Jump to content
ZASHAGALKA ZASHAGALKA (New Member) New Member

"It's a Crying Shame"

Politics   (8,945 Views 146 Comments)
18,220 Visitors; 3,996 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

“It’s a Crying Shame. . .”

Copyright 1/9/08 Zashagalka (Used by permission, of course!)

How did she do it? How did Hillary defy double-digit election eve polling predicting her defeat in New Hampshire? Even her internal polls, not to mention Barack (Barry) Obama's internals, predicted her double-digit loss. Just the day before, Team Clinton was wildly spinning that a less than ten-point loss would be a ‘moral’ victory. Really? What exactly, then, does that make an ‘outright’ victory?

How did she do it? Was it the vaunted, unstoppable Clinton Machine? Was it dirty tricks, or, can only Republicans play such games? Was it the so-called Bradley/Wilder effect? Maybe it was Independents, sure of the win for Barry, defecting to aid Big Mac on the other aisle? What if it was that infamous teary dust-up on election eve?

It had to be the crying.

If anything, Barry’s rise in the last few weeks has shown the chinks in the Clinton armor. She CAN be beat. Iowa proved that. When it comes right down to it, she’s just not very likeable, to a whole host of people. Including more than a few Democrats. She might be likeable enough for Barry, but that might not be enough. Hillary isn't her husband. She can be beat. Barry was already in his groove. What changed between Iowa and New Hampshire? According to even late-breaking polls, nothing changed. No. The Clinton Machine was just as stoppable on primary day as it was on last week’s caucus day.

Would Hillary resort to any means to get the nomination? WWHD? Even dirty tricks? It was Clinton operatives pretending to be dissidents at her rally, screaming, “Iron my clothes!” If they were real, what you would have heard next would have been, “Don’t Taze me, Bro!” Of course they were plants. But, was that enough to drown out a Barry-nami? Was a simple nod to gender bias enough? Maybe they bused in extra votes? That ‘we shouldn’t verify who votes’ thingy could cut both ways. Barryiacs at their blogs are claiming just these kinds of tricks. But surely, no Democrat would dishonor another like that. That would almost be as dirty as keeping FBI records on potential opponents. In any case, would even the dirtiest tricks have been enough, in this case?

Last week, the mainstream media was gushing about how racially neutral we’ve become when a 95% white State like Iowa could nominate a black man. Kumbaya. If you’re gonna lie about your choice (biases), in order to be politically correct/fashionable, then that lie requires you to continue right through to a vote in a caucus State. Caucuses require you to publicly support your man. What about secret-ballot primaries? Did people misrepresent their true choice to pollsters out of peer pressure? You may have heard this explanation, but surely, the mainstream media hasn’t focused upon it. More recent elections, such as Harold Ford’s Tennessee Senate run last year, have proven that you can accurately poll minority candidates. Besides, the late break in New Hampshire was almost exclusively among women. Unless only New Hampshire women are racially biased, this just can’t fully explain it.

How about those famous New Hampshire Independent voters? If they knew (or thought they knew) that Barry was in the bag, could they have decided to influence the Republican race instead? After all, there was very high turnout. Maybe if those Indies had stayed true to their first choice, Barry would have pulled it out, right along with Mitt. The problem with this scenario is that while the Democratic vote was a complete shock, the Republican vote was right along the lines of expectation. A drain on Barry would have needed to show up as an identical gain for Big Mac. Big Mac DID win, but only by expected margins.

Maybe all of the above explanations, each and individually, played a small but cumulative role. Could that be enough to explain this?

Maybe it was the crying. The steely woman showed some emotion. She’s human, after all. It was the crying. Hillary out-Oprah’d Barry. It was shrewd, clever, human, and possibly even real. Probably. That it was likely a real moment is the beauty of it. It’s what made it work. You can imagine how Hillary had to be feeling, after her week. No, you don’t have to imagine it – you can see it in her face. You can hear it in her voice. It was a genius moment, even more genius in its authenticity. Of course it was the crying. It’s not like that clip wasn’t played, everywhere and repeatedly. Hillary at a weak moment! Gotcha! Except. Women know all about those kind of weak, impossible moments. That made all the difference. THAT accounts for a women-voter swing so late-breaking that no poll predicted it.

It had to be the crying.

Here’s the thing. If it was planned, it was sheer genius. If it wasn’t, it was luckily brilliant. It doesn’t matter. Here’s what matters: having worked, she’ll go to it again. She will simply have to do so. The dynamics of the race haven’t changed: Barry is still booming and Hillary still isn’t likeable. She will rush right out, in the next crunch time, and show her ‘humanity’. That’s such a fine like to walk. The difference between authenticity and being played is too fine for even the Clintons to measure. So, she will overplay her humanity.

When she DOES overplay it, Barry could become unstoppable. I wasn’t sure she could really implode, until I saw how she avoided it. Don’t be surprised if ‘The Cry’ doesn’t end up ranking right up there with ‘Dean’s Scream’ and ‘Dukakis’ Tank Ride’. First reactions can be markedly different after a few weeks of pondering. Hillary’s next desperately needed ‘human’ moment will likely cast doubt on the authenticity of THIS human moment.

That might be enough to do her in.

That’s too bad. Even being careful what you wish for, Hillary is the best candidate for the eventual Republican challenger. I really do hope Hillary gets the nomination. After all, she isn’t very likeable, to a whole host of people. If overplaying this miraculous turn of events ends up doing her in, well, that would be a crying shame.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy.

If I get back into my writing groove, next week I'll write about WHY Hillary is the best choice for Republicans to run against. Even being careful what you wish for.

Even is she were to win. Better a strongly opposed Hillary in the WH than a motivated, energized radical.

I hope she beats Barry. I just fear that she will wind up being too clever by far. After all, she's not her husband. (President Clinton, btw, all but suggested today that his wife should cry much more often. THAT is the whole point of my commentary. Doing so will totally undermine this perfect, probably authentic moment.)

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read Dreams from my Father?

No. Is it a book? A post?

I don't have consistent internet access here in Houston. I'll have to get back to you later.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly think that crying won her this election?

What about that maybe enough people in New Hampshire prefered her, is that a possiblity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You honestly think that crying won her this election?

What about that maybe enough people in New Hampshire prefered her, is that a possiblity?

That is a possibility for her total vote count, but it doesn't explain consistent double-digit trailing as late as the night before the election.

Polls CAN get things wrong. When EVERY poll gets it wrong, well outside the margin of error, then you have to wonder, why?

Why?

I do honestly think she cried herself to victory in New Hampshire. I only think it worked because it was more or less, genuine.

It won't work again.

Let's put it this way: the other bandied about reasons, of which I discussed, don't fit the picture. What could make for a 15 point election twist overnight, when almost ALL of that change came from women. Yes. Hillary out-Oprah'd Barry.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do honestly think she cried herself to victory in New Hampshire. I only think it worked because it was more or less, genuine.

Don't know about others, but I'm smart enough not to fall for that kind of crap and I'd hate to think that NH voters were that easy to manipulate - genuine or not. I haven't had time to read the Post, but I just can't imagine her winning that easily because she cried. Give me agendas and ideas and then maybe I'll vote for you. I don't vote for a candidate out of sympathy and that's a pretty pathetic way to vote IMO.

In fact, crying turns me off. Suck it up. Heck, I don't cry at funerals or weddings or births for that matter.

Admin Note: video added

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVlwH7-05Fk[/YOUTUBE]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/09/voter-who-made-clinton-cry-picked-obama/

But Clinton's tearful moment failed to win at least one Granite State voter-the very woman who prompted her response in the first place.

Marianne Pernold-Young told CNN Wednesday she ultimately picked Barack Obama in Tuesday night's primary because of the Illinois senator's performance at a recent rally she attended.

The article makes it sound as if her eyes welled up, and maybe a tear or two dropped but it wasn't like it was a 2 year old's tears and screams during a tantrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to think that it is important to refer by candidates by their proper names out of simple respect. Mr. Obama has always been referred to as Senator or Barack or Mr. Obama to my knowledge.

"Barry" is disrespectful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I happen to think that it is important to refer by candidates by their proper names out of simple respect. Mr. Obama has always been referred to as Senator or Barack or Mr. Obama to my knowledge.

"Barry" is disrespectful.

I agree. It even took me a few minutes to figure out who Timothy was talking about. I don't like our current president but I don't call him "W" or the Prez. It's President Bush, Mr Bush, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also try hard to call officials by their title and surname. "Dr. Smith" rather than "john" and such.

I admit I've called Senator Clinton "Hillary".

Dreams from my Father is the autobiography Senator Obama wrote in the early ninties. Seems until he graduated college he was called "Barry" by friends and family.

Now that he is running for President the book is republished - http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Story-Inheritance/dp/0307383415/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199980989&sr=8-2

I read it the same year I read The Kite Runner. Both books show the profound influence a father has on sons. I think it is the same with daughters.

When I listened to last Saturdays debate I was turned off when Senator Obama said, "Hillary, you are nice enough." It seemed a touch rude.

If people were planning to vote for Senator Clinton and rethought after the Iowa caucus that though could easily have caused the to rethink.

Remember she has been ahead in poll after poll from December 2006 until just days before the primary:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

I wonder how many voted absentee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the pundits, all the talk shows, all the news shows talked about Hillary's crying being the impetus for her win in NH. Timmy's right.

Rush and Shawn even mentioned a poll that said 25% of Republican women were moved by her crying. That drives me crazy.

You should vote for a person based on their belief system. On their record. Not whether they are black, white, male, female, crying, whatever.

I watched and heard Hillary's tearful interview. It didn't change my mind.

steph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×