I suspect they were also pissed off at the media creating "Obamamania" and just about daring those pesky, arrogant voters to choose a different candidate. Don't the voters understand? The Kewl Kids rule! (This populist shit could get out of hand... We don't want the people thinking they actually have the power to name their representatives. Next thing you know they'll want us to take our jobs seriously!)

Posted January 8, 2008 9:11 PM by Lizzy L

Word.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:14 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Oh, and I would be totally jazzed if Mitt Romney or Giuliani or any of the Republicans were to roar out of Loserville and upset McCain. I don't particularly want Romney to win NH, but the arrogance of the media and pollsters is breathtaking. I'd love to see their world turned upsidedown.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:16 PM by Lizzy L

WMUR has called the Republican race for McCain.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:17 PM by James D. Macdonald

MSNBC seems to have the quickest counts here. They update every five minutes.

MSNBC and CNN have called it for McCain on the R side.

HRC 40%
BHO 36%

with 36% of precincts counted.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:18 PM by Linkmeister

Jim, at that MSNBC site you can look at results sorted by county. Since you know the state, is there an urban/rural split apparent?

Posted January 8, 2008 9:20 PM by Linkmeister

I'm not sure even my animus toward the political media would be enough to make me welcome a good showing by Rudy "War With Everyone, As Soon As Possible" Giuliani. Fortunately, he appears to have come in a distant fourth, just a few hundred votes ahead of Ron Paul.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:21 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

I don't think I've ever seen McCain give an actual speech before. He's terrible.

I'm glad to see the Demo race tighten up. I'd hate to think this thing was over before the second week in January.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:24 PM by Michael Weholt

Honestly, I've been rooting for Hillary Clinton, in part, because the national press has been laying out the narrative of her defeat in advance of the actual facts. Watching political coverage feels like watching professional wrestling. It doesn't matter what actually happens in the ring. The writers have already scripted the narrative. They'll force fit the events to accommodate. So, I'd love to see an event like a convincing Hillary victory just to see how they'll explain how it's really a defeat for her. (I suspect it'll be something about how she didn't win by as much as they'd expected. That they'd called the race convincingly for Obama will be conveniently forgotten.)

The article about the primary at the Washington Post web site was clearly written in expectation of a convincing Obama victory. It's been interesting watching them revise it. (It's gotten a new headline, and a new first paragraph acknowledging that Clinton and Obama are in a tight race. It doesn't mention that she's currently leading.)

In any case, it was weird listening to coverage on NPR on Monday. The local station felt compelled to do extra NH primary
coverage. (After all, their signal reaches into NH.) The national reports kept harping on Obama's lead in the weekend polls. The local reports would then follow, talking about the latest tracking poll which had them in a statistical tie. (Apparently, the local NPR station didn't get the memo about the predetermined narrative.) The juxtaposition was very odd.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:27 PM by John Chu

John @ #9, yes, and they still can't get entirely past the narrative. The subhead of the main Post story reads:

"the Democratic race seems headed down to the wire with results showing a surprisingly tight contest between Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.)."

"Surprisingly", huh?

Posted January 8, 2008 9:32 PM by Linkmeister

The other thing to notice is that when you look at the numbers of total votes cast, the Democrats cast 59% of them, versus the Republicans 41%. As before in Iowa, look at the turnout. One article I read claimed that registered Republicans still outnumber registered Democrats in the state. If that's true, then the independents are clearly breaking Democratic, and even if it isn't, the difference is one hell of a turnaround.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:38 PM by Lizzy L

Patrick called it.

Quoted on TPM, from a reader: I have always had somewhat lukewarm feelings about Hillary Clinton. It took me years to forgive her for her "baking cookies" comment. At the time I had just given birth to my first child and decided to leave my job as an attorney to stay home and take care of my baby. I have been on the fence throughout this campaign, liking John Edwards more than the others. The media coverage of Sen. Clinton has caused my blood to boil. I can not bear to witness blatant misogyny. Gloria Steinheim's article in the NYT this morning was so on the mark. If I lived in New Hampshire, I would have voted for Sen. Clinton today. I would not allow the talking heads to tell me who to vote for or declare this race over. And I certainly was not going to participate in the sexist bs that has been spewing out the mouths of the likes of Chris Matthews.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:42 PM by Lizzy L

I agree that is the real news here -- Democrats are hot to vote, and Republicans are holding their nose, in both Iowa and NH.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:43 PM by tavella

Actually, when I saw news coverage of this incident, I figured it would help Hillary not just because of the media overkill but because voters who think she's a robotic cold machine would see that she's an actual person with emotions who does care about the country. I haven't decided whether she's my candidate (I tend to think she's probably not cross-party electable) but there's no question that the media coverage of her campaign has been a sexist, hounding disgrace.

Posted January 8, 2008 9:44 PM by JaniceG

Edwards is expected to arrive at his HQ in Manchester in the next ten minutes to make an announcement.

His campaign manager says that he made over 250,000 calls.

Most of them were to me....

Posted January 8, 2008 9:56 PM by James D. Macdonald

At Hanover (home of Dartmouth college), they expected a turnout of 4,000 people. 6,000 voted.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:00 PM by James D. Macdonald

One nice thing about watching tight election results come in... With the Republicans staying on their side of the fence, no worries about voting machine fraud!

Kind of relaxing to just sit back and watch the fair race go on.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:07 PM by Michael Weholt

#6 Linkmeister Jim, at that MSNBC site you can look at results sorted by county.

Those aren't sorted by county. Those are individual towns, and mostly it's the south and east that have reported in -- the parts closest to Massachusetts. That's going mostly to Hillary. The more rural areas and the Connecticut Valley haven't come in yet. But the parts that have reported represent about 75% of the state's population.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:09 PM by James D. Macdonald

Giuliani conceded and flew to Florida a little after 8:00.

Edwards is congratulating Senators Obama and Clinton even as I type.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:23 PM by James D. Macdonald

Patrick,

I'd like to think that Hillary's surprise showing is largely attributable to people saying "Screw you, Mysogynistic Media". But I think there's at least one other factor: Hillary's moment of humanity reminded a lot of people that she's actually got some convictions. I still don't like her tactics -- e.g. I think she voted for the Iraq War because she was afraid of looking weak on "security" -- but it's good to know that there's something behind the poll-tested public persona.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:24 PM by A.J.

I'll take the people--even the crazy ones--to the Kewl Kids any day.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:29 PM by Randolph Fritz

AP has called New Hampshire for Hillary.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:32 PM by James D. Macdonald

MSNBC just declared for Hillary. Chris Matthews and Brian Williams are beside themselves.

"The polls were wrong!! OMGWTFBBQ!!111!!!!!!"

(Olbermann, bless him, remains his snarky self. He's the only reason we even have the TV on tonight, honestly.)

Posted January 8, 2008 10:33 PM by meredith

The big college towns (Hanover and Durham) still haven't reported in.

But lots of the students there will be absentees from their home states, not voting here.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:43 PM by James D. Macdonald

So, damn, it's still a race after all.

For me, it's no so much the misogynistic harassment of the Clinton campaign, or the gross ignoration of the Paul campaign, or any of the other incidents of personal disrespect. It's the insistence of the broadcast medium, and to a lesser extent, the press, to create a media frenzy about the early campaigns, and then to try to "call" the entire nomination process ten months before the election. The overweening arrogance just fries my ass.

I hope the nomination process continues until the conventions, and look forward to seeing the humbling of the broadcast mavens. I seriously dislike seeing our elections taken away from us, and strongly believe a hearty national debate is just what our country needs. (Followed, of course, by the exile of our current "leaders" to Mauritania.)

Posted January 8, 2008 10:49 PM by LMB MacAlister

Obama is congratulating Hillary right now.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:54 PM by James D. Macdonald

LMB MacAlister @ 25: What did Mauritania ever do to you?

Posted January 8, 2008 10:55 PM by Andrhia

MSNBC's front page has a giant, giant picture of Obama from his victory speech in Iowa (or at least it looks like it) with a headline calling it for Clinton.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:57 PM by ethan

I tell you what, though. Nobody can give a speech like Obama can give a speech.

That matters to me a lot, and I'm not ashamed or embarrassed to say it.

Posted January 8, 2008 10:59 PM by Michael Weholt

#28: The headline at MSNBC as of right now is "Obama Vows to Push On." Clearly, the important story has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, who is relegated to the small print immediately below the headline.

CNN actually has a picture of Hillary up on their web site, with the headline "Clinton will win N.H. primary, CNN projects." They also list those two candidates total delegate count. They both got 8 delegates from NH. Obama has a total of 24. Clinton has a total of 23.

I suppose, delegate-wise, neither Obama's victory in IA or Clinton's in NH is really all that big a deal. For all the talk of Obama's decisive IA victory, he received only one delegate more than Clinton.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:12 PM by John Chu

I just listened to Hillary give her victory speech.

I like her a LOT better than I did half an hour ago. That might change again, but right now I'm firmly in her corner.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:22 PM by Xopher

I tell you what, though. Nobody can give a speech like Obama can give a speech.

Here's the thing: I like them both. A lot. I'm happy neither one has an insuperable lead, because I really don't look forward to either of them having to bow out. Whoever it is won't deserve to be hurt like it'll hurt.

I really, really wish it were possible to have someone with Clinton's stamina and grit, and with Obama's personal flair and oratory.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:23 PM by CaseyL

I unfortunately turned to Faux News first and got the demographic breakdown about how single mothers, poor people, and old people voted overwhelmingly for Sen. Clinton. Where as higher educated, young, and Yuppies voted for Sen. Obama. No such breakdown for the Republican race. Gee, I wonder what the wackjob rightwing emailers will make of this?

I expect to get the first email calling Sen. Clinton the Queen of Welfare Queens sometime before Thursday's lunch.

And now in the background I can hear the pundits on CNN talking about their reaction to watching Sen. Clinton's acceptance speech when "it should have been Sen. Obama's speech."

Can we bring W. Cronkite out of retirement and get sensible news again.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:24 PM by Steve Buchheit

Heh. I guess Senator Clinton ironed that dumbsh*t's shirt. Hee-hee.

Not a bad speech from her, either. My only disappointment was seeing Bill up there at the beginning. He needs to stay in the back room from now on.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:24 PM by Michael Weholt

Darn. I was hoping Paul would edge ahead of Giuliani. It would be tough for them to ignore that.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:26 PM by Allan Beatty

Andrhia @ #27: Not one thing. I was thinking it was the country Ted Rall suggested as W's refuge. My bad. It was Namibia. I fully realize Mauritania is blameless in this situation. I hope no Mauritanians were harmed in the correction of this episode.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:31 PM by LMB MacAlister

Great Hastur's Ghost, I've never seen a more messed-up post! Does ML not support Firefox in attempts to include links? Or is it just me?

Posted January 8, 2008 11:33 PM by LMB MacAlister

Moderator: broken (unclosed) <a> tag in post # 36. (Feel free to delete this when it's fixed.)

Posted January 8, 2008 11:34 PM by Clifton Royston sees unclosed tag

Cliff Royston, I retyped that three times, but each time it posted in that unformed state.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:36 PM by LMB MacAlister

p.s.--I'm really much more careful that that. And I've been typing HTML tags for many years.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:38 PM by LMB MacAlister

Hillary isn't my first choice, but kudos to her for proving the prognosticators wrong. Voters. You can't really tell what they'll do until they actually, you know, vote.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:47 PM by Steve C.

(The upfront disclaimer: I prefer Obama to Clinton but if she wins I'll vote for her and I won't have to hold my nose to do it.)

While I think Obama is probably better able to pull votes among the general electorate, the Clintons OWN the democratic party machine. Thus it doesn't surprise me that Obama can pull off a victory in a process as wide open and quirky as the Iowa Caucuses, but I still think Hillary's the most likely nominee. I never bought that "Obama by double digits" poll and couldn't believe it this morning when democratic blogs were openly wondering whether Hillary should stay in the race past NH. WTF??

NH is an open primary, but even here I was surprised that Obama did as well as he did. Going down the road, Hillary's access to the levers of party power is just going to wear Obama's numbers down. Wait until we get into some closed primaries.

But I think it's notable that this was for all practical purposes a tie. A couple percentage points might give her the perception of a win (and that's worth something) but they evenly split the delegates. And I think it's especially notable that John Edwards is doing as well as he is. If he can swallow his pride and accept that he's not going to be President, I think he becomes the kingmaker at the convention with a real good chance of being VP.

The big question is which candidate does he throw in with? Obama seems a more natural choice for him, but I can't see the Clinton camp letting him just run off and do that. If they've got the momentum going in, they've got to be looking at ways to get his supporters on their side.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:53 PM by John Sullivan

During the coverage on CNN, one of the talking heads starts going on about how terrible Bill C's campaigning for Hill C was, and how it was probably going to turn off lots of voters. He then went on to say:
"Maybe lots of people in the real world like Bill Clinton, despite how we feel about him."

He seemed shocked.

I was shocked that maybe someone actually got it -- that the highest-approval president of the last two decades was actually liked by the American people.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:54 PM by BSD

The link in #36 has been fixed. LMB MacAlister, for whatever reason, your "http" statement wasn't enclosed in double quotes, per the usual HTML spec.

Posted January 8, 2008 11:59 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

As for the question "Does ML not support Firefox", pish and also tush! I'm typing this in Firefox on my Thinkpad. Teresa is in the next room reading the web in Firefox on her Intel MacBook. The media-server G4 in the dining room has Firefox on its dock. We're all Firefox all the time, here at Casa NH.

Posted January 9, 2008 12:02 AM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Thanks, PNH. I'm surprised you could find what I was trying to link to, considering what I was given on each preview page.

Posted January 9, 2008 12:03 AM by LMB MacAlister

But my question remains, why couldn't I simply type in the appropriate html tags? (Well, I did, but they seemed to have been ignored.)

Posted January 9, 2008 12:15 AM by LMB MacAlister

LMB MacAlister, have you considered that it might be something at your end?

Posted January 9, 2008 12:23 AM by Avram

Does anyone else find it odd that for the last 2 years, all the major media have clearly been working from a script that said Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in, and now all of a sudden they've decided she doesn't exist and gone over to Obama? Could this be a "leading a pig" sort of tactic to push a Clinton nomination by way of just that kind of voter reaction?

Posted January 9, 2008 12:38 AM by Lee

Avram: Except that I haven't had any problems anywhere else. I certainly don't mean to cast any aspersions toward this esteemed blog, or its creators.

Posted January 9, 2008 12:44 AM by LMB MacAlister

Lee @ 49, I don't think they're that smart.

I was watching the News Hour and it was highly amusing to see David Brooks completely dumbfounded by the results (this was before it had been called for Hillary, with about 43% of precincts counted). He first said he thought the numbers were a mistake.

I heard some member of the chattering class (maybe Brokaw) saying Hillary had revived her campaign with this win, and I thought to myself "it wasn't two months ago you were saying she was the inevitable nominee, and suddenly she needs to revive her campaign after one caucus and one primary?"

Then the media wonders why it's held in disdain.

Posted January 9, 2008 12:49 AM by Linkmeister

Jim @ #18, thanks. The MSNBC page calls them counties (I imagine that's a template it throws up for lots of elections), so that's what I called 'em.

Posted January 9, 2008 1:21 AM by Linkmeister

Well, it's a little late, but Google has a map of what I think is county by county results.

Posted January 9, 2008 3:28 AM by Tania

ooh. My post with a link to the Google Map of the NH primary results just got held for review.

High in the glass-and-steel tower that is Making Light Headquarters your post is being examined under criteria both Mysterious and Arcane. Soon, if it passes High Level Review by our Gnomes, it will be released.

Posted January 9, 2008 3:32 AM by Tania

Michael Weholt @17:
With the Republicans staying on their side of the fence, no worries about voting machine fraud!

I wish I shared your confidence. But if you're trying to engineer a plausible Republican victory, surely some component of the process is to manipulate the choice of opponent?

I'm not saying any hanky-panky occurred, but I can't rule it out from lack of motive.

Posted January 9, 2008 3:39 AM by abi

Tania @53 54:

Well, what do you know? I had not seen that message before. Talking about strange messages, have you seen the "not found" haiku? Going on for more than two years since I first saw that and I still love it.

*walks away, whistling*

Posted January 9, 2008 3:49 AM by abi

LMB, I've had that happen a couple of times and I just go back to the comment page and original comment box, fix it there (where it hasn't been half-lost) and then click Preview again.

Posted January 9, 2008 4:00 AM by Marilee

Lizzy L @ 11: "The other thing to notice is that when you look at the numbers of total votes cast, the Democrats cast 59% of them, versus the Republicans 41%."

CNN doesn't have any info on the overall vote, so I had to add it up myself. Here are my numbers, with 96% of precincts reporting:

Total Democratic turnout: 279,276
Total Republican turnout: 228,531
Total total turnout: 507,807
Democratic percent of total: 55.00%
Republican percent of total: 45.00%

According to Ezra Klein, pollsters were predicting a turnout of 500,000, with 260,000 in the Democratic primary and 240,000 in the Republican. Projecting out from the current 96%, 100% turnout will be roughly 530,000 voters, with 290,00 Democratic voters and 240,000 Republicans. Looks like they underestimated the Democratic turnout.

CaseyL @ 32: "I really, really wish it were possible to have someone with Clinton's stamina and grit, and with Obama's personal flair and oratory."

Yeah, each of the leading candidates has such a unique set of strengths that I fantasize sometimes about cobbling together a perfect Frankenstein candidate. Built from Hilary's political know-how and endurance, Obama's rhetoric and vision, and Edward's deep populism and will to fight. That would be a candidate I could really get behind.

*Paging Dr. Heterodyne, paging Dr. Heterodyne--your patients are ready for you in Surgery One*

Posted January 9, 2008 4:49 AM by heresiarch

I don't like half her political views, but damn I hope she wins the presidential race. "Don't like half the political views" is about the best I think the US is willing to elect, and it would set a marvelous precedent in gender politics -- and that'll have an impact on actual lives in the country's future, whatever she does in office.

And Bill should make an awesome, uh... First Gentleman? Someone has to have figured out what the proper thing is to call a male First Lady by now, no? I think he might do better at it than he did as President, frankly. And I liked him fairly well as President.

Has anyone engendered (no pun intended) a discussion about the terminology involved in a man being married to the President? It seems like it should be a fascinating curiosity of language development.

Posted January 9, 2008 5:53 AM by A.J. Luxton

Someone asked Miss Manners about that very thing in today's Washington Post.

Posted January 9, 2008 6:38 AM by Debbie

I kept reading all those "Obama landslide" articles leading up to last night, how Obama was going to wipe away any chance that Clinton could make the nomination, beat her by 10 points or more, yada yada yada.

So I was pleased to see that the wannabee kingmakers were wrong. I'd vote for Clinton before Obama, but either one of them before any of the Republican candidates. This from a registered Republican who voted for their candidate from 1980 to the first Bush Sr administration, but not since.

Posted January 9, 2008 6:48 AM by John L

heresiarch @ 58... Paging Dr. Heterodyne, paging Dr. Heterodyne

Meanwhile, across the aisle, it's...
"Paging Dr Howard, Dr Fine, Dr. Howard!"

Posted January 9, 2008 6:51 AM by Serge

Tania @ 54... abi never mentioned Gnomes

I've been told by court lawners that their function is purely gnominal.

Posted January 9, 2008 6:54 AM by Serge

Abi #56: You left out the fnords....

Posted January 9, 2008 7:11 AM by Fragano Ledgister

Serge #63: O gnomon, gnomon, gno.

Posted January 9, 2008 7:12 AM by Fragano Ledgister

Michael Weholt (#29): Nobody can give a speech like Obama can give a speech.

Except maybe Bill :->

Regarding the more general topic of the appalling Hillary media coverage, as usual a picture is worth a thousand words, in this case, a picture by editorial cartoonist Tom Toles: http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080109/ltt080109.gif

Posted January 9, 2008 7:15 AM by JaniceG

Fragano @ 65... Humph. And there I was, thinking that my gnomic pun would elvate the level of discourse...

Posted January 9, 2008 7:40 AM by Serge

Serge #67: You were hoping to dwarf the opposition, were you?

Posted January 9, 2008 7:41 AM by Fragano Ledgister

A gnostic gnome meets a norn in a fjord. Comedy ensues.

Posted January 9, 2008 7:47 AM by Serge

Serge #69: Who drives a Fjord these days?

Posted January 9, 2008 8:00 AM by Fragano Ledgister

#63 Serge, I thought their function is purely gnomaniacal?

Posted January 9, 2008 8:03 AM by Steve Buchheit

#70 Fragano Ledgister, that would be the people who drove Gremlins back in the 70s.

Posted January 9, 2008 8:04 AM by Steve Buchheit

A.J. Luxton @ 59: Well, Bill has weighed in in favor of "First Laddy."

Posted January 9, 2008 8:13 AM by heresiarch

#42: I find the statement "in a process as wide open and quirky as the Iowa Caucuses" amusing. I remember, in 1988, when Dick Gephardt won the Iowa Caucus, the press attributed it to his masterful handling of the Democratic machine. i.e., he was able to get his supporters to the caucuses more effectively than anyone else. (This isn't to say that Obama couldn't have won it some other way. This is merely to testify on the self-validating nature of belief. i.e., Gephardt had a reputation for being a party insider. Obama has avoided this.)

I'll also note that Clinton and Edwards were in a statistical tie coming out of Iowa, but people keep insisting on referring to Clinton's "third place showing" in Iowa. If Clinton placed third in Iowa, then Obama placed second in NH. Using the delegate count as a measure, Obama got only one more delegate than Clinton. This is hardly the resounding win the press made the IA victory out to be, right? To be fair, minimizing Clinton's win in NH requires one to also minimize Obama's win in IA.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the narrative in this way: Obama gets full credit for all of his accomplishments. Clinton, on the other hand, does not. The so-called machine gets credit for her accomplishments. (She, of course, gets full credit for her failures.) Why is that, I wonder?

Obama is a highly skilled and polished politician. It's inconceivable to me that he got to where he is with no support from the Democratic party faithful. (If the Washington Post is to be believed, he raised 5x as much money in NH than Clinton.)

Likewise, absent allegations of voter fraud, I don't see how Clinton could have won any elections without actually appealing to the general populace. If the party machine is so powerful, why is there even a close race to begin with? If it's because the party machine isn't that powerful, then why even bother bringing it up?

As I've written before, I'm tired of the press crafting these large scale narratives which don't seem to have much basis in fact. (I love fiction, but not from my newspapers and news programs.) However, I have to wonder if all political narratives are self-validating. Maybe that's why they live on.

Posted January 9, 2008 8:41 AM by John Chu

heresiarch @58. Now there's a candidate we can ALL rally around!

I didn't realize this yesterday, but today I find that I'm rather pleased that Hillary won. Mainly because of the bug "phlbbttt!!!" it sends the to the MSM, and also because, you know, girls rule! (as my 6yo would say). Plus her policies are closer to Edwards.

Posted January 9, 2008 8:54 AM by mayakda

#55 abi:

Yep, the ability to fix the nominations in one or both parties would give you more power than the ability to just fix the final election. (You can't practically tamper with elections where the race is too one sided, because the tampering is obvious. Twice as many elections means twice as much opportunity to have close enough elections to fix. Besides, the spread out way the nomination is done probably lets you tamper with results in more subtle ways--say, changing the totals in the early primaries without changing the winner, so that the candidate who scares you the most comes in third or fourth instead of second, thus denying that candidate donations and media attention.)

I'll admit I find the underlying assumption that only Republicans would tamper with elections pretty amazing. That doesn't track with historical election fraud, nor does it track with unethical but legal crap like 30 second attack ads and gerrymandering, both of which are enthusiastically done by both parties. If elections can be fixed, folks in either party will happily fix them.

Posted January 9, 2008 9:08 AM by albatross

AJ #20:

Choosing a candidate based on who doesn't like them seems like it puts an awful lot of power in the hands of the bad guys. If Osama Bin Laden endorses the Democrat in the election, will you vote Republican?

Similarly, Ron Paul has been treated abominably by a bunch of the powers that be. But you may still want to look at his stand on the issues before you vote for him!

Posted January 9, 2008 9:13 AM by albatross

So who do you think is going to get the gnomination?

Posted January 9, 2008 9:22 AM by heresiarch

Fragano @ 70:

The Illuminati! Oh, wait...

Posted January 9, 2008 9:23 AM by A.J. Luxton

How my town voted:

Democratic primary:

Barack Obama 134 40%
Hillary Clinton 115 34%
John Edwards 50 15%
Bill Richardson 18 5%
Chris Dodd 2 1%
Mike Gravel 2 1%
Dennis Kucinich 2 1%
Joe Biden 0 0%

Republican primary:

John McCain 178 46%
Mitt Romney 67 17%
Mike Huckabee 59 15%
Ron Paul 35 9%
Rudy Giuliani 29 7%
Fred Thompson 2 1%
Duncan Hunter 1 0%

Posted January 9, 2008 9:25 AM by James D. Macdonald

heresiarch @ 78... So who do you think is going to get the gnomination?

The one who's the least ignoble?

Posted January 9, 2008 9:28 AM by Serge

Oh, somehow I missed that this digression started with fnord. Now I feel like a fool.

Oh well. That just means I should be sleeping. It's final exam season here.

On the title for husband-of-president: Miss Manners' answer lacked something... I rather like "First Laddy", but on some reflection I hope the media settles for "First Gentleman." It would bring the word 'gentleman' back into play and optimistically I imagine that would incline people to act as such more often.

Posted January 9, 2008 9:31 AM by A.J. Luxton

#82 AJ:

I have to say, I expect Bill Clinton as First Gentleman will behave in ways rather like wealthy, powerful gentlemen have traditionally behaved. But I'm not sure that's quite what you had in mind....

Posted January 9, 2008 9:43 AM by albatross

albatross @76:

I don't deny the desire of either party to manipulate voting results. Power attracts crooks the way flies attract vultures.

But my own views would be a lot less partisan if the CEO of one of the major electronic voting systems were a lot less partisan himself. Or if his company - which makes ATMS I have worked with, so I know they can do better - were producing somewhat less exploitable voting machines.

As it stands, means and opportunity for result manipulation are not evenly distributed between the parties. That kinda biases my evaluation of the possible.

Posted January 9, 2008 9:44 AM by abi

#78 heresiarch

The candidate with the best gnomenclature?

Posted January 9, 2008 9:51 AM by Steve Buchheit

heresiarch @ 58

Gives the term "political operative" a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

The only problem is that you might not get a surgeon with Agatha's ability, and end up with a candidate who has Obama's grit and agressiveness and Clinton's progressive vision. Then you'd have to cut large chunks off of Richardson to balance the stew out again.

Posted January 9, 2008 9:55 AM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

Abi @ 84... Back when problems with electronic voting machines became obvious, I remember reading an article that described the extensive process that casino machines go thru. To put it mildly, it is far more thorough than with voting machines. Maybe the makers of casino machines are more scared of unhappy owners of said devices.

"Ma Clinton is very unhappy, and she wants us to take you for a ride."

Posted January 9, 2008 10:13 AM by Serge

Interesting juxtaposition in CNN today (well, there are lots of them, starting with "How the campaign is like a NASCAR race"): The lead headline is "Clinton, McCain take the lead" but when you look at their charts of delegates, you find that McCain is in 3rd place by delegate count. Bad headline writing, or bias? You make the call.

Posted January 9, 2008 11:30 AM by C. Wingate

albatross, #76: That doesn't track with historical election fraud

Historically, the Democrats of the post-Depression years were arguably the worst of the election-fixers. But as the Civil Rights movement gained strength, that Democratic machinery defected whole-hog to the Republican side, especially after Strom Thurmond's infamous speech -- and they took all their corruption with them. Today's Republican elite are the direct descendants of those "yellow-dog Democrats" and share all their main characteristics. So saying that historically the Democrats have been just as corrupt as the Republicans misses an important point: it started out being the same people involved on both sides.

Posted January 9, 2008 11:38 AM by Lee

Now that the pollsters have been proven wrong about Obama/Clinton, they are now running around trying to figure out why. ABCNews has their "chief pollster" discussing the various reasons (including 'we were just wrong'), but points out that ALL the other predictions were spot on. Only the Obama/Clinton numbers were off.

Obama wins in Iowa and everyone falls over themselves to praise him. Clinton wins in NH and everyone runs around trying to figure out how that happened. I've even heard the fraud scenario brought up, just not from the MSM yet.

Posted January 9, 2008 11:47 AM by John L

Lee, that's only partly accurate, because it leaves out big city political machines like Tammany Hall in New York and Daley's Chicago/Cooke County. In the dire old era of big-city machine politics, which party was fixing elections depended entirely on which party was in power in a given city or state. A lot of western states had Republican machines, for example.

In terms of political machines in the Southern US, you are pretty much right on target, which is one of the reasons for the fear and loathing Certain Parties feel for the Civil Rights Act's voting provisos.

Posted January 9, 2008 11:49 AM by fidelio

I think Paul the K has possibly the ultimate comment on this upset.

Posted January 9, 2008 12:16 PM by Randolph Fritz

I'm getting a great deal of amusement out of the fact that Dennis Kucinich got more votes than Fred Thompson.

This is the same Fred Thompson whom conservatives were claiming would be the Republicsn savior, who would rescue them from all of the bad candidtes on the Republican side.

Hah!

Posted January 9, 2008 12:33 PM by robert west

The Hilary-haters are out in force today, and completely irrational as usual.

Yep, they're already claiming voter fraud, which for a state like New Hampshire seems really, really unlikely.

Oh, and the guy who was harassing Clinton with the "Iron my Shirts" sign is clearly on Clinton's payroll.

Oh, and those of us who complain about the sexism around the coverage of Hilary are, of course, wrong.

Grrr....

I agree with the "give me a candidate who's like Obama and Clinton." I could vote for either of them. Clinton's done some things I don't like, but I'd still like the chance to vote for her.

Posted January 9, 2008 12:40 PM by Laurie D. T. Mann

The problem is that people are desperate to know who's going to win in November. So we get the "It's Clinton!" "No, it's Obama!" "No, it's Clinton!"

"Impossible to tell at this point" is the closest to the truth, but it's not what people want to hear.

Posted January 9, 2008 12:44 PM by Alan Hamilton

I'm just enjoying the fact, this morning, that my vote in my primary (NY) is actually going to matter this time around. The night of Tuesday Feb 5 should be a fun... no, incredibly fun... no, cosmically fun evening, watching the returns come in... hmm, may have to plan something... gluten-free beer and chips for all, maybe....

Posted January 9, 2008 12:51 PM by Michael Weholt

A.J. 59/Debbie 60/others: I think the press will decide that he's the First Gentleman. Myself I think it should be First Lord, but that would cause a LOT of trouble. Come to think of it, that's part of what I like about it.

It's unprecedented (npi) for the spouse of a POTUS to be a former POTUS. But that's not even the leading thing that makes HRC unique.

Posted January 9, 2008 12:59 PM by Xopher

Here's what happened to the polls: The polls were of "likely primary voters."

But around 100,000 more voters turned out than ever before.

This primary was decided by unlikely voters.

(Oh -- and some folks who are being polled lie to the pollsters, as a matter of principle....)

Posted January 9, 2008 1:00 PM by James D. Macdonald

Michael at 96, I'm right there with you. California hasn't had a say in choosing the candidate since I don't know when (Reagan?) and that's ridiculous, considering that it's the most populous state in the union. February 5th should be a blast. I am stocking up on chips. James at 98, that's exactly what happened, you got it. I expect it to keep happening, at least on the Democratic side. A big confounding PFUI to the media.

Posted January 9, 2008 1:14 PM by Lizzy L

So if Obama is the Democrat's Reagan, as some pundits have suggested, does that mean Bush is the GOP's Jimmy Carter?

Posted January 9, 2008 1:41 PM by Steve C.

Serge @ 81

Only gnominally.

Posted January 9, 2008 2:02 PM by julia

#98: And, once again, the press enforced narrative doesn't work out. Unlikely voters were supposed to break for Obama. However, the unlikely voters decided the race for Clinton.

#100: Well, Jimmy Carter is an intelligent man.

Posted January 9, 2008 2:10 PM by John Chu

Good article by Rebecca Traister in Salon.com

Check it out.

Posted January 9, 2008 2:15 PM by Lizzy L

Steve C #100: No, Carter goes around the world making sure elections are open and fair. Unless we're talking, like, complete mirror world, in which case, yes, Bush is the Republican Carter.

Posted January 9, 2008 2:29 PM by ethan

When I'm comparing Carter to Bush (43), it's politically - I know that the two are nothing alike as people.

But as Presidents, both were undone by the Mideast and both have had similar approval ratings at the end of their terms.

No doubt Carter is a much better former President than W will be.

Posted January 9, 2008 2:44 PM by Steve C.

ethan, 104: This can't be the mirror universe--nobody's got those little goatees.

Posted January 9, 2008 2:58 PM by TexAnne

albatross wrote: Similarly, Ron Paul has been treated abominably by a bunch of the powers that be. But you may still want to look at his stand on the issues before you vote for him!

I have, here. And if even half of these quotes reflect his views, I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher.

Posted January 9, 2008 3:03 PM by JaniceG

TexAnne @106:
nobody's got those little goatees

O RLY?

Posted January 9, 2008 3:07 PM by abi

abi, 108: Clearly, Patrick is the evil twin! Serge, too, for that matter.

Posted January 9, 2008 3:27 PM by TexAnne

Ahem... First, TexAnne, I prefer thinking of myself not so much as evil but as ethically attenuated. Besides, whose twin am I? Abi?

Posted January 9, 2008 3:33 PM by Serge

Michael Weholt @ 29:
I tell you what, though. Nobody can give a speech like Obama can give a speech.

That matters to me a lot, and I'm not ashamed or embarrassed to say it.

I agree. The speech he gave last night moved me. I'd spent the evening rooting for Hillary and felt just a touch of regret. As somebody said earlier, it's too bad one of them has to lose.

It'd be amazing to have a president with that kind of oratorical power. I want him to be elected president in 2016. I want him to be elected vice president in 2008. I'm hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket. As much as I like Hillary, she's not a good orator. Having Obama stumping for the ticket would be huge. Bill could stay home.

I've never been so happy with the choices. I like all four of the leading dems, counting Richardson as the fourth.

Posted January 9, 2008 3:38 PM by mary

#107 JaniceG

But, you know how the Paul apologists are all saying "someone else wrote these essays..."

*sigh*

But when your name is on some garbage like that... He was pandering to the nutjobs in southern Texas. If he believed this crap, he's unfit for office. If he merely allowed his name to be used, he's just too cynical to be believed and is unfit for office.

Posted January 9, 2008 3:44 PM by Laurie D. T. Mann

Just amazing how much racism bothers the folks at Pajamas Media and TNR when it's coming from someone they want out of the primaries.

Bet Fox is gonna decide this is a dealbreaker too.

Posted January 9, 2008 3:53 PM by julia

#111: Yeah, I'd be happy with a Clinton/Obama ticket too. I don't know how happy Obama would be though.
[I also think there must be some way to use Bill...]

Posted January 9, 2008 4:00 PM by John Chu

Laurie,

or too incompent and unable to run an organization to be elected as president.

Posted January 9, 2008 4:01 PM by Nancy C. Mittens

#109 TexAnne: Clearly, Patrick is the evil twin!

I don't know about "evil", but for some time now I've been alarmed by the striking resemblance (except for the hair color) between Patrick and MSNBC's Political Director, Chuck Todd.

The similarities are even more striking when Todd is talking on the TV.

It could be an Anti-Christ doppelganger type deal going on there, or something, I dunno.

Posted January 9, 2008 4:03 PM by Michael Weholt

Oooh: votes for Democrats and Republicans broken down by their response to exit poll questions (McCain blew them all away in the angry or dissatisfied w/Bush demographic and iced Romney with college graduates and postgraduates?)

Posted January 9, 2008 4:12 PM by julia

I always did wonder if a doppelganger was someone who ran in a doppelgang...

Posted January 9, 2008 4:27 PM by abi

They rule doppelgangland. The mirror police are powerless to control them.

Posted January 9, 2008 4:32 PM by ethan

#110 Serge, my money is on a transporter malfunction.

Posted January 9, 2008 4:32 PM by Steve Buchheit

Steve Buchheit @ 120... Or Good Lazarus and Bad Lazarus?

Posted January 9, 2008 4:39 PM by Serge

Abi @ 118... I always did wonder if a doppelganger was someone who ran in a doppelgang...

And their mortal ennemy is the appelstrudelgang.

Posted January 9, 2008 4:40 PM by Serge

#121 Serge, you got a ship? To do the Lazarus thing you need the ship (if I remember my Trek correctly).

Now transporters, sometimes the Hiesenberg Compensators compensate one way, sometimes they go the other.

Posted January 9, 2008 4:43 PM by Steve Buchheit

What I hate are the transporters with the Hindenberg Compensators.

Posted January 9, 2008 4:49 PM by abi

abi @ 124 -

The Hindenberg Compensators are there to handle the inflammable gas that's emitted by the transportees.

Posted January 9, 2008 4:57 PM by Steve C.

abi #124: Without the Hindenburg compensators, the transporter room ends up in a superposition of blown up and not blown up states, and we don't find out which till Kirk opens the door.

Posted January 9, 2008 5:21 PM by albatross

Ethan, #119: They rule doppelgangland.

Does that mean they're all vampires?

Posted January 9, 2008 5:21 PM by Lee

That being said, I still haven't heard whose twin/alterego/whatever I am supposed to be.

Posted January 9, 2008 5:33 PM by Serge

A lot of Americans are pissed off at the big corporate media telling them/us who we want to be our candidate.

Posted January 9, 2008 5:52 PM by Stu Shiffman

#112 Laurie D. T. Mann: But, you know how the Paul apologists are all saying "someone else wrote these essays..."

Agreed that either he did write them, in which case he's a racist and anti-Semite, or he didn't write them but allowed his name to be used without any oversight and then blamed the text on underlings, in which case I wouldn't want to put him in charge of anything important like, say, the US government!

Posted January 9, 2008 6:44 PM by JaniceG

@98

I know I do.

I also believe that election results in the general election should not be posted until all the states have closed their polls.

Posted January 9, 2008 6:57 PM by Victoria

#130 JaniceG: ...without any oversight and then blamed the text on underlings, in which case I wouldn't want to put him in charge of anything important like, say, the US government!

But the Republicans are The Adults. They take responsibility. They never blame anything on their underlings.

I can't imagine what might make you suspect otherwise.

Posted January 9, 2008 6:59 PM by Michael Weholt

I've been thinking about NH, Hillary Clinton, etc. and reading a lot of blog comments, especially about stuff I didn't see or hear, such as Chris Matthew's comments. The sexist subtext is really clear. These guys (you can fill in the names as you think appropriate) cannot deal with a 60 year old woman who has never gotten a Botox injection and doesn't give a flying fuck what the (especially) male media members think of her hair, her voice, or her legs. The idea that this female person might be President of the United States is intolerable to them. Deep down inside they think that Eleanor Roosevelt, Madeleine Albright, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir are figures of fun, or of contempt. They are ugly old woman. Only virile men, or men they define as virile, (Bush, McCain) are permitted to have real power.

I was not planning to vote for Hillary Clinton, and may not, ever. But I am really angry on her behalf.

Posted January 9, 2008 7:16 PM by Lizzy L

Lizzy 133: I'm planning on voting for her on February 5. And I hope to vote for her again in November.

And I think a country run by "ugly old women" would be a better nation than we have now. But then I'm a Wiccan, and perhaps I overestimate the wisdom of Crones.

Posted January 9, 2008 7:27 PM by Xopher

If nothing else, Obama and Hillary Clinton are raised middle fingers at the old-style establishment and the smug media.

You know what I'd like to see? A return to the old-style news conferences that FDR had. No TV, just the reporters around the desk. Then they can go out and by God write what they learned, instead of trying for a juicy gotcha or a sound-bite.

I know. Won't happen.

Posted January 9, 2008 7:49 PM by Steve C.

Steve Buchheit #70: As long as they didn't drive Edsels in the 50s.

Posted January 9, 2008 8:05 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Lizzy @133,

You said exactly what I didn't know I was noticing.

I also think they appear to have a bias against partnerships, i.e. a couple with each person being friends with the other--loving the other--based on the other's thoughts and actions and goals, but not looks (and adherence to traditional gender roles).

It's as if they think powerful men should be rewarded with supermodels, and that powerful women... powerful women should try to look like rewards too.

(Although there are the Doles (Robert and Elizabeth) and other power couples in DC one hears about.)

Still, I'd have thought that by the 21st century this stuff would have gone away more than it has.

Posted January 9, 2008 8:21 PM by Kathryn from Sunnyvale

[disclaimer: I am an Obama supporter]

I am thoroughly pleased to see the national news media - not to mention the clowns who call themselves pundits - made to look like the idiots they are. I am glad to see that Hillary's victory is going to (for the moment) make the media treat this like the race it is.

Ultimately, I am hoping that Obama wins the nomination (or is part of the ticket at the very least). But I can't see how it will be anything but beneficial for the party to keep this a race as long as possible IF they can manage to avoid providing a road map for the Republinazis to beat them in the fall.

It is going to be up to every Democrat of whatever stripe to make damn sure that the "SwiftBoaters" and the media don't steal yet another election.

Posted January 9, 2008 8:46 PM by Scott D-S

Kathryn @ 137... I'd have thought that by the 21st century this stuff would have gone away more than it has

Is it my imagination, or do a woman's looks matter even more now than even in the 1960s?

Posted January 9, 2008 8:57 PM by Serge

In the mirror universe, Serge doesn't like puns at all.

Ron Paul has become a real internet phe-gnome-non.

Xopher @ 134: I had a sudden image of President Clinton striding into a Cabinet meeting, hands covered in blood and clutching an obsidian blade. "The signs point towards raising the Federal interest rate .05%. Anyone feel like arguing?"

Posted January 9, 2008 8:59 PM by heresiarch

#138 Scott D-S: I can't see how it will be anything but beneficial for the party to keep this a race as long as possible IF they can manage to avoid providing a road map for the Republinazis to beat them in the fall.

Well, that's the danger I see. The closer the primaries are and the longer and harder the slog, the more Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are likely to campaign on negatives of the other candidates' ideas and qualifications. And the more they do that, the more they provide the eventual Republican nominee with ammunition against the eventual Democratic nominee during the actual election.

Posted January 9, 2008 9:12 PM by JaniceG

heresiarch @ 140... In the mirror universe, Serge doesn't like puns at all.

You wish.

In the Evil Universe, he ties people down to chairs and forces them to listen to one pun after another, each lamer than the one before, for hours, like in Clockwork Orange.

Posted January 9, 2008 9:35 PM by Serge

Per Google, it's methylsulfonylmethane. Or, per mayakda@75 and others:

... today I find that I'm rather pleased that Hillary won. Mainly because of the bug [big] "phlbbttt!!!" it sends the to the MSM.

What is MSM?

Posted January 9, 2008 10:11 PM by Brenda Kalt

I blinked at "MSM" too but finally figured out from context that it probably means "mainstream media"

Posted January 9, 2008 10:27 PM by JaniceG

JaniceG @144: Aha! I think you've got it. I'll add this to my list of modernities. Thanks for the tip.

Posted January 9, 2008 10:48 PM by Brenda Kalt

#138: Sadly, the Democrats have a track record of wanting to be the Democratic nominee so much that they scuttle their chances of actually winning the White House. i.e., they attack each other so much that whoever ends up being the nominee is damaged goods.

For some reason, the Republicans usually avoid this.

Posted January 9, 2008 11:21 PM by John Chu

First, if Ron Paul did simply let someone write these horrible things in his name, he let them do if for years and supposedly never noticed. And some people want this guy at the head of the government? Of course it should be remembered that Ron Paul is philosophically close to the folks at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, many of which don't believe in any government at all. Then you can always read what he wrote at www.lewrockwell.com. But if you do the latter, don't stop at just one. Oh, no. Wh