Slog - Comments on History Falters

Comment by Original Monique

Original Monique — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:36:13 -0800

Because they are fucking assholes, who have relentlessly pushed the gender politics issue.

So fuck you gender politics.

Comment by arduous

arduous — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:38:48 -0800

at monique, exactly. and because this isn't the story they wanted to tell.

frickin exit polls.

Comment by wow

wow — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:39:22 -0800

i'm strangely very attracted to you at this moment.

Comment by Blerg

Blerg — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:41:23 -0800

You're comparing a headline about a race that was over with one about one where counting is still going on and a winner has not been called. They're not giving anyone the hero treatment because no one has officially won yet, which I would say is reasonable. Let's see what they do when the winner is called.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:41:49 -0800

Um, no, it's because they're not live TV. That headline has been there since it first went up two hours ago. It will be changed when they have their stories written. What the hell is the matter with you people? The world is not a blog. This is a big victory, and a big story, and the NYT is going to be all over it in the morning. As always.

Comment by postergirl

postergirl — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:41:52 -0800

'cause it aint over yet. Obama can still win this thing. The college towns aren't in yet.

Comment by tsm

tsm — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:46:04 -0800

Ah, Josh, as poor a winner as he is a loser.

Comment by Voterface

Voterface — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:46:13 -0800

Um, those are Comeback Kid Gloves.

Let's all hold hands and chant "Change!"

Doesn't anyone want 4 years of supremely entertaining "Sticking It To The Man" at the hands of Edwards?

C'mon, all three Dem frontrunners are pretty exciting and America could see some great healing by electing a black or a woman president but I could put it off for 8 years if it meant seeing Corporate America take it on the chin every single day for the better part of a decade.

Comment by Cleve

Cleve — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:46:28 -0800

It's a huge win for HRC when the entire media elite, and all polls, said Obama would win big.

They had him winning by 10 points. She did 13 points better than expected.

Huge.

Even if for some reason she ends up losing by 1 point. Which she won't. (There aren't that many students at Dartmouth for Obama to rely on to make up 5000 votes, and some 1/4 of them are GOP-y prepsters anyway).

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:46:56 -0800

No, it's over. Clinton won. Up by 6,000 now. It's starting to roll. Congratulations, Hillary, you're making this a race.

Comment by Andy James

Andy James — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:48:23 -0800

Josh:

I think it has less to do with black vs. female than with brand-new vs. familiar. Hillary has been a figure in mainstream American politics for 16 years now, and she has been the (almost prohibitive) frontrunner for almost a year. It's hard to see it as a dramatic, transforming event when she regains frontrunner status.

Comment by Trey

Trey — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:50:13 -0800

Cry me a river, Josh. This may be the last primary "your girl" wins for quite a while (or ever).

Comment by still irritated

still irritated — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:50:36 -0800

I'm still waiting for an apology for yesterday Josh.

Comment by tsm

tsm — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:51:17 -0800

She'll still get trounced in South Carolina.

Comment by yep

yep — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:51:54 -0800

O-bysmal

Comment by Zander

Zander — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:00:02 -0800

So we've had two votes in two small states and we don't yet have an annointed one in any party. Is that a bad thing?
Won't we better off by thinking this through a little more? Isn't testing the candidates a little longer worthwhile?
The position of President, after all, falls somewhere between temp and baby sitter. Shouldn't we act like it is an important decision?

Comment by Fifty-Two-Eighty

Fifty-Two-Eighty — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:02:04 -0800

You know, Josh, I used to think it was only the Seattle newspapers that you hated. Now it turns out that you apparently hate ALL newspapers. Guess that says a lot about your chances of ever working for one.

Comment by unPC

unPC — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:09:01 -0800

Hillary on TV almost tearing up -- "let's give America the kind of comback NH has just given me"

"I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice"

very human....great lines....

Comment by Trey

Trey — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:12:12 -0800

It was only seconds after she referred to America's "can-do spirit" that the dinner I consumed moments ago came back up and arched colorfully across the room...

Comment by also

also — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:12:26 -0800

You want the NYT to give Hilary hero treatment with 63% counted? What happens if some pocket of the remaining 37% is from an area very pro-Obama?

I assure you, the headlines tomorrow will be significant. They also waited to be sure with Obama in Iowa.

Don't let that stop you from wallowing in your persecution complex, though.

Comment by Ed Fox

Ed Fox — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:19:05 -0800

How about the headline now? Clinton Stuns Obama. More to your liking? How about you wait a few freaking minutes before jumping to conclusions. The votes aren't counted, the speeches aren't over, and there is more than enough time for Hillary love to happen (which it will) over the next couple of days. Just calm the hell down. I hate libs who jump to conclusions as much as cons who jump to conclusions.

Just listen to CNN - Hillary is going to get the same run out of NH that Bill did in '92, we're in for a race.

Comment by Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:34:00 -0800

Give me a break, Josh. The only reason Clinton won is because McCain stole the independent vote from Obama.

Comment by also

also — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:45:07 -0800

Um, Ryan, care to explain why Obama was more entitled to the independent vote than McCain? And why we shouldn't see this is a precursor to the general -- that is, in Obama vs. McCain, McCain will also "steal" the independents, but in Hilary vs. McCain, Hilary would have a stronger Democratic base?

Comment by gnossos

gnossos — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:46:10 -0800

Pundits uniformly swarming to Clinton's coffeehouse moment as the explanation for the discrepancy between Monday's poll numbers and today's results. If true, this shows that most of the (primarily male) sloggers chiming in on this subject yesterday and slamming Clinton would make lousy campaign aides.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:53:32 -0800

To recap, the New York Times coverage is in fact excellent, as always, and Josh needs to take a bunch of deep breaths.

Comment by Obama Fan

Obama Fan — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:59:29 -0800

This is another reason to not rely on the NYT.

Check out the LA Times online: "Clinton wins stunning victory in N.H."

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:19:06 -0800

Hey, nimrod: check out the NYT online: "Clinton Upsets Obama". Do try to keep up, 'kay?

Comment by jonathan

jonathan — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:19:14 -0800

It's hardly surprising from the NYT -- home of such journalistic wunderkinder like self-hating fag and mysogynist Adam Nagourney (whose headline tonight is "Clinton Escapes to Fight Another Day").

He is such a cunt.

Comment by leek

leek — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:19:34 -0800

NYT? I was just thinking earlier today that every primary season someone gets gaspingly, thrillingly anointed by the media only to then have a wacky switcheroo to the other guy or gal.

This isn't by any means specific to the NYT. Every media outlet has been virtually dismissing Clinton since Iowa only to ad-miss her again now.

Doesn't anyone remember this same cycle from 4 years ago?

Comment by jonathan

jonathan — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:22:07 -0800

FNARF -- I usually agree with you. But not about the NYT. Never about the NYT -- cumrag that it is.

Comment by fnarf

fnarf — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:14:59 -0800

Jonathan, you're a twit. Seriously, you're stupid, and you're wrong. The New York Times did not, in fact, get this story wrong. Go look at their page. If you haven't grasped that by now, that Josh's complaint was mistaken, you're a damn fool.

Comment by Jubilation T. Cornball

Jubilation T. Cornball — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:48:06 -0800

My dear Feit,

You receive this missive from a fellow Hillamorous. I want her to win. Hands down.

But I sense an ugliness afoot. It was voiced by Sidney Blumenthal this evening. And I fear I sense it here in your post.

That is, sir, your reference to a "Mr. History."

Pray, sir, acknowledge that Barack Obama IS deserving of the title. He, African American, first time ever, won the Iowa caucus. I want that history. Everyone I know wants that history. I fucking love that history. So, please, give us that history.

Sans snark.

Blumenthal was even more crass. At least you didn't approach his level.

Can we not please win this -- and, if need be, twist the shiv -- in a bloody battle based on issues and message and personality and not on something as embarrassingly CHEAP as calling into question the fact that Obama made history?

Jesus. Let's win with some class, mis Clintonistas amores.

Comment by Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:47:17 -0800

@23: Heh. I didn't say Obama was "entitled" to the independent vote you dork. But what do you think the independent voters were thinking when they saw Obama up 12 points a few days ago? Clearly, many of them decided to vote in the Republican caucus because they thought Obama had the Democratic sewn up.