush & Gore in 2000.
So, I think it could have an impact. And I agree on the Edwards bit – he’s going nowhere fast.
It’s amazing that the media spending 2 days painting her as an underdog allows her to claim “comeback” status
I think it shows how desperate the media is to have an impact on the race, how desperately they (the media) want to be the center of attention over the candidates. It’s really deplorable behavior.
Jason,
You’re very likely right, and I have to say I did find it… interesting that in that story people voted for Captain America without any idea what his real name was (though they probably voted for him because he was Captain America and/or because they agreed with him on the issues.
Because voters do pay attention to the issues. Don’t they? Don’t they?).
Still, one would think if someone like Captain America existed- someone who since WWII had been the living embodiment of the best of America- a goodly number of people would (for better or worse) jump on his bandwagon just because he’s literally dressed in red, white and blue.
Batman, on the other hand: Not a chance.
But then, if he were to run, he’d run as Bruce Wayne.
I wonder, then, if Captain America existed in the real world, and revealed his identity when he announced his candidacy, could he win? Possibly, depending on his competition (though the whole cult of personality/celebrity that would probably surround him might help him, too). But on the other hand, would some of the mystique be gone? Would some people who would’ve gladly voted for Captain America hesitated to cast a vote for Steve Rogers, who I believe was laboring as a commercial artist at the time? I suspect the answer is yes. If he revealed his identity, he’d avoid one set of problems, but he’d also lose some of the glamor and mystique he’d previously enjoyed.
(Imagine what would’ve happened if Peter Parker had revealed his identity during the “Spider-Man day” celebration in Spider-Man 3 (not that Peter Parker would ever reveal his identity). The “love affair” New York had with Spidey would likely have been over at that point.)
Only one way to know for sure whether Captain America could get elected: Someone needs to go back in time to World War II, get injected with a super soldier formula, call himself Captain America, and do Captain America stuff (though he can feel free to skip that embarrassing “Captain America-Commie smasher” era- which everyone, including Marvel now pretends was some other guy (unless Mephisto changed that, too)). Then a few decades later, he runs for president.
It’s interesting to note that Eisenhower, who to the best of my knowledge had no previous political experience, was courted by both the Democratic and Republican parties, presumably based solely on the fact that he was commander of the Allied forces in World War II. I wonder how many people who voted for him did so on that basis alone? Most, I suspect (and that’d probably be a factor for Captain America if he existed). Many people seem to think war-time experience makes you presidential material. I disagree. It probably helps, but by itself, no. Would either Alvin York or Audie Murphy been presidential material based only on their war time exploits? Would Kennedy?
As I said above, I do think that given the obsession many people in this country have with celebrities, some people would vote for a celebrity just because he or she is a celebrity. Hopefully not enough to get him or her elected. But then enough people voted for Bush in 2000 to get him the nomination because they saw him as a “regular guy.” McCain, in my opinion, would’ve been the better choice to get the nod, because that way, no matter whether McCain or Gore won, you’d have a president with some degree of gravitas.
If I remember correctly, McCain ran out of money, while Bush had huge coffers into which to dig. Does that mean he “bought” the election? No, not in the way most people would interpret that phrase, but let’s face it: if you’ve got lots of money and/or you’re a famous and beloved celebrity and you can relate to “Joe six-pack”, you’d probably have a better shot at winning the White House than your average congressman (or woman), senator or governor.
Or the average person, for that matter.
Rick
P.S. Speaking of $200 hair cuts, I remember Bill Clinton caught some flack for getting one when he was either campaigning or already in office. If memory serves, he caused a plane to be delayed in either taking off or landing, which probably irked people more than the money spent on the haircut. But if the $200 pays for the barber’s time and transportation as well as the actual cost of the haircut, why don’t these people just say so?
“Yes, I did pay $200, but Mr. Jones came all the way from Tipperary, and it seemed only appropriate to pay him for his time and his gas (or airfare, as the case may be). What would you have done? Given him $20 and said ‘keep the change’?”
I think it shows how desperate the media is to have an impact on the race,
They may well have.
I don’t know that I necessarily subscribe to the notion, but one possible reason for the NH upset was the endless, obsessive coverage of Hillary Clinton becoming slightly emotional the day before the election. They made it sound like she burst into tears when all she really did was allow the ice queen exterior to defrost ever-so-slightly. But the media coverage hammered home “poor, overworked, on the edge, sobbing, vulnerable Hillary, and it drew the female voting base that previously had been attracted to Obama. That there were sufficient undecideds in the polling who were swayed by what the media portrayed as a massive emotional outburst.
I don’t know that I necessarily buy into it, but if it’s true, then it’s a classic example of the observer affecting the experiment.
PAD
Re: the effect of Kerry’s Obama endorsement on Edwards:
It was pointed out on the pbs news hour that one of the questions asked during polling is whether government or corporations are worse, and that 3/5 of democrats say government, and 1/5 of them say corporations. Edwards has been consistently anti-corporation in his rhetoric, and his hold in the primaries reflect this wing in the party.
However Kerry’s endorsement helps against Hillary, I don’t see it effecting Edwards’s influence — those voters have no where else to go except with him if he accepts an invitation to be vice president.
first off, although I am late to this party, let me say that PAD’s reason for choosing Edwards in the first place is entirely reasonable. For any candidate to give their time, not just a sheet of paper to an organization/cause you not only belong to but which affects your livelihood is quite the rational and “reasonable” reason to support someone.
It doesn’t make it absolute that it is the right reason, but all things being equal, why WOULDN’T you support someone who took the time to visit you in person?
It reminds me of 2006 when had it set up for a financial company in Scranton to be visited by Santorum. This company had working class to those making $100,000 a year. People with privileged backgrounds and people with spotty backrounds loking for a second chance.
What better place for Santorum to make his case than a place that was GROWING and that had a truly diverse group of people and about 100 employees in Scranton, casey’s hometurf but also the home of a lot of Reagan Democrats.
He never bothered to get back to me. Neither did Casey. But he was winning.
It made me chuckle when a couple of months later when Robert Novak reported Santorum had ticked off a bunch of high-level financial executives by “blowing them off” as well.
It really is important to “press the flesh”. That is why Iowa does play an important role, in my opinion. It basically says “If we have seen and heard you for over a year and actually SEEN you at Home Depot and barbecues and you still don’t get over 5% of the vote, you should drop the f–k out! Because if your message didn’t resonate one-on-one, how is it going to resonate in TV ads, fliers, etc. It DOES winnow the field.
But thanks to this year, it doesn’t entirely shape it.
As far as Fred Thompson and others, they obviously DID THINK they had support before entering the race. I still don’t think Thompson is politically dead, by the way, if he places high in South Carolina. but irregardless, why shouldn’t those with the drive give it a shot until they see they don’t have the necessary support? We need more candidates and more ideas.
I’m voting for him simply because he’s a dámņ good candidate. I was hoping he would have been the Democratic candidate four years ago.