xtcian

I too am bitterly disappointed in the people of New Hampshire. And in Gloria Steinem. And in those yahoos who showed up in the Iron My Shirt t-shirts at Hillary's rally - perhaps drawing more women to her cause. Of course sexism still exists in this country. But, being a feminist does not mean that I must vote for Hillary. I think Obama's message of optimism is just the antidote we need to a culture mired in cynicism about our leaders and the future. The British and others always deride Americans for our cockeyed optimism. But, really, that's what sets us apart. We are historically a nation that believes that tomorrow will be a better day. I want to believe that again. How do we convince the voters in Nevada and South Carolina and the other states coming up that we do have the power to change the conversation? Democrats here in NC are terrified that Obama leading the ticket will spell disaster in the state races. I just think that our state and country have come a long way since the notorious Harvey Gantt/Jesse Helms race back in the 80s. Also, I want to get on my soapbox on John Edwards and Bill Richardson. These guys are just hanging around hoping Hillary and Obama destroy each other and they can reap the benefits. Boy, what a great Democrat nominees they would be having won by default. Please, please let politics be about something other than the lesser of two evils for a change.

I think Ozzy's wife makes some great points

Hillary might make a good president, maybe by some fluke, even a great one. But I hope she is not the candidate for a couple of reasons:

1. I cannot bring myself to like her. Not that likeability is a qualification for the presidency, but it's hard to be inspired by someone you can't really look at on TV without thinking "Oh, shut up." She just feels so… manufactured. Probably unfair, but that’s how it feels to me.

2. She has sewwww much baggage. And not just political beltway baggage. Imagine if she had to make an absolutely crucial decision, a red button kind of call. And suppose that just at that crucial hour she found Bill getting laid. With a teenager. Or her personal assistant. How rational could she be? I know, I know... a man in that position has a problem, too, but most first ladies have behaved. Even Hillary in the day... And are more likely to. A woman president with a good-behavior husband would be far preferable. Bill is a loose canon, and the current rumors out of Clinton land tell us that Bill has not reformed all that much.

3. Most important. I doubt she can be elected. I've always felt that way, and if she's up against a strong Republican candidate... think McCain with all his street cred and experience, I really wonder if most Americans wouldn't prefer the old guy who survived prison camp, isn’t afraid to speak his mind, and has that nice white hair.

I hoped for Obama, and I think his time will come. But it's such a deflating thing, such cold water in the face, to have the momentum be exploded by the kind of electorate that came out in NH.

I'm trying to really care about this election, and with Obama leading, I could. Now I'm not sure. Is Hillary once again the "inevitable" candidate?

Oy...

I think if Hillary had a choice between keeping us out of nuclear war or hollering at Bill for his infidelities, she'd choose protecting the country. That argument worries me; it sounds like "What if she had her period while in office? Would we have a horrible president for one week out of every month?" She's not stupid. I think Hillary would have the sense to save the world rather than worrying about whom Bill is nailing. She's so used to it by now, anyway, and so are we.

Maybe she seems 'manufactured,' but perhaps she's just trying to get elected so she can make change. Which isn't the greatest thing, but.

I've heard the "I simply don't like Hillary" argument so long, from plenty of Republicans as well as a few Democrats, and I still don't get it. I've heard more Hillary-hatred than I've heard about people who actually did something criminal or wrong.

CM, good points, and I agree with you about most of them. A couple of things:
"What if she had her period while in office? " is the kind of specific sexist junk-thought that makes almost all women want to hurl. It's just fundamentally stupid and wrong. My concerns are more specific. Hillary is married to a very problematical man. He is a sex addict who nearly destroyed his presidency and certainly his dignity, and it really got in the way of effective leadership. I don't care whom he schtups, but when it turns him into Leno fodder instead of a statesman, it's a problem. He could definitely sandbag Hillary’s effective leadership both directly and indirectly if he did something really crazy at a crucial time. Again, a man might have the same problem with a wife, but Bill is rock-star famous and a former and current statesman, and his bad behavior is liable to have more impact than a pecadillo on the part of Mrs. Grover Cleveland ever could have been.

I don't hate Hillary, and I deplore the hate-speech that has been directed her way. But my lack of enthusiasm and, yes, liking for her is not what I wanted this time around. We've had such an appalling eight year endurance fest with Bush that I wanted to be inspired, moved, stirred by a candidate. I worked (ho hum) for Kerry, because anyone was better than W, but I don’t want to feel that that again.

I want to be FOR someone. And I’m only sort of “for” Hillary. I’m not inspired, I’m unmoved, and today I’m shaken, not stirred.

I agree with "Mom" and CW alike. I don't "like" Hillary either, but I'm not really worried about whether her concerns re:Bill's philandering will color her leadership. Me liking her doesn't matter so much when it comes to leadership, however, it would be more fun for sure to get pumped up about our president and feel excited when he/she gets elected. I truly think Hillary would be a fine president and I agree with her agenda. If there weren't a better candidate available I'd be supporting her (and I will if it comes to that) but the point is, I think there is a better candidate available this time, thankfully.

Shouldn't it be "what if she has a hot flash" instead of a period anyway?
Sorry, couldn't resist.

That loud thud you heard was the Obama bandwagon crashing back to Earth.

Maybe the voters of New Hampshire were not comfortable giving the most important position in the free world to a guy who, just four years ago, was passing "offical state dessert" bills in the statehouse in Springfield. I mean, really, this guy spent almost exactly TWO years in the national governmental arena before he started running for president.

As for the dislike of Hillary, maybe it comes from her failed attempts to remake health-care, or maybe it was the co-president idea, or maybe the lost billing records or the White House travel office fiasco, or carpetbagging into New York to run for the Senate precisely to make a run for president.

And before the McCainiacs come out of the woodwork, remember he also won N.H. in 2000 before getting crushed by the trained monkey who currently occupies the White House. For that matter, Edwards won S.C. in 2004 (one of the next primaries of note) and we all know how that worked out for him.

The point that Ian started to make before turning it racial is that why do two lily-white, small, otherwise inconsequential states garner our national attention as if they have any real effect on the outcome in modern times. New Hampshire doesn't even have a single "metropolitan" area, for crying out loud. How are either of these somehow representative of the country? Other than the tradition, and the MILLIONS of dollars spent here, Iowa and N.H. are neither king-makers nor destroyers of campaigns.

But it is noteworthy that white-bread, corn-fed, red-state fly-over country Iowa selected the black guy, while the supposedly progressive, New England state full of Massachusetts ex-pats voted for the white person.

There was nothing clueless about the media juggernaut's behavior. They deliberately set up expectations so that anything less than an O'Bama blowout could be talked up as "Hillary's huge, HUGE comeback". I'm still trying to figure out whether the O'Bama camp walked into it, or whether they were just drowned out by the media noise machine.

A couple of points, since Ian's blog has been my internet soapbox of choice (tm). If you've been following this, Edwards is running the kind of populist corporations-have-become-way-too-powerful campaign that we've needed from an electable candidate for over 30 years. And he beat Hillary in Iowa despite being outspent 5 to 1.

I do like both Obama and Hillary, and I totally understand the appeal of their respective stories. Edwards has been leading on the issues, though - and that kind of leadership is what we need desperately.

Can someone explain to me something about the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries? If Obama winning Iowa is now irrelevant to Clinton winning New Hampshire, what's the point of paying any attention to who has won in New Hampshire? And if both results are so different, isn't it possible that it's anyone's game?

Sorry if these are stupid questions. I'm Canadian and even after 7 seasons of playing Donna to your guys' Josh, I still find the US electoral system mind-numbingly complicated.

I've been watching the candidates on YouTube and comparing what they're saying to media coverage of the same events. It's really enlightening about the state crapitude our media is in.

There's just no getting around the fact that the media are sexist a-holes. I'm sorry, but that coverage of "hillary crying!" when she didn't shed a single tear and seemed to me, to be displaying some really legitimate feelings about how lucky she is to be able to be where she is - all the media coverage of that made it sound like she was a crybaby girly girly who couldn't handle the job.

I've always wondered about the bizarre idea of "what if she has her period and pushes the nuclear button" bullcrap - just from the sheer lack of logic there, never mind the horrible sexism of it. Most women who get to a point of running for President have already been through menopause.

First, NH is almost irrelevant in terms of selecting the nominee. Rarely has NH gone the way of Iowa and the Iowa winner usually wins the nomination. Obama supporters should not sulk in yesterday's results. They are still fine.

On Hillary; I think it will be hard for her to escape the baggage of her husband. I agree with mom on the Leno jokes....and I think that would be bad for the office. I believe we have to move beyond Clinton/Bush. If we do not, I fear one of the twins sdon being on the ballot...if not Jeb.

I have always wondered about the Iowa/NH thing, but what would be different if it was Cali or NY? Is perhaps the litmus test on rural Iowa a better gauge of the candidates? So what if Obama wins NY or Cali. I think writers would discount Obama's successes there as 'wait until he gets to the corn belt'. Well he has already looked good in the corn belt. We know he is going to look good in NY and Cali..particularly if he is one of only 2 left standing.

I agree, I want to feel passionate about my candidate and I wouldn't with Hillary or John. However, I would still vote for them in the general election.
I am glad that we do not have only candidates that appeal to the party zealots. It seems the zealots have selected our past few candidates and we all know how that turned out in the general election. Of the big 3, i think any of them COULD win. I never felt that way about Kerry.

I'm okay with the nomination process....it just requires patience that may be beyond the capabilities of the 'information age' electorate. We don't have to know NOW who is going to win.
Hillary was a beauty queen in the summer and McCain was in the toilet and look at them now... We need the candidate that is going to look good just in time for November and not any sooner or later. The republicans have done this perfectly the last 2 elections.

I think grumphreys is right on. I like what Edwards is saying. No way do I think he has a chance, but nonetheless....

I don't know who I will choose between Obama and Clinton. I like them both for different reasons and for the life of me I can not understand the intense dislike so many people feel toward Hillary. Yes I KNOW she will say anything to get elected but show me a top tier politician who won't. Yes, that's a low standard, but that's the reality of American politics right now.

And I'm not sure it's fair to automatically assume that the folks in NH just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black man. How was the (ultimately incorrect) polling conducted? How were the questions phrased? How was the sample chosen? When was the poll taken? What happened between the time the poll was taken and the time votes were cast? Maybe I'm too naive but I just have more faith that we've moved beyond the race issue.

By the way, grumphreys, I was at the Cradle on New Year's Eve. Great show!

Of the candidates remaining in both parties, which two will chuck their egos and combine forces to run as President and VP?

Obama-Edwards
Clinton-Obama

McCain-Romney
Romney-Huckabee

I'm just throwing out pairings as examples, but is it realistic that some of these candidates might opt to check their egos to unite forces for a seemingly unbeatable tandem?

If so, when. If not, why not?
And which ones would be the likely super duos?

If Bill can talk to foreign leaders while getting a BJ from an intern, I'm confident Hillary could evaluate foreign policy proposals while wearing a tampon or enduring a hot flash. To suggest otherwise is small-minded sexist crap which, frankly speaking, I'm surprised gets uttered without some serious backlash from ALL women.

I dunno. I was leaning towards Obama and I still am, but it bothers me how off-base the media coverage is of Hillary versus how she's actually acting.

And it bothers me also that neither Obama or Edwards is stepping up and calling out both the public and the media about the blatant sexism. Progressives are supposed to be against that sort of thing, and they could easily say "Hey, I disagree a lot with Hillary, but that kind of behavior towards her is wrong, and needs to stop. I don't want to gain a political advantage because sexism; I want to gain it because of my positions."

I was just going through all of the various combinations in my head, both Republican and Democrat, and the only variations that I CAN'T see happening are the ones that have Clinton or Giuliani in the VP slot.

GFWD, My dream-duo...
Giuliani-Rice.

HORFFFF

*ahem*

sorry

Since we're talking dream duos, and by dream I mean will never happen, here's mine:

Bloomberg-Powell

Horffff away.

My dream ticket: Iggy Pop/John Lydon.
With Chuck D as Secretary of Defense. No one be fucking with the S1Ws.

i don't like hillary as a candidate because she doesn't come across as genuine. especially after the bush regime, i want that more than ever. hillary comes across as very smart but overly scripted and full of spin like any other politician.

she also comes off as too much of a dworkin/mckinnon feminist to me, erring on the side of being too uptight and a-sexual rather than owning the full spectrum of her female identity. but that's also generational, which is why you have the old guard feminists taking up her cause.

being real means being messy. people are not perfect. and if you're going to be real with people, you have to risk being messy in front of them from time to time. we've seen a lot of Hillary over the years. but even in what must have been some of the most difficult moments for her, such as the scandal with Bill, i don't think i have ever seen her really able to let her guard down and be real. to this day, i don't think she has given me any genuine understanding of her relationship that can dispel the idea that she's either his doormat or she stayed with him purely to advance her political aspirations. for me, either one of these explanations is distasteful enough to kill her appeal as a candidate.

Heard a good joke....

Guy meets Chelsea Clinton at a party. He says Chelsea; there are three things that i am afraid of. She said 'what's that'?
Osama, Obama, and yo mamma!

and another thing.

about the female-in-white-house backlash.

this is really REALLY a big problem that the old school feminists caused. and in many ways i fault them for it way more than i fault hillary, because hillary is just following protocol.

when the female academics traded away our feminine qualities in favor of some kind of androgenous equality instead of diversity, they screwed us over.

i mean, here's a perfect example. OF COURSE women (of childbearing age at least) have hormones which go into turbo mode with their cycle. is this not the truth? has everyone not clearly experienced this in their own lives? of course this is the truth, and to deny it is to have a superficial conversation built on lies.

but most white liberals don't have any context on to deal with it other than what the feminist academic fascists have put forward. we've been taught to focus on equality so much that the differences are squashed, and if you raise questions around these differences you are immediately branded a sexist. and so women have been trained to put their differences in a box and lock it in the closet. i think it makes them feel less real to themselves to live like that, and i think it makes them less real to everyone who sees them.

we have to move past this old school feminist baggage to get real and get truthful. hillary's not the first female in government here or anywhere else in the world. so let's just stop saying "it doesn't matter" in order to uphold the feminist party line.

I do not understand the myth that is being perpetuated that says that Hillary is "establishment." Everyone says it, and it's so far from the truth. She's a Goldwater girl turned total freak liberal. She and her husband were nearly crucified for refusing to play ball, and all she's done in the Senate has been to insert herself in roles and situations where no other woman has gone before. You want revolutionary? How about making a law that, once and for all, prevents white male employers from firing women for having children? That's what she did, nearly singlehandedly. Revolutionary? Setting out in the beginning of your career to protect the rights of women and children and then doing that over and over again in big and small ways. That kind of integrity is revolutionary in our culture.

And you know what else? She's right when she says that Obama has been running for president since he was in kindergarten. Good for her for calling him out. Talk about a career politician. To me, he wants to be president more than he wants real change. It's hard for me to believe that he thinks his talents are best put to use in a presidency with so little legislative experience. I have no problem with ambition, but he should stop pretending that he's somehow outside of this political machine when he's so obviously desperate to be a part of it.

"i don't think i have ever seen her really able to let her guard down and be real"

She's kind of damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't. If she had had a screaming fit against Bill in public, would that give everyone more confidence in her as an elected official??

This is the kind of thing that frustrates me. Arguments that don't get to someone's ability to perform in office. Most of us would rather take care of our relationship dirty laundry in private. If she's being insincere about the ISSUES, then please tell me that. Not that she's insincere about personal stuff.

Besides, we have seen her being real: the Tammy Wynette thing was funny and people took it the wrong way, but it was real. "Shoulda, coulda, woulda, whatever - we didn't," that was real. "We're screwing all these people" who were on line for a White House tour and had to leave...that was real. All three comments were played up in various negative ways in the media.

That said, I am worried that she will cow-tow on healthcare and other items...

With all the millions of people in this $%^&*U country, we can't get an electable candidate who we trust to do the right things? That is really sad. Our hopes are likely with Obama or Clinton, but who knows if America is ready to vote for people whom they are suspicious of because of their background/gender.

Watching the NH debate Saturday night (or rather, Sunday aft, here in Europe) I was 100% prepared to like Obama and shared (pretty much) everybody's bad feelings about Hillary with her coldness and bagage.

However, after ninety minutes I had to admit to myself Obama is virtually incapable of delivering anything resembling substance in the policy sphere. All he's doing is being the awesome inspirational guy. You like that? Fine. Just remember Bush started as another Mr Nice Guy. And frankly Obama's "You're likable enough, Hillary" may inadvertently have showed how deep Obama's niceness really goes.

Hillary struck me as right on target in most issues. Her responses were consistently intelligent and substantial. Yes, she's got a lot of bagage but at least she knows what she's talking about when she's talking politics and policies - which Obama skilfully avoids doing (aided by the media, who are soo in lurv with him). This doesn't take away, however, Billary's pro-Iraq War vote.

I'm sorry to say John Edwards struck me as a mean-spirited jerk. For all this talk about a woman (pre or post menopause) and the red button; I wouldn't want a guy like Edwards near major firearms in any capacity.

I don't really understand this need for a president to provide inspiration. Wouldn't it be a better idea if he or she provided good policies, and people just find inspiration in their own lives?

it depends on what you think we need in this role. i don't think we need tactical expertise, i think there are plenty of good solutions out there, we don't need someone to think them up. we need statesmanship and high level vision to pull out the best ideas and rally people behind the ideas to get them to happen. we need someone who gets the country thinking differently about the US position in the world, about fairness and equity in our economic structure, and generally questioning the status quo without being afraid of the future.

when it comes time to make hard calls, such as health care reform, the population is going to be afraid of radical changes. the corporate interests and right wing zealots are going to play right into that, talking about how the government will ruin the medical system and no one will get treatment, the economy will be devastated, etc. i see Clinton being embroiled in that battle, going head to head and trying to convince people on the merits of her plan. but i see Obama differently, instead of going head to head i hear him saying "it will be a bumpy ride, but we can make this work if we dare to try something new, and if we don't make a move now, all is lost" or some type of inspirational cheerleading along those lines, which speaks directly to people's irrational fear of change.

obama is the change candidate because change needs a catalyst. you can have the most brilliant policy in the world that would change everything, but wunless you can actually rally people, spur them to action, and get them to embrace change and actually adopt the policy, it's not going anywhere.

Herman, I understand why, from a certain point of view, it might seem unimportant for one of the main duties of a US president to inspire and unite us as a people, but I believe it *is* in fact, a truly important part of the job.

We Democrats are lucky this year to be choosing among three strong candidates. Like many of you I have wondered who will ultimately prove to be the best candidate to WIN in '08--we are at a critical juncture now, shifting from 8 years (8 years...) of B*sh and it hasn't escaped any of us that we must choose the candidate who will WIN and put a stop to the idiocracy we have been trapped in since 2000. We are lucky because the policy positions among the top 3 candidates are not wildly dissimilar, we are lucky because all three are among the smartest people who have ever run for president, we are lucky because all three have vision and stamina and have shown throughout their lives that they are ready and willing to serve the public good (health care, civil rights, human rights). (a convservative commenter will now respond with a sarcastic report about one or all of the candidates having earned money by practicing law, or how they haven't done as much as they should/could, or something about how what they've done doesn't mean anything anyway because it's a) inadequate, b) insincere, c) a long time ago, etc--so since we've already reviewed that you can skip that comment)

Even though I agree with grumph that Edwards is speaking most directly about our right to universal health care and the necessity of dismantling corporate hegemony (causes very close to my heart) I feel that right now we have to have a leader who can work *with* (note, not *in*) the Congress to bring about the changes we so desperately need, and begin the uphill climb towards rehabilitating our destroyed credibility in the eyes of the entire world. Here at home we've been so disappointed, so embittered and alienated from each other--we NEED to be reunited, we need to come together NOW. A person who genuinely inspires respect and trust, a person who can awaken in us that instinct that makes us want to work together for the common good, that's a leader we really need right now.

I believe that person is Obama. I could see Clinton or Edwards doing well, particularly domestically, but to me, among the three, the figure that has that rare quality of inspiring us to believe more than we perhaps even dare to (which I'd like to point out is NOT the mere "likability" that somehow, somehow, got B*sh into office) is Obama, for sure.

I don't understand how Ian suddenly makes Obama this big supporter of gays and gay marriage. First, Obama has clearly stated that he opposes gay marriage not because politically its not okay but because he personally objects to it.
Secondly, he invited Donnie McClurkin to tour with him, be on state with him and preach to the crowds. McClurkin is an African-American gospel singer who touts himself as a "reformed gay man" who is deeply homophobic. When questioned Obama said that his tent was big enough for everyone.
I haven't seen many Ku Klux Klan members in that tent. Nor many anti-Semetic people. Only the gay haters among the haters seem to get to be in Obama's big tent.
Obama is exciting and he's a fresh voice and if he's the candidate I'll vote for him. But its really not fair to hold Clinton's gay stance against her (as when she said "I don't think I'm anti-gay marriage I just think I'm strong pro-civil union") When Obama's much nastier stance is not held up to the same standard.

that is so true. but Barney Frank has said that he doesn't think a politician who comes out in support of marriage for gay couples can get elected President, so it's not really that surprising that all major dem candidates are doing a stupid little dance on that issue.

at the very least, when Obama says that he personally does not support it, he follows that up by saying that he could be misguided about his opinion. it doesn't excuse his position, but it is refreshing to hear a politician say he could be wrong.

it will be interesting to see how much he veers around on the issue on the way to the nomination and if he tries to come out stronger in opposition to same sex marriage in order to get elected. if he totally screws it up and sells out, there's always good old kucinich.

or how about this write-in dream team: barbara lee and angela davis.

i don't get why a little kid saying in kindergarten that he wants to be president is some big "gotcha!" he's in .... kindergarten. that hardly means he's been plotting and scheming and stepping over people since he was five.

also, i don't understand why it *would* be such a gotcha in the first place. the opposite of that is someone who dicks around for the first 40 years of his life and then decides what he wants to be when he grows up.

this is a pretty good primary season. hillary winning NH does not mean the race is over. it's just really a race now. in the long run, i think that will make obama an even better candidate.

My dream team:

President & VP: Penn & Teller. One is mute and both are libertarians. For me this would be like four years at a spa.

Secretary of State: Angelina Jolie. Experience with international organization and demonstrated concern for developing world. If nothing else, absolutely would get Americans interested in foreign affairs. Both men and women like her -- and vice versa.

Secretary of Defense: Bill Gates. Have Bill pursue a future of virtual warfare with zero casualties. He may not succeed until someone else invents it first and he can borrow it, but at least we know our enemies will spend countless hours clicking that "Send Report" button after their systems freeze.

Secretary of Treasury: Oprah Winfrey. Who knows more about money and business than the Big O?