It's Different for Girls

David Weigel | January 9, 2008

Checking out of the Econo Lodge in Manchester (which you must never, ever stay at or patronize) this morning, me and Peter Bagge joined an anxious group of journalists in the lobby: Phil Klein of the American Spectator, Chris Beam of Slate, David Corn and Ari Berman of The Nation. Klein, expecting a juicy "Fall of the House of Clinton" story, had attended the Hillary party, so thinly appointed with journos that seven of them had Terry McAuliffe to themselves. Everyone else had attended Obama, and a few other people in the lobby (wearing Obama stickers) struggled to even say the candidate's name.

This group of male journalists started slinging theories. All the Republican polls were dead-on: McCain comeback, Romney in second, Huckathird. But the Democratic polls were about 10 points off. Among the theories were the "Bradley effect" making white voters uneasy to vote for Barry Hussein Obama (I don't buy that), the omnipresent Obamania stories making independents think the Democratic race was over and they needed to bury Romney, pollsters missing the female Hillary vote.

"It was the debate," said a female voice. This male group of pundits looked over and saw Rachel Sklar of the Huffington Post. "The likeability question." She was talking about the moment in the debate when Charlie Gibson suggested Clinton had a likeability problem, Clinton parried ("That hurts my feelings!") and Obama leaned into the mic and said "You're likeable enough." The camera caught him the second he closed his mouth, looking down, unsmiling, writing notes.

The guys in the room sort of just stood there. I can't read their minds, but mine was swirling. You know, I'd noticed women at one of the debate-watching parties biting their lips when Obama said that. If Obama had said something like "Well, I like you" or if he'd just kept his mouth shut, Hillary's Monday tears wouldn't have had the same impact. "That set up the emotional moment," Sklar said.

So I'm pretty convinced now: That one-liner swung the primary. If I was a Republican strategist I'd be worried about Clinton for the first time. If she can turn Obama into Rick Lazio (or make him turn himself into Rick Lazio), imagine what she can do to a John McCain or Rudy Giuliani.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|1.9.08 @ 1:07PM|#

"If I was a Republican strategist I'd be worried about Clinton for the first time."

For the first time? That's a joke, right?

|1.9.08 @ 1:10PM|#

Republicans have been worried about Clinton since she singlehandedly put Bill in the White House. There's a level of terror there that trascends political differences.

Democrat's never cease to amaze with the depth of their political discourse. They seriously had an ideological debate between the concepts of "change" and "establishment" without a single discussion of policy. And the tipping point came, of course, when one of the candidates cried and won the election for pity. ffs....

Bingo|1.9.08 @ 1:14PM|#

Ideas? Rational debates? Discourse on policy? Who needs them when you've got emotional appeals!

|1.9.08 @ 1:17PM|#

I think it is that Dems vote different than they answer poll questions. For at least some of them it is hard to publicly admit that they won't be voting for the black candidate. New Hampshire they get to vote privately and anonomously whereas in Iowa they had to participate in this bizare system where you go to a big high school gym and lineup in the corner of your favorite candidate. For that reason I think Obama's poll numbers are always soft in states where there is a primary. Also, Obama connects with rich guilty white liberals. He has never demonstrated the ability to connect with lower or middle class Americans. Hillary for whatever reason does to a greater degree than Obama. Also, don't underestimate the spinster factor. Hillary kills Obama among single women.

I'm going to keep saying this in the hopes the the obscenely obvious will start to occur to some other people: Hillary won because she bribed, blackmailed and had killed whoever she needed to. I had thought that NH was too small potatoes for HRC to fire up her cauldron over. But she apparently she did decide that NH would be her firewall and she condemned her soul to just as many eons in hell as she needed to to win it.

|1.9.08 @ 1:21PM|#

"Hillary won because she bribed, blackmailed and had killed whoever she needed to."

Forget the Presidency, Hillary needs to be head of the CIA if that is true.

|1.9.08 @ 1:22PM|#

Rachel Sklar nailed it. When I saw that exchange, I thought that Obama was stupid not to pop a "I like you, Hillary!" magnanimous response out of the park.

Yes I know I am seen as the insufferable dumbass on these threads but the fact is that the average american voter doesn't give a rat's ass about policy We want to vote for someone we percieve to be likeable that says they share one or two of our core values. But mostly, we want to vote for the winner.
Voters aren't gonna take the time to learn about the candidates. We can get all we need to know in 15 second sound bites. Good or bad.

alan|1.9.08 @ 1:25PM|#

and Obama leaned into the mic and said "You're likeable enough." The camera caught him the second he closed his mouth, looking down, unsmiling, writing notes.

It occurred to me at the time I saw that, 'was that as condescending and arrogant a remark as I thought it sounded, or my dislike for this guy clouding my judgment?'

I asked my hippie-feminist-liberal mum what she thought about it, and she was pretty cold to Obama's manner
as well.

|1.9.08 @ 1:26PM|#

Maybe it's because I haven't seen the clip and print doesn't convey what happened, but I really can't see why Obama's comment would've had any effect.

fyodor|1.9.08 @ 1:30PM|#

I always tell my girlfriend, "You're loveable enough." Something wrong with that?

|1.9.08 @ 1:31PM|#

Hillary won because the the media about her has been so ridiculous, instead of attacking her on a whole range of substantive issues, they waste time making fun of her showing emotion(you'd think she was wailing), her pant-suits(gasp!) and her looks, just a constant drumbeat of b.s., so a lot of people felt sorry for her and thought the attacks were unfair. They were right, and the best way to get her in the White House is to remark about her bustline, her make-up or her laugh...

Let's go to the tape.

Abdul|1.9.08 @ 1:34PM|#

Let's hope that in the next debate, no one's asked if Hillary's outfit makes her look fat. She'll be elected president, pope, and UN secretary general.

Stan|1.9.08 @ 1:34PM|#

Behold, the comeback c*nt.

javier|1.9.08 @ 1:35PM|#

since when does emotions supercede reality?? likeable enough is a compliment, half the country hates her passionately. who gives a shit if her feelings are hurt by the reality of things. I can't understand for the life of me the appeal of Hilldawg.

|1.9.08 @ 1:35PM|#

I always tell my girlfriend, "You're loveable enough." Something wrong with that?

i assume you do this while shuffling through notes without looking at her or smiling.

Women will never break for Obama if the press keeps on reveling in stupid mid-nineties Clinton hatred. I actively don't like Hillary and I was starting to feel bad for her. The press can singlehandedly deliver her 60% of the female vote if they keep using the same old juvenile and/or sexist shit to trash her

|1.9.08 @ 1:36PM|#

It occurred to me at the time I saw that, 'was that as condescending and arrogant a remark as I thought it sounded, or my dislike for this guy clouding my judgment?'

Same thing here. His response and body language said to me, "You're likeable enough, now shut the f*** up."

|1.9.08 @ 1:37PM|#

Hillary tends to be attacked in somewhat sexist ways and the people who have been attacking her just look like jerks. I don't want her elected, but the a-holes seem determined to do just that.

But you see Jack, Hillary's feeling are hurt and what do we do when someone's sitting alone on the playground feeling sad?

We make her queen of the sand kingdom so she'll feel happy again. Yay!!!

|1.9.08 @ 1:39PM|#

The debate, and the tearing up together did it.

BTW, did you see that the "obvious Clinton plant" whou set up what all the sophisticated observers just know was a contrived moment voted for Obama?

Lecherous lurker|1.9.08 @ 1:40PM|#

imagine what she can do to a John McCain or Rudy Giuliani

Hubba, hubba! *drools*

|1.9.08 @ 1:40PM|#

Actually, it doesn't look like much of a Bradley effect at all. If you look at this charts, Obama got almost the same percentage that he polled (within margin of error). However, Clinton came in almost 10% higher than expected. The question shouldn't be, "Why did Obama do worse than expected?" but rather, "Why did Hillary get so much more than expected?"

It's a mistake to project your own sexist opinions about Senator Clinton onto everybody else.

I'd like you to meet...

|1.9.08 @ 1:41PM|#

The polls in Massachusetts predicted the African-American governor's margin of victory almost exactly last year.

RP supporter|1.9.08 @ 1:42PM|#

I knew it! Dr. Paul has to cry on Dr. Phil's shouder and he'll take second place in South Carolina!

|1.9.08 @ 1:43PM|#

Checking out of the Econo Lodge in Manchester (which you must never, ever stay at or patronize)...

Okay, you're a tease. You can't say this and not give us the dish.

It is clear that sexism is alive and well in the United States, perhaps moreso than racism? This has been made abundantly clear by the fact that nobody who attacks Clinton can do it without making some kind of crass remark(and there are so many good reasons to be against her). Its sick.

ed|1.9.08 @ 1:44PM|#

You're all forgetting that she didn't actually cry. She almost cried.
And that's the diabolical genius of HRC.

|1.9.08 @ 1:44PM|#

The good Dr. Phil is busy with Britney

|1.9.08 @ 1:45PM|#

LIT, I think it's less a pro-Hillary vote than a fuck Chris Matthews and the MSM he rode in on one. I don't like Hillary's policy positions, but literally none of the negative coverage she gets has anything to do with them. Obama goes into his schpiel about here Iraq vote and the pundits just yawn and roll their eyes--the better to get back into great, hard hitting frostiness/tits/pantsuit/robot/blubberer/catrator/prude/whore coverage

|1.9.08 @ 1:46PM|#

If someone would just suggest that Obama isn't white enough, we'll have a contest on our hands.

|1.9.08 @ 1:47PM|#

James,

I'm pretty sure I could attack Clinton all day without referring to her sex...there's plenty of reasons not to believe that she would be anything but the worst nanny statist authoritarian president we've ever had.

If I was a Republican strategist I'd be worried about Clinton for the first time. If she can turn Obama into Rick Lazio (or make him turn himself into Rick Lazio), imagine what she can do to a John McCain or Rudy Giuliani.

Well, it wasn't exactly a slaughter. Clinton beat Obama 39% to 37%. And they both got 9 delegates out of the deal. New Hampshire was nothing compared to the drubbing Obama gave Clinton in Iowa. I don't think I'd write off Obama yet.

|1.9.08 @ 1:48PM|#

Same thing here. His response and body language said to me, "You're likeable enough, now shut the f*** up."

To me, it felt more like he was focused on whatever talking point he was going to say when it was his turn to speak. It wasn't his question, and he didn't really seem to care.

It didn't come off as mean-spirited though. Just a bit forced. kind of "Yeah, you're likeable enough...now when do I get to talk?"

|1.9.08 @ 1:50PM|#

It is clear that sexism is alive and well in the United States

Yes. White women's.

History moves in cycles ... it always remains basically unpredictable and is subject to sudden, paradigm-shifting events. That being said, I believe that 2008 is somewhat like 1968. Unpopular war, Big-spending Texan president, RFK type figure in Obama, a divided electorate, and a nation in desperate need of change. Now rewind to the 90's ... which was much like the 50's. The nation bursts with innovation and economic growth after a long war, is governed by an Eisenhower Republicrat (Clinton-Ike) while a controversial and irredeemably corrupt figure (HRC-Nixon)looms in the background of that administration.
This is followed by a closely contested election (1960-2000) which in turn is followed by a great national tragedy (JFK assassination/9-11), which in turn is followed by an outpouring of sympathy that allows that administration (Bush-LBJ) to commence an unprecedented growth in government through a "guns and butter" strategy. It's uncanny. All we need now is our Nixon... and that may be HRC.
The analogy would actually be perfect if it were Gore running again,as he lost in 2000 the way that Nixon did in 1960. But there is no doubt that this is a replay of that time, with some very obvious and notable differences.

Episiarch|1.9.08 @ 1:50PM|#

I think this all says a lot more about the media and their focus and priorities than anything else. They're the ones focusing on Clinton in this way. It's almost like even the journalists who claim to be "professional" tend to revert to the sensational instincts of yellow journalism...

Episiarch|1.9.08 @ 1:53PM|#

All we need now is our Nixon... and that may be HRC.

Well, I can certainly see her, if president, going down in flames like Dick at some point. I doubt she could stay out of trouble for a whole term. She had enough trouble as First Lady.

Gretchen|1.9.08 @ 1:53PM|#

Oh, I can see the corner of his mouth pulling up into a bit of a smirk at the end of the clip. This female doesn't take it as a mark against him at all. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I really don't give a damn about Hillary's feelings.

|1.9.08 @ 1:55PM|#

Yes, I'm a little unclear on what Clinton won in NH. She didn't lose, but she's got fewer delegates than Obama, given his win in Iowa.

She's a terrible candidate, and I now think that the political intelligence of the Clintons resided much more in Bill's lap than in hers.

It's too bad that candidates with such weak messages and--to my mind at least--openly socialistic messages can even play in this game. That's the reason I once thought that Richardson might do well. Wrong again!

As for Obama's remark, which is beneath notice in my book (though I'll notice it here just to stay on topic), I think it reflects more amazement that "likability" came up in the debate.

|1.9.08 @ 1:56PM|#

"LIT, I think it's less a pro-Hillary vote than a fuck Chris Matthews and the MSM he rode in on one. I don't like Hillary's policy positions, but literally none of the negative coverage she gets has anything to do with them."

I think you are right about that. I have hated Hillary Clinton for almost 20 years now but the MSM is disgracful. All the Maraueen Dowd like "look how bad she looks" "oh she is so unlikable" "oh is she going to cry now" bullshit is just that, sexist bullshit standards they would never apply to a man. A lot of the MSM is made up of sexist guilty white guys who can't look at a woman candidate on her own terms and feel compelled to like any liberal black guy who comes down the pike. Gee are we surprised they all have a crush on Obama?

|1.9.08 @ 1:57PM|#

I agree with very little of what Limbaugh says these days, but I have always agreed with him on this point: no matter what the MSM says, you can NEVER bet against the Clinton Machine. These are the most savvy, dirty, conniving and purely political creatures on the planet, and to bet against them is to believe that they have stopped breathing. They will find a way to win ...
and once in office, HRC will have her "Iraqification" program, ala "Vietnamization" in Nixon's time. There will be unprecedented corruption, dirty tricks, denials, economic malaise, etc,etc.

|1.9.08 @ 1:59PM|#

Good point. Obama didn't come off well in that moment. I think he was dry and sarcastic to indicate that he wasn't taken in by her pretending to have hurt feelings - but it wasn't a good moment for him.

I think candidates will have to guard against a perfectly natural response to Hillary - revulsion - so that she can't play the victim card in every encounter.

R C Dean|1.9.08 @ 2:04PM|#

you can NEVER bet against the Clinton Machine.

There will be unprecedented corruption, dirty tricks, denials, economic malaise, etc,etc.

Some of the smartest people I know are betting tens of millions of dollars that (a) Hillary will win and (b) the economy will flatten under her rule. They manage sizable investment portfolios very successfully, and they are hedging like crazy right now. They are completely apolitical and unemotional about this; its dollars and cents to them, and they are betting large amounts of real money.

Episiarch|1.9.08 @ 2:09PM|#

Some of the smartest people I know are betting tens of millions of dollars that (a) Hillary will win and (b) the economy will flatten under her rule.

Are they betting that because it's her, because she has a (D) next to her name, or because of what she's said she'll do?

|1.9.08 @ 2:09PM|#

RC

The last time a Clinton was in office the Republicans got NAFTA and welfare reform and ended the 8 years in office holding all three branches of government for the first time in 50 years. I am not really sure why they fear a Hillary victory so much.

Mpls Mark|1.9.08 @ 2:14PM|#

"RFK type figure in Obama"

I hear that comparison a lot. You know RFK was shot; I remember where I was when it happened (reading "The Hobbit" on the first day of summer vacation after 5th grade). It makes me worry that someone might try to take out Obama.

|1.9.08 @ 2:15PM|#

Clinton is my last choice on the Democratic side. But if this stuff had happened in the runup to my primary (Fat chance -- a Texas primary vote NEVER means squat!), I'd have been damn tempted to vote for her just to spite the morons doing the reporting.

I wouldn't have, because I'd have made up my mind well before the last 48 hours, but I'd still be tempted because as much as I dislike Clinton, the blatant shit the media is doing is starting to piss me off.

If I was an undecided voter, trying to choose between what I felt where two or three decent candidates -- that temptation might be enough to push me over the edge.

So I'll chalk up Hillary's win to two factors: Independents hitting the R side a lot harder than in Iowa, because voting for McCain looked a lot more useful than adding "Me Too" to the Obama juggernaut -- and the shit the media ladled on Clinton the last 48 hours.

Skip|1.9.08 @ 2:16PM|#

"But there is no doubt that this is a replay of that time, with some very obvious and notable differences."

But this is true, of course, when comparing any two points in history.

BakedPenguin|1.9.08 @ 2:17PM|#

Checking out of the Econo Lodge in Manchester...

Everyone knows yuh stay at the Sheraton Wayfaruh when ya in Manchestuh. Yuh some kind of retahd?

|1.9.08 @ 2:18PM|#

...aaaaand this is more or less the kind of unhinged Clinton paranoia that squicks people out enough to make them hold their nose and vote for her. NAFTA, welfare reform, a democratic party that ran to the right, a budget surplus, beautiful, beautiful gridlock... hell, the last eight years have even pretty much redefined the phrase "scandal-plagued administration", if you care about the constitution.

Don't get me wrong, she ain't got my vote, but treating her like the antichrist is what got you in this mess in the first place.

|1.9.08 @ 2:23PM|#

I gotta agree with John and James and Episiarch up thar.

The only reason I ever feel the slightest sympathy towards Hillary Clinton is because of how consistently she is the target of sexualized, or at least gendered, put downs and slurs from the mainstream media and the right wing.

When Chris Matthews or Rush Limbaugh of somebody goes off on her - not policy or ideolodigical criticism, but just the personal, mysogynist attacks - it makes me want her to win just to give them a big middle finger.

Yeah, it's petty of me, and yeah, she probably does take advantage of this to manipulate me, but I'm human. I want to see evil and bigotry and bullying get their comeupance.

But this doesn't really make sense, John. A lot of the MSM is made up of sexist guilty white guys who can't look at a woman candidate on her own terms and feel compelled to like any liberal black guy who comes down the pike. Gee are we surprised they all have a crush on Obama? They're guilty white men, so it makes them hate on women and swoon for black people?

Onery Old Man|1.9.08 @ 2:30PM|#

alan|1.9.08 @ 2:30PM|#

Obama goes into his schpiel about here Iraq vote and the pundits just yawn and roll their eyes--the better to get back into great, hard hitting

What I found galling is he criticized her for her vote on a measure that he did not even bother to vote on. Nice representation you are doing there for Illinois, Mister.

|1.9.08 @ 2:31PM|#

ditto joe

It makes me worry that someone might try to take out Obama.

I wouldn't worry about it, you see Sirhan Sirhan was palestinian, and while they were aggrieved and a little crazy back then, the intervening 40 years have really settled things down quite a bit.

|1.9.08 @ 2:32PM|#

What I said was not a direct indictment against HRC ... I also pointed out the similarities between Bush and LBJ, reprehensible figures both. I simply think that we are in a generalized replay of the 60's/70's. JBJ bred Nixon ... Bush breeds HRC. I think we'll have to wait at least another 10-20 years for another Reagan type figure to recapture the libertarian/conservative spirit. The Republicans of this era are not too different from the Republicans of that time... "We are all Keynesians now".

|1.9.08 @ 2:34PM|#

alan,

Barack Obama was sworn into the Senate in January 2003. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq AUMF in September 2002.

Although, I don't know how many New Hampshirites watched that particular debate. Did enough of them watch for that to make an impact in how they voted, and why then, if it was so far before the voting, did it not show up in the polls?

I don't buy that that moment was the main reason Clinton took NH. I don't think Barak Obama sounded genuine when he said that she was "likeable enough" (whatever that means), and that made me a little sour. It may be true that she's not "likable" (I mean, I don't really like her), but that wasn't a very nice thing to say.

Gilbert Martin|1.9.08 @ 2:38PM|#

"But the Democratic polls were about 10 points off. Among the theories were the "Bradley effect" making white voters uneasy to vote for Barry Hussein Obama (I don't buy that)"

I don't know how much the "Bradley effect" had to do with it, but I don't discount the vote fraud effect.

As I understand it, any non-resident can show up and vote in the New Hampshire primary by simply stating that they intend to move to New Hampshire. That's a system ripe for abuse and I don't doubt that it was abused.

Mike M.|1.9.08 @ 2:39PM|#

A lot of Republicans dislike Hillary for all of the wrong reasons actually, She and her husband were a lot more conservative or centrist than the other candidates, they seem deluded into believing that she is a far-left socialist which I don't think could be further from the truth. Since it really isn't based in reality, I can only conclude that it is personal dislike.

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out just how in the world someone goes from being a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater in one's youth, to a few years later becoming an admirer of people like Saul Alinsky and Eleanor Roosevelt. I understand that people do change, but this seems like too much. I suspect she isn't guided by much of anything other than her unquestionable ruthless, driving ambition.

And who knew that what destroyed Ed Muskie's aspirations would end up possibly saving Hillary. I guess it really is true: nobody can resist a woman's tears.

Seitz|1.9.08 @ 2:40PM|#

John said:

For at least some of them it is hard to publicly admit that they won't be voting for the black candidate.

Joe said, in response to something entirely different:

It's a mistake to project your own sexist opinions about Senator Clinton onto everybody else.

I'd like to alter Joe's (unrelated) comment, and use it as a response to John. It's a mistake to project your own racist opinions about Senator Obama onto everybody else.

note - I tried posting this once and it didn't work, so forgive me if it somehow shows up twice.

|1.9.08 @ 2:40PM|#

"They're guilty white men, so it makes them hate on women and swoon for black people?"

No. They are guilty sexist white men. That makes them say stupid thinks about Clinton and feel that if they have to make up for being white by supporting the first serious black candidate in history. Jesse Jackson never had a chance to win. Obama does. I think most of the media at some level feels an obligation to cheerlead for him because he is the first black candidate ever to have a serious chance of winning.

BakedPenguin|1.9.08 @ 2:40PM|#

re: people attacking Hillary with sexist remarks - it reminds me of the comedian who decried racism "because there are so many good reasons to hate people".

They're guilty white men, so it makes them hate on women and swoon for black people?

MSM got the gay jungle fever!

I thought that Obama was stupid not to pop a "I like you, Hillary!" magnanimous response out of the park.

Better yet, "I like you, Hillary... in second place."

I'm a realist about statistical differences between men and women, which makes me a sexist in some peoples eyes. I am also getting extremely agitated by the sexist garbage that Hillary has to put up with, intended or not.

Statistics don't mean anything when applied to individuals, but you all know that. I'll probably not vote for her in the general election, but her XX chromosomal makeup has nothing to do with it.

alan|1.9.08 @ 2:41PM|#

Joe,
I'm aware of that. I'm talking about a matter she voted on in the fall that Obama and Edwards ganged up on her in one of the early debates. Sorry, I can't be more specific on the matter because my time is restrained at the moment.

|1.9.08 @ 2:41PM|#

"It makes me worry that someone might try to take out Obama." - MPLS Mark

Funny, I was just reading an opinion piece about this sort of white liberal stereotype (that everyone but me is a racist who will want to kill the negra or will not vote for an Irishman). I'm sure you are very worried. I am too. Let's worry together.

|1.9.08 @ 2:46PM|#

Seitz,

I think Obama is a lightweight with a bunch of failed liberal policy ideas dressed up as "change". There is no one other than Huckabee and Edwards who I wouldn't vote for before Obama. I don't care that he is black, white or purple, I don't agree with his policies or his position on Iraq and have no plans to vote for him and feel no obligation to vote for a black candidate whose policies I don't support just because he is making history. What racist views am I projecting again?

|1.9.08 @ 2:50PM|#

I know Weigel's on the road, but why didn't anyone at Reason HQ help the brother out with a youtube link to the moment in question?

Anon

|1.9.08 @ 2:52PM|#

All you Hillary-hating fools can just chew yours tails off with spite and bile while listening to the hysterical poobahs of the right-wing radio Gasbag Bund rail against her. Win or lose, she has more guts and class than the lot of you.

alan|1.9.08 @ 2:53PM|#

Joe,

I might need a little help here. I was thinking it was that Kyl-Leiberman bill she voted in the positive and Obama missed, but that isn't the right one in this case. I do remember screaming, 'you didn't even bother to vote yay or nay, Obama' when he and Edwards were tossing Hillary around in the debate.

|1.9.08 @ 2:56PM|#

Apologies to Gretchen above, who noted the missing link almost an hour ago.

Anon

The analogy would actually be perfect if it were Gore running again,as he lost in 2000 the way that Nixon did in 1960. But there is no doubt that this is a replay of that time, with some very obvious and notable differences.

Heh. I've noticed a parallel between the '60s and the '00s, too.

But it seems to me it's not so much of a replay as it is a photographic negative. It's more like a Bizzaro '60s where everything is reversed....

MPLS Mark|1.9.08 @ 2:58PM|#

"Funny, I was just reading an opinion piece about this sort of white liberal stereotype (that everyone but me is a racist who will want to kill the negra or will not vote for an Irishman). I'm sure you are very worried."

Hordcore conservative, bigbigslacker. Love Bush, support the war. And what I worry about, is Obama being stricken by "Vince Foster's Syndrom".

Gus|1.9.08 @ 3:00PM|#

Wolflady,

Is that you, Hilldog?

BakedPenguin|1.9.08 @ 3:00PM|#

...the hysterical poobahs of the right-wing radio Gasbag Bund rail against her.

Crap, I got XM. It doesn't have the right-wing Gasbag Bund. I myself, am a hysterical poobah, though. Thanks for noticing.

John - a few reasons libertarian minded voters (and others) might prefer Obama to Clinton are his opposition to the war (I know you disagree with that), his rhetoric about open government (whether or not it's true). He has also discussed limits on executive power, something that could never occur to Clinton in her wildest nightmares.

Process Server|1.9.08 @ 3:00PM|#

the Econo Lodge in Manchester (which you must never, ever stay at or patronize)

Is your name David Weigel? I have have something for you.

Bingo|1.9.08 @ 3:01PM|#

Thank you Wolflady, I assume if I have further need for your opinion I can address those requests to princesspinkwolf@aol.com ?

Do you have any metaphors that don't involve lupines or should I just assume that your level of involvement with animals is, shall we say, deeper than most peoples?

|1.9.08 @ 3:05PM|#

Peguin,

The point about open government and Obama is a good one. It is difficult to imagine him being as bad about that as the Clinton mob. I think Clinton is more trustworthy on foreign policy. I think Obama would be in over his head and end up as another Jimmy Carter.

|1.9.08 @ 3:08PM|#

John - a few reasons libertarian minded voters (and others) might prefer Obama to Clinton are his opposition to the war (I know you disagree with that), his rhetoric about open government (whether or not it's true). He has also discussed limits on executive power, something that could never occur to Clinton in her wildest nightmares.

Well, let's put it this way - there was never a chance of Paul getting the nomination, and with Romney on the ropes, there's not much that interests me on the Republican side of the aisle.

If McCain or Huckabee turns out to be the Republican nominee, I could learn to like Obama. I don't much agree with his politics, but at least, compared to his competitors, he's a class act.

|1.9.08 @ 3:13PM|#

John,

When you're a "guilty liberal," you don't really compartmentalize your "guilt" that way. The men who feel "guilty about being white" and swoon for black candidates are the same men who feel "guilty about being male," and swoon for female candidates.

alan, I think you meant the Iran vote. Since it was a meaningless bit of symbolism, I can let Obama's absence slide.

Funny, I was just reading an opinion piece about this sort of white liberal stereotype (that everyone but me is a racist who will want to kill the negra or will not vote for an Irishman). I'm sure you are very worried. I'm not worried about "everyone." I'm worried about one whacko with a gun.

BakedPenguin|1.9.08 @ 3:15PM|#

I think the "open government" idea might kind of backfire on him in a way if he gets elected. He is more of a "Great Society" liberal vs. Clinton's more centrist beltway policies. The fact that he would open up politics means bills would have a much better chance of being parsed by the blogosphere, as well as the MSM before they're passed. I suspect any overarching welfare programs would have to come under great scrutiny, which is why I think it might backfire on him a bit. Having said that - more open government would be a plus whoever is in the White House or controlling Congress.

It is difficult to imagine him being as bad about that as the Clinton mob.

I always thought the Clinton WH was a Democratic version of the Nixon WH, only with smarter burglars.

|1.9.08 @ 3:18PM|#

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out just how in the world someone goes from being a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater in one's youth, to a few years later becoming an admirer of people like Saul Alinsky and Eleanor Roosevelt.

I'll go out on a limb and say "college."

|1.9.08 @ 3:21PM|#

The last time a Clinton was in office the Republicans got NAFTA and welfare reform and ended the 8 years in office holding all three branches of government for the first time in 50 years. I am not really sure why they fear a Hillary victory so much.

All well and good, as long as Americans elect a Republican Congress to go along with Clinton 2.0. I'm sure that Hillary and a Democratic Congress together could enact lots more nanny state crap than you ever thought possible. You won't be able to tie your shoes without federal approval.

|1.9.08 @ 3:22PM|#

If McCain or Huckabee turns out to be the Republican nominee, I could learn to like Obama. I don't much agree with his politics, but at least, compared to his competitors, he's a class act.

Agreed on that. Hillary has attacked Obama for his opposition to federal mandatory minimum sentencing. She wants to censor video games. "Upon her arrival in New Hampshire this morning, Hillary Clinton signaled that she intends to play on Obama's as yet unexploited political weaknesses: 'Who will be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine?' she asked at an appearance in Nashua," (according to this link). I wasn't aware that the best way to stand up to a Republican attack was by becoming a Republican.

|1.9.08 @ 3:26PM|#

The stock market performs 4 points better under Democratic presidents than Republicans, 12% annual growth vs. 8% since the end of World War Two. You can look it up.

Smart people can fall for confirmation bias, too.

jp|1.9.08 @ 3:31PM|#

All well and good, as long as Americans elect a Republican Congress to go along with Clinton 2.0. I'm sure that Hillary and a Democratic Congress together could enact lots more nanny state crap than you ever thought possible. You won't be able to tie your shoes without federal approval.

Agree.

|1.9.08 @ 3:41PM|#

I said the same thing on another thread, but if one small moment in a debate could have such an effect for Hillary, why couldn't there be a similar phenomenon on the republican side.
I think the moment in the republican debate where Romney sort of lost his temper was his downfall. Anybody got a clip of that? someone (guiliani?) took a shot at him and he clenched his teeth, looked sideways at him, and just generally looked pissed.

|1.9.08 @ 3:56PM|#

"...another Reagan type figure to recapture the libertarian/conservative spirit."

Yeah, like Reagan did when he ratcheted up the War on citizen's rights, er uh, some drugs, invaded Granada, was in charge during Beirut, got amnesia regarding the Iran Contra Hearings and grew the federal government to a size never seen in the US before. Thank you, I will pass on that kind of "conservative libertarian". IMHO Guiliani is the heir apparent for Reagan's crown.

/I do not get the Reagan was a Libertarian af any strip schpiel unless referring to his 1976 Presidential run, which somehow was forgotten when he became POTUS four short years later.

/Reagan's presidency convinced me to become a Libertarian, because he was the exact opposite of one.

|1.9.08 @ 3:57PM|#

oops, strip schpiel = stripe schpiel

BakedPenguin|1.9.08 @ 4:02PM|#

I do not get the [idea that] Reagan was a Libertarian of any stripe...

I've always wondered about that myself.

|1.9.08 @ 4:03PM|#

MPLS Mark, let me get this straight. You are worried Clinton will kill Obama?

I already addressed this at littlegreenfootballs. You must not have read it.

R C Dean|1.9.08 @ 4:11PM|#

Are they betting that because it's her, because she has a (D) next to her name, or because of what she's said she'll do?

Yes.

I am not really sure why they fear a Hillary victory so much.

Mostly higher taxes. Also garganutan unfunded commitments to socialized medicine.

The stock market performs 4 points better under Democratic presidents than Republicans, 12% annual growth vs. 8% since the end of World War Two. You can look it up.

Or you could post a link.

But, since you sent me out on my own, I found this :

The data for the period after 1945 provide stronger evidence that the returns are on average the same under the administration of both parties. For Republicans, the average annual return is 13.1 percent and for Democratic administrations it is 15.3 percent. The strong recent performance of the market gives an edge to Democrats. However, because of the high degree of variations in returns and the small number of presidential terms, statistical tests fail to conclude that the mean returns are different. Overall, these findings suggest that stock returns are similar for the Democratic and Republican administrations, especially since World War II.

Meaning, the smart people aren't allergic to Dems per se, but are very skeptical about the economy under a probably all-Dem DC headed up by Hillary "I have more good ideas than America can afford" Clinton.

Gilbert Martin|1.9.08 @ 4:31PM|#

The stock market is driven by the economic cycles - which are created by the private sector - not government.

No government on earth ever engineered a good economy into existence.

The economic recovery that the Clintonistas try to give him credit for began before he took office in his first term and ended before he left it in his second. His adiministration didn't create or sustain it.

|1.9.08 @ 4:37PM|#

I suspect out of state voters account for the discrepency. But, how did she motivate so many to go to the trouble? One thousand FBI files may keep potential rivals at bay, but that's not enough dirt to get 20,000 sexist women to the polls. Oh, I just said it, they're sexists.

jp|1.9.08 @ 4:43PM|#

No government on earth ever engineered a good economy into existence.

You can say that all you want, but it still won't change the sad fact that most voters are idiots.

|1.9.08 @ 4:48PM|#

"No government on earth ever engineered a good economy into existence."

Quite true. It still doesn't stop politicians from pounding their chests and taking credit when the economy is good and hiding out at the "Western Whitehouse" when it all goes sideways.

/People are stupid for giving POTUS so much credit for whatever the economy is doing. I worry about the liberties they wish to abolish.

//As long as any president claims credit for things when the economy is good, I hold them to the same stupid standard when the economy tanks.

///Sucks to be you GWB, on your watch, you gave us $3.00+ / gallon gas, stagflation, housing bubble credit crunch, Katrina response, Iraq and you ain't gonna fix any of it.

////Sorry about your legacy, you FAILED!

|1.9.08 @ 5:18PM|#

I think we can all agree that if the general election choice is between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, Al Qaeda should be feeling very scared.

Seitz|1.9.08 @ 5:32PM|#

What racist views am I projecting again?

John, you peddle that crap about lying to pollsters as if it a) exists, and b) affects only white liberal men. Sorry, but when I read that, I put on my amateur psychology hat and say 'John sounds like he's talking about himself there' (minus the liberal part). It has nothing to with Obama specifically. I'm a white liberal male, and I couldn't give a shit which one of them wins, because chances are any of the big 3 are getting my vote in the general (in fact, now that Dodd's out, I'll probably vote for Edwards in the primary). But I can honestly say that if I were polled, I wouldn't feel obligated to say Obama just so that people wouldn't think I'm racist. My white liberal male friends are pretty much the same.

So don't sit there and say that the reason the polls didn't match up is because people were afraid some random pollster, whose results are anonymous, might think they were racist if they said Hillary. It's not like this is a race between Obama and David Duke.

Gilbert Martin|1.9.08 @ 5:34PM|#

Al Qaeda would only be scared of Hillary if they happened to be within lamp-throwing range of her.

|1.9.08 @ 5:40PM|#

Come on, Seitz, we can still pretend we're going to vote for Richardson for a couple more weeks!

The economic recovery that the Clintonistas try to give him credit for began before he took office in his first term and ended before he left it in his second. His adiministration didn't create or sustain it.

Gilbert Martin is right. The functioning of the free-market system produced the recovery, and the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history.

The important thing to remember about the junction of economic growth and public policy under Bill Clinton is that the people who said his fiscal and economic programs were going to throttle the recovery and send us into recession were completely effing wrong. They were also the same people who told us that Reagan's, and later Bush the Lesser's, tax cuts were going to shrink the deficit, and they said it for the same reason; they don't know what they're talking about.

|1.9.08 @ 5:44PM|#

They were also the same people who told us that Reagan's, and later Bush the Lesser's, tax cuts were going to shrink the deficit

No, they said the would increase government revenue. Which they did. Prolifigate spending, however, prevented this form having a budget-balancing effect.

MPLS Mark|1.9.08 @ 5:48PM|#

"I already addressed this at littlegreenfootballs. You must not have read it."

Why no, I haven't read it. How prescient. It's almost uncanny!

Who are you?

MPLS Mark|1.9.08 @ 5:50PM|#

"No government on earth ever engineered a good economy into existence."

Try Hong Kong, pre-china give-back.

|1.9.08 @ 6:09PM|#

Sure they did, Cesar. That's why Reagan had to go back and implement what was then the largest tax hike in American history in 1986 in order to patch up the hole in the budget. Because of all the increased revenue.

BakedPenguin|1.9.08 @ 6:14PM|#

Try Hong Kong, pre-china give-back.

Um... how, exactly, did they "enigneer" the economy? HK pre-China was probably the most laissez-faire economy in existence.

|1.9.08 @ 6:19PM|#

Joe, its a fact revenues increased. Spending just increased way faster.

|1.9.08 @ 6:26PM|#

Cesar,

Revenues do that when the business cycle goes on the upswing. They increased after Clinton increases top marginal rates, too, for example the same reason.

Would you like to buy my magic tiger-repelling rock?

|1.9.08 @ 6:27PM|#

er, for exactly the same reason.

|1.9.08 @ 6:42PM|#

But the elephant in the room here is that she really isn't very likeable is she? You expect Obama to be magnanimous after all the hate and bile thrown in his direction by Hillary and the rest of the Clintonites? Perhaps it would have made a difference, but I don't think he can be faulted for now fawning over a Clinton who helped invent the slash and burn politics he is trying to run against.

On another note: nobody seemed to like Romney in the other debate, and nobody seems to care.

|1.9.08 @ 6:46PM|#

me and Peter Bagge joined an anxious group

Me wonders why this usage is now so common. Me guesses that "I" has a stuffy ring to some.

Harvardian|1.9.08 @ 6:49PM|#

Me wonders why this usage is now so common. Me guesses that "I" has a stuffy ring to some.

brec, you elitist prig!

|1.9.08 @ 6:57PM|#

At LGF I'm GWB_ooze_receptacle_number_1. MPLS Mark, just yankin yer chain. This site is happily lacking in greenfootball-level GWB supporters, socialist Republicans, economic liberals, and other nut cases. (well, there are a few libertarians, but we'll shoot anyone who says were extremist)

slag|1.9.08 @ 11:24PM|#

Bingo | January 9, 2008, 1:14pm | #
Ideas? Rational debates? Discourse on policy? Who needs them when you've got emotional appeals!

CNN:

A majority of Democrats said the issues were the most important factor in how they voted, while most Republicans said the candidates' personal qualities were most important to their decision.

Voters from both parties rated the economy their top issue and the war in Iraq second - but concerns about illegal immigration rated third among Republicans, while Democrats said health care was just behind Iraq.

But by all means, don't let facts get in the way of your argument in favor of "rational debate."

|1.10.08 @ 1:25AM|#

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but give the woman a break - she teared up because she's exhausted. Not even college students can keep that kind of schedule for that long and keep it together 100% of the time.

Rye-guy|1.10.08 @ 3:41AM|#

My biggest post-NH issue is why all the media assume that polling is this perfect science. Any statistical method always carries something like a 1 in 10,000 chance of totally fukking it up, and New Hampshire just happened to be that 1 in 10,000 event. People who point to racism and the tear moment as excuses just belie their complete misunderstanding of statistics (this includes some pollsters who have become enamored with the smell of their own shit.)

Rye-guy|1.10.08 @ 3:44AM|#

BakedPenguin, you're right on Hong Kong.

That being said, Dubai feels pseudo-engineered, but the free market respect is still there.

But then again, it's always possible that bu this time next year Dubai could become Miami on the gulf real estate-wise

|1.10.08 @ 7:40AM|#

1. Peter Bagge who wrote "Hate" comics?

2. I saw the clip and I didn't think he meant it to be snarky. I thought he meant to be coming to her defense in an automatic sort of way, and it just came off completely wrong. It was way too offhand. Then I saw him talk about it with Diane Sawyer [it starts at around 2:52]:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WYtU5isT5TI

He's either lying or not. I think he's not, but I also have a hard time he would try to stick it to her over her likeability either. It's not his style.

|1.10.08 @ 10:25AM|#

"No, they said the would increase government revenue. Which they did. Prolifigate spending, however, prevented this form having a budget-balancing effect."

Revenue increased despite the tax cuts, not because of them. Is it really that hard to understand this?

|1.10.08 @ 11:02AM|#

slag, I doubt we can trust people's self-reporting on what's driving their political preferences.

|1.13.08 @ 8:57PM|#

He should not have said the word "enough" she had just agreed he was very likeable - he should have said "you're likeable also" - easy for me to judge in hindsight

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements