"Case Study: LSD"
CLE
I’m stuck all day in a Holiday Inn Select, listening to 12 hours of lectures as part of my annual Continuing Legal Education Requirement.
Sigh. Why can’t legal education be more like this?
Not Exactly The Pina Colada Song, But Close
WARSAW, Poland – A Polish man got the shock of his life when he visited a brothel and spotted his wife among the establishment’s employees.
Polish tabloid Super Express said the woman had been making some extra money on the side while telling her husband she worked at a store in a nearby town.
"I was dumbfounded. I thought I was dreaming," the husband told the newspaper on Wednesday.
The couple, married for 14 years, are now divorcing, the newspaper reported.
Breaking News: Richardson Bows Out Of ’08 Race; 6.5 Magnitude Off Of Oregon Coast
The two are not apparently related.
Who’s The Dumbest Person In The World?
Today, at least, it’s Matt Barber, Cultural Director for the Concerned Women for America (yes, that’s Matt Barber and the Concerned Women for America — hee hee, we never get tried of that!)
Who’s The Worst Person In The World?
It’s not Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It’s not even Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot or Adolph Hitler. No, according to Keith Olbermann — that blinkered liberal extremist who plays a newsman on TV — Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), is "the worst person in the world."
Okay. Olbermann picks three people to be the "Worst Person In The World" every day. He’s not talkin about "the worst person" of all time, throughout all history.
So right away, Matt is off to a bad start.
While discussing abstinence education during a recent interview on the Fox News Channel’s Special Report, Wright accurately pointed out that the most strident devotees of that abysmal failure tagged "comprehensive sex education" are most likely to benefit financially when children and teens become pregnant or contract sexually transmitted diseases.
Why is "comprehensive sex education" an "abysmal failure"? Matt doesn’t say. He doesn’t say because it simply ain’t true. In fact, the "abysmal failure" is not "comprehensive sex education" but rather, it’s polar opposite: abstinence-only education. For 14 years, the teen birth rate has declined. Then in the mid-2000’s, abstinence education was introduced around the country, and — voila — teen births are rising up again. As are STDs.
Call me crazy, but I would call that a "failure".
During the interview, Wright hit the nail squarely on the head, saying, "In fact, they want to encourage [kids to have sex] because they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions. So, you have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed."
This is not only the biggest lie of the whole Barber piece, but the most transparent. But let’s get to the meat of what he’s saying:
And the financial motives are staggering. According to its own annual report, Planned Parenthood — which receives its lion’s share of profit from abortion — performed 264,943 abortions in the 2006 fiscal year, raking in an astronomical $55.8 million in profit … free and clear.
There it is. Now a quick glance might cause one to think that Planned Parenthood achieved a $55.8 million dollar profit, strictly from abortions.
In fact, if you look at the Annual Report of Planned Parenthood (available online), a number of things stand out.
First of all, we learn that PP is a non-profit organization. So, there’s that.
Now it’s true that non-profit organizations deal with money. They perform services. Doctors and other employees get paid. But Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report makes it clear that it does not actually have a net plus from its medical services. Its expenses for its "medical services" far exceed, by hundreds of millions of dollars, its revenues from its health centers.
And by the way, what are these medical services? Well, surprise, surprise. Mostly providing contraception. 37% of its medical services is that. STD and HIV screening account for another 29%. Cancer screening is another 20%. How much of PP’s medical services are devoted to abortions?
Three percent.
And nowhere in the report does it say that it receives "the lion’s share of profit from abortion" — that’s simply not true.
Now, does PP have a net plus on its balance sheet? Sure. But that’s mostly due to government grants. Not from its medical services (a small portion of which, as we’ve seen, include abortions).
So Planned Parenthood is making massive profits from abortions? Matt is simply lying here, again.
It doesn’t take a Phi Beta Kappa to figure out that Planned Parenthood — one of the foremost cheerleaders of "comprehensive sex ed" — has a vested interest in seeing that young girls become pregnant and have abortions. It’s a classic case of "the fox watching the hen house." "Comprehensive sex ed" spells money in the bank because it actually encourages kids to have sex. It doesn’t work, and they know it.
This is insipidly stupid logic.
Think about it. If Planned Parenthood had a "vested interest" in seeing that young girls become pregnant, then why do they devote 37% of their medical services — the largest portion — to contraception? And only 3% to abortions? Isn’t that shooting themselves in the foot?
Well, Wright’s comments didn’t sit well with the left. Liberal bloggers went nuts, and in a recent episode of MSNBC’s poorly rated "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," the painfully "progressive" talking-head took issue with Wendy for pointing out this clear conflict of interest, crowning her "the worst person in the world."
I didn’t see the show, but I don’t think it was merely because Wendy had a "conflict of interest". I think it was because she was an idiot, spouting the same idiot talking points we see here.
Toward the end of his decidedly obtuse monologue, Olbermann — whose joke writer is also apparently on strike — smugly quipped, "And the condoms the sex educators keep trying to make available to the kids, those are for what … water balloons?"
Well, Poindexter, yes, in fact. That’s precisely what kids are using them for. Take the African AIDS epidemic. As CWA reported a few years back, Dr. Margaret Ogola of Kenya testified at two United Nations conferences that, "’family planners’ have put so many condoms into Kenya that the children use them as balloons and play with them in the streets."
And is that happening in America, Mr. Barber?
Tragically, we all know how "comprehensive sex education" has worked-out in Africa.
No we don’t. Because there hasn’t been comprehensive sex education in Africa. perhaps that’s why children use them as balloons, hmmmm?
Unfortunately, it’s no better right here at home.
He doesn’t have the facts to prove it though, which is why he has to point to Africa (and STILL get it wrong).
Despite a culture that relentlessly extols the phantom virtues of so-called "safe sex" and practically throws condoms at children by the handful, STD and teen pregnancy rates remain high.
And as noted above, they only went up AFTER the institution of abstinence-only education.
Like a broken record, liberal educators and cultural elites incessantly regurgitate, "always have safe sex," while the only thing impressionable, hormone charged kids hear is, "have sex!"
Hmmm. Well, presumably then, when you tell those same kids "Don’t have sex", they will only hear the last two words. Right?
Of course, "safe sex" is code for "use a condom," and everyone knows that condoms are anything but reliable. It’s like telling kids to walk a paper thin latex tightrope. There’s a good chance it’ll snap and there’s no safety net below.
Barber conveniently ignores the point of course that "comprehensive sex education" includes abstinence teaching. Heck, I even remember that. They said, "The safest method of sex is to not have it at all. The second safest is to use contraception." And someone I and billions of other "impressionable, hormone charged" kids were able to retain that information. Really, it’s not that complicated a message.
And a "good chance" they’ll snap? Three percent?
Even radical feminists such as the vice president of the Gainesville, Florida, National Organization for Women (NOW) and a "committee chair" of the University of Florida NOW, publicly admitted during testimony before a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hearing that condoms failed them personally — sometimes on multiple occasions. If experts like NOW feminists can’t use condoms effectively, how can we expect children to?
Easy answer — We can’t.
Um, yes we can. You see, those women were testifying before the FDA to promote the approval of Plan B (the so-called morning after pill). Forgot to mention that little detail didn’t you, Matt?
Look, we know that abstinence is the only foolproof method guaranteed to prevent unwanted teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Yet the many successes associated with abstinence education go completely unreported by a biased media, as a handful of rigged studies conducted by "comprehensive sex ed" proponents make headlines.
Yes. All those biased "rigged studies". Not like the studies you find if you click on Matt’s link. For example, did you know that a study conducted by the Virginia Department of Health’s Virginia Abstinence Education Initiative concluded that abstinence education is effective when compared to not having any program at all? Who knew???
It’s a clear attempt to undermine the impressive success of abstinence education, while — at the same time — endeavoring to salvage its failed "comprehensive sex ed" counterpart. If it weren’t so serious, it’d be funny. Still, Planned Parenthood is laughing all the way to the bank.
Yes, those crafty bastards at Planned Parenthood. Providing abortion and other medical services to low-income people. What a money maker that must be.
So, congratulations Wendy. It’s obvious from the left’s reaction to your comments that you struck a tender nerve. Anytime you inject truth into the analysis, they go apoplectic.
Injecting truth in the analysis?
And if Olbermann is the chief protagonist for liberal thought, I think the conservative movement is going to be just fine. Anytime you’ve got Keith Olbermann’s goat, you know you’re doing something right.
Well, that’s the goal of course, isn’t it? To get the goat of a TV pundit?
Cooking Instructions
Not to make light of mental illness, but:
HAYDEN, Idaho (AP) — A man who believed he bore the biblical "mark of the beast" used a circular saw to cut off one hand, then he cooked it in the microwave and called 911, authorities said.
***
The Book of Revelation in the New Testament contains a passage in which an angel is quoted as saying: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury."
The book of Matthew also contains the passage: "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for you whole body to do into hell."
Okay, so mistake number one: he forgot the wine. Mistake number two: there’s nothing in the Bible about using the microwave.
Men Are From Mars; Women Are … Oh, You Know
As a public service to men, Cheryl translates what women mean when they say certain things.
So, as a public service to women, I’m going to tell you what men think when women say those same things.
1. Fine – This is a word we use to end an argument when we are right, and you need to shut up.
Male rejoinder: When we hear you say this word (at the end of an argument), we hear it as you saying "I give up. But I can’t admit it, so I’m going to tell myself I’m right and move on."
2. Five Minutes – If we are getting dressed, this means half an hour. However, five minutes is only five minutes if you have been given five more minutes to watch the game or play (insert brand gaming system here) before helping around the house.
Male rejoinder: Yeah, we know. We’ve already taken that into account. That’s why we say, "We have to leave in 5 minutes" about half an hour before we actually have to leave. But that gaming system think ticks us off.
3. *Nothing* – This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with *nothing* usually end in "Fine" (see #1).
Male rejoinder: We like it when you say "nothing". Because then we get to go about our business undistrubed by you. You go in to the kitchen or bedroom and fume; we get another uninterrupted half hour of World of Warcraft.
4. Go Ahead – This is a dare, not permission. DON’T DO IT!!
Male rejoinder: We do it, and then play the "But you said to". (Maybe even "See, I do listen to you!")
5. Loud Sigh – This is not actually a word but a non-verbal statement often misunderstood. A loud sigh means we think you are an idiot and wonder why we are wasting our time standing here arguing with you about *nothing*. (see #3).
Male rejoinder: Although we don’t think we’re idiots, we wonder why you waste your time arguing about nothing, too.
6. That’s Okay – This is one of the most dangerous statements we can make. "That’s okay" means we want to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.
Male rejoinder: Yeah, but we got the statute of limitations defense. When you finally decidehow we’ll pay, the moment has passed. And If you intend to make us pay, we simply go, "Uh, that was last April. What’s wrong with you?"
7. Thanks – We are thanking you. Do not question or faint. Just say, "You’re welcome."
Male rejoinder: We’re thrown by "thanks", especially when it sounds sincere. Sincerity is unusual (see #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, and #9)
8. Whatever – Our way of saying F#%!! YOU!
Male rejoinder: Yeah, but it’s not "fuck you", so we roll with it.
9. Don’t Worry About It, I Got It – Another dangerous statement, meaning there’s something we’ve told you to do several times, but will now take care of ourselves.
Male rejoinder: Suuuucker!
Vampire Drain
You might not be aware of this, but many of your electrical appliances cost you electricity even if you don’t use them — even when they are "turned off".
Often these "off" appliances are in "passive mode" (i.e., the clock on your microwave) or in "standby mode" (A VCR waiting to record a show). And being in those modes uses power.
A good graphic by Good Magazine shows how much this can cost you per year.
The biggest culprit? Your plasma TV. Even if you never "turned it on" to watch it for an entire year, it would still run you almost $160 per year in electric bills.
Something to think about if you want to go green….
What The Hell Am I Eating?
I decided to have a healthy lunch today (I need to do this more often), so I went for the salad bar. I also got me a packet of french dressing to put on it.
That’s when I noticed something. They only had packets of Hellman’s "French-Style Dressing".
Now, they had "Russian Dressing" (no "style" there). They had "Ranch Dressing" (no "style" there either). And plopped right there among them, clearly embarrassed by its name — "French Style Dressing".
What’s that all about? Is there some government regulation that requires certain ingredients to be present in order for something to be called "French Dressing" (and no similar requirements for, say Italian Dressing or Russian Dressing)?
Turns out, the answer is yes. To be bonafide "french dressing", you have to go through all kinds of leaps and hurdles, something my pathetic little packet of salad dressing failed to do. (I’m guessing it was the percentage of vegetable oil content, but I can’t be sure — I make it habit not to look too closely at the ingredients of things I eat).
Lucky italian and russian dressing apparently don’t have to undertake such an onerous burden.
Doesn’t seem fair somehow, and I hope the next president will bring change to this unjust and prejudicial system.
The Media’s Role In Campaigns
This exchange last night between Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews is revealing:
BROKAW: You know what I think we’re going to have to do?
MATTHEWS: Yes sir?
BROKAW: Wait for the voters to make their judgment.
MATTHEWS: Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess.
BROKAW: No, no we don’t stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they’re saying. We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this.
But we don’t have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process.
Look, I’m not just picking on us, it’s part of the culture in which we live these days. I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don’t begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding, in many cases, as we learned in New Hampshire when they went into the polling booth today or in the last three days. They were making decisions very late.
Tom, of course, is right. The role of the media should be to examine the candidates, their stances on the issues, and the like.
Tellingly, this seems lost on Matthews, who thinks it’s about the horserace. Who thinks the selection of the next leader of the free world is a sideshow akin to "The Amazing Race" and "Survivor". Hey, if we can’t opine on who gets kicked off the island, Chris thinks, what purpose do we serve?
Well, for "journalists" like Chris Matthews, who thinks politics is about petty personality conflicts, meaningless trivia and gossip, perhaps they have no purpose. (Shoot, that’s what blogs are for!)
As for me, I say more Cronkite journalism, less Drudge. Know what I mean?
UPDATE: Matthews shows his true colors again this morning:
Last night, Matthews said: "I give her a lot of personal credit; I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again."
But by this morning Matthews had already forgotten his newfound respect for her. He said: "The reason she’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front-runner, is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win it on the merits…"
Put aside for a sec just how loathsome this statement is on its own terms. The larger point here is that a mere half-day after acknowledging that he’d gotten it wrong and that she deserved a lot of "personal credit" for winning over voters, Matthews was already imposing his own narrative on her entire political career, the current race included, saying that her past and current success have nothing to do with "the merits."
Surely the voters don’t see Hillary this way. But already Matthews is back to speaking for the voters again, oversimplifying complex voter sentiment in the most crude and reductive fashion he can muster.
RELATED: Paul Bagala has an amusing post about Fox News, and how they reported yesterday that he was joining the Clinton campaign. It wasn’t true, and when he informed Fox of this, he was told that it would be "taken under advisement". Nevertheless, the story continued to be reported throughout the day. Begala has the emails.
Shorter Gloria Steinem
NYT:
I don’t want this to be a competition as to who has it worse: Obama facing racism, or Clinton facing sexism. It’s unseemly to make this make comparisons as if it were a competition. But, you know, Clinton has it worse.
I Don’t Think You Can Do That
In New York (ah, only in New York), two guys tried to cash their friend’s social security check. Their friend had died, but they thought they could cash the check if they dragged (well, wheeled more like — they used an office chair) their dead friend to the bank. Which they did:
"Witnesses observed Mr. Cintron flopping from side to side and these individuals propping him up as they rolled along," said NYPD spokesman Paul Browne.
The men left Cintron’s body outside while they went into Pay-O-Matic, where Cintron always cashed his checks, police said.
An employee recognized the name on the $355 check, and when he asked to see Cintron, O’Hare said, "He’s outside. We’ll get him," according to police.
"They were trying to pass the guy off as alive," Pay-O-Matic clerk Mariano Galvez told the Daily News. "They just left the body in the chair outside."
The casual corpse on the sidewalk at 3:45p.m. drew a large crowd, including an on-duty detective who was eating lunch at a restaurant next-door.
Needless to say, the men were arrested.
Election 2008 Analysis: New Hampshire Final Results
Some slightly-organized thoughts:
Democrats
(1) Why Hillary won. Because she got more votes.
(2) No seriously. Why Hillary won. I think there are a number of factors that came in to play. Most voters made their decision in the past few days, so that’s where my focus is.
First, the last debate. I thought Edwards "won" it, but for people who were on the Obama-vs-Clinton fence, I think Clinton pulled more voters into her camp. Obama, while not commiting any gaffes, left his charisma in the hotel room that day. It didn’t help him.
Second, Hillary’s "tearful moment". The more I think about it, the more I think this really put Hillary over the edge. It was really almost a non-event. As the video (in the post below) shows, she really didn’t cry. Her eyes welled up slightly and her voice shook. But that was it.
Now what was it about the "tearful moment" that New Hampshireites saw? Did they see a woman falling apart? No, they saw what I saw — a woman keeping it together. In other words, the whole "moment" reflected well on Hillary (particularly for women voters). I read (somewhere) a comment from a New Hampshire woman who said that never forgave Hillary for that "baking cookies" comment in 1992 …until the (so-called) "tearful moment". In that moment, Hillary showed herself to be a strong woman (as opposed to, you know, a strong MAN).
I think the media reaction to the "tearful moment" also helped her. I mean, the thing was picked apart to death. The very idea that her smallest facial ticks get so much scrutiny is almost insulting and turns her into a sympathetic character.
And I think many (myself included) were insulted at not only the "depth" of the analysis, but the not-so-subtle misogyny of it. Two theories were softly floated: (a) that Hillary’s "crying" made her "weak" and "unpresidential"; and (b) that Hillary’s "crying" was calculated on her part. Some have even tried to claim both are true (so she tried to make herself look like a weak unpresidential crybaby?). Neither registered as true to people who actually saw the video. This wasn’t a Muskie moment; it was a human one which reflected well on Hillary. And people responded to seeing the human side of her, having been painted as being "cold" and "ambitious" for so long.
The final reason Hillary won? I think that requires an understanding of the New Hampshire voter. When faced with convential wisdom about who is and isn’t going to win their state, New Hampshire voters looooove to say "Now wait a minute there, pundits". The assumption is that if Iowa does X, then New Hampshire will do X. But New Hampshirites — even those aligned with a political party — love to strut their independent streak. They aren’t prepared to "write off" anybody, no matter what the media says. They did it with Bill in 1992, after the whole Gennifer Flowers thing.
So when the media started talking about the "inevitability" of Obama, and even suggested that Hillary’s campaign was all but over, well, New Hampshire voters voted "Think again".
So I think all those factors worked to carry Hillary over the top.
(2) Why Obama didn’t win. Oddly enough, if someone said two weeks ago that Obama would be within 3 percentage points of Clinton, it wouldn’t be viewed as the "stunning blow" that people are now saying.
And when it comes to delegate count, Obama got nine. Compared to Hillary’s — nine. That’s right. A tie.
That said, I think the Obama phenomenon didn’t result in a first place win because he didn’t get out the youth vote. Well, I mean, he did, but not enough.
And speaking of the youth vote, here’s my memo to the news media (and future candidates): Dartmouth isn’t a state college, you morons. It’s a national university with a national reputation. You know what that means? That means that the students are from all over the country and therefore, the vast majority of them don’t vote in the New Hampshire primaries. So don’t keep talking about the "returns from Hanover", as if it’s going to result in some mammoth shift in the outcome. Duh.
And no, I don’t the "Wilder Effect" was in play here.
(3) Whither Edwards? Like I said after Iowa, he’ll be around for Super Duper Tuesday. And he’ll continue to place third. But both he and Richardson and whoever else is left won’t last long.
Republicans
(1) Why McCain won. Quite simply, it was his "maverick" image. He won in New Hampshire in 2000. People who voted for him them and who are dissatisfied with Bush got a chance to pull an "I Told You So" lever in the ballot box.
Huckabee’s christian conserservatism never had a chance in a state with the lowest church-going population in the country. Thompson and Giuliani didn’t try. (Giuliani, no doubt, will find some way to compare his poor showing in New Hampshire to 9/11, as in, "I’ve been down before. Look at 9/11…")
And Romney. Well, the people of New Hampshire know him. That was why he was on top of the polls for so long. Because they were at least familiar with him. But Romney’s flip-flopping — more blatent than any candidates in any recent election’s memory — doesn’t sit well. And The Concord Monitor’s devastating Romney anti-endorsement set the ball rolling.
In short, McCain won by default.
Other Thoughts
(1) McCain? Clinton? What happened to "change"? I think the "change" mantra has become so overused that it is almost meaningless. Not that people don’t want change, but they’re hungry for something beyond a candidate who merely invokes the word (to death).
Change is good, most people believe, but change plus experience is better. On the experience metric, Clinton and McCain beat their competitors hands down.
But we’re not done hearing about change. And I expect Obama and others to fine-tune their message to bring their idea of change (and what that means, in tangible terms) into focus.
(2) So now what? Quite simply, the Democratic race becomes a two-person race. If I were Clinton or Obama, I would take 3 days off. Because they have not yet begun to fight. Super Duper Tuesday is February 5. In political terms, that’s like a year. A lot can happen between now and then. There is no frontrunner to speak of, although I think Hillary still has the leg up on key states like Michigan. Super Duper Tuesday will determine who that frontrunner is for sure. And if it doesn’t, the convention is going to be a nightmare.
On the Republican side, it’s already a nightmare. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney can all claim to be the frontrunner at this point. None of them, convincingly. Thompson will be out soon. Rudy will be out after Florida. Ron Paul has the money to be around for a while, but he’ll remain the LaRouche joke. Both Huckanee and Romney really need a win — in Huck’s case, to show that he’s now a one hit wonder, and in Romney’s case, to show that he can win a state (although, to be fair, he leads in the GOP delegate count at this moment). I think things look worse for Huckabee though — Super Duper Tuesday will see to that.
UPDATE: Some columnists shouldn’t have written their post-NH-Primary editorials before the results actually came in. "Dewey beats Truman", anyone?
UPDATE: I think this post from Kos (The Orange Satan) is noteworthy in its entirety. I agree with almost everything in it —
MEMO TO THE ANTI-CLINTON BRIGADES
Hillary is my least favorite of the viable candidates on substantive grounds, and I’ll be voting for Barack Obama here pretty soon here in California via absentee ballot. The second-to-last thing I want is Mark Penn and Terry McAluiffe anywhere near the White House. (The last thing? Another Republican administration.)
But the more assholish her detractors behave, the more you help her. The way she was treated the past few days in New Hampshire was a disgrace, and likely a large reason for her surprise victory. So keep attacking her for bullshit reasons, and you’ll be generating more and more sympathy votes for her. Obama’s "you’re likable enough" was likely worth 2-3 points all by its lonesome self.
In May 2006 I wrote this in the Washington Post:
In person, Clinton is one of the warmest politicians I’ve ever met, but her advisers have stripped what personality she has, hiding it from the public. Some of that may be a product of her team’s legendary paranoia, somewhat understandable given the knives out for her. But what remains is a heartless, passionless machine, surrounded by the very people who ground down the activist base in the 1990s and have continued to hold the party’s grassroots in utter contempt.
In New Hampshire, her campaign seems to have realized that there’s value in giving people a look at that personality. The decision to open up may have been "calculated", but what’s behind the steel curtain is a genuinely warm, likable human being. I know this from first-hand experience.
The more she’s attacked on personal grounds, the more sympathy that real person will generate, the more votes she’ll win from people sending a message to the media and her critics that they’ve gone way over the line of common decency. You underestimate that sympathy at your own peril. If I found myself half-rooting for her given the crap that was being flung at her, is it any wonder that women turned out in droves to send a message that sexist double-standards were unacceptable? Sure, it took one look at Terry McAuliffe’s mug to bring me back down to earth, but most people don’t know or care who McAuliffe is. They see people beating the shit out of Clinton for the wrong reasons, they get angry, and they lash back the only way they can — by voting for her.
The vote for the two "change" candidates outstripped the vote for the two "experience" candidates. I’m with change. I have no interest in seeing behavior that, in essence, helps the status quo.
Election 2008 Analysis: NH Results
Well, it’s 10:00 and the story is Clinton. She hasn’t won (yet), although she is leading, proving the polls and pundits (myself included) very very wrong.
This means, of course, that even if Obama ekes out a win, he still "lost".
Odd. Two weeks ago the Clinton nomination was "inevitable". As of yesterday and this morning, many were saying that Clinton dropping out was "inevitable".
Kids, we got ourselves a race.
On the GOP side, we all got it right. McCain.
UPDATE: I’m reading and hearing this a lot:
I wouldn’t be surprised if this inane "Clinton crying" pseudo-story winds up redounding to her benefit; it’s a stark reminder of how much sexist BS there is out there which, in turn, gets people back to thinking about how the first woman president in American history would be a pretty damn transformative event all on its own terms.
WMUR at 10:22 pm
Democratic Presidential Primary Candidate Votes Percent Winner Hillary Clinton 64,743 39% Barack Obama 60,322 37% John Edwards 27,578 17% Bill Richardson 7,889 5% Dennis Kucinich 2,415 1% Chris Dodd 392 0% Joe Biden 363 0% Mike Gravel 230 0%
Precincts Reporting – 188 out of 301 – 62%
Fox exit polls say Clinton is garnering 13% more of the female vote (Clinton lost the female vote by five points to Obama in Iowa). Clinton also enjoys a ten point advantage among union voters. Clinton also is beating Obama among seniors and lower income voters. On the other hand, Obama is pummeling Clinton in the youth vote by 20+ points; Obama is beating Hillary among men. But he’s also dwarfing Hillary among voters that say they want ‘change’ — whatever that means.
It also looks like the Clinton "revival" largely comes from Manchester and Nashua. Concord went Obama hugely, as did most small towns.
UPDATE (10:30 pm): NBC calls it for Clinton
Chuck Norris Facts
I learned yesterday (from NPR of all places) that reciting facts about Chuck Norris is a teenage fad these days.
So naturally, I had to check it out. A "Chuck Norris Fact" is a statement showing how bad-ass Chuck Norris is. Sort of like the "You’re Momma" jokes of the 1990’s.
And now, here, free of charge, are some of my favorite Chuck Norris Facts:
- If you ask Chuck Norris what time it is, he always says, "Two seconds ’til." After you ask, "Two seconds ’til what?" he roundhouse kicks you in the face.
- The quickest way to a man’s heart is with Chuck Norris’ fist.
- There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.
- Chuck Norris doesn’t churn butter. He roundhouse kicks the cows and the butter comes straight out.
- The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Chuck Norris played in second grade.
- When Chuck Norris was denied an Egg McMuffin at McDonald’s because it was 10:35, he roundhouse kicked the store so hard it became a Wendy’s.
- Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
- When Chuck Norris talks, everybody listens. And dies.
- Chuck Norris invented black. In fact, he invented the entire spectrum of visible light. Except pink. Tom Cruise invented pink.
- On his birthday, Chuck Norris randomly selects one lucky child to be thrown into the sun.
- Chuck Norris doesn’t bowl strikes, he just knocks down one pin and the other nine faint.
- Chuck Norris once ate an entire bottle of sleeping pills. They made him blink.
- Chuck Norris played Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun and won.
- When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
- Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
- The Bible was originally titled "Chuck Norris and Friends"
- Chuck Norris’s first job was as a paperboy. There were no survivors.
- Chuck Norris once went skydiving, but promised never to do it again. One Grand Canyon is enough.
- When Chuck Norris plays Monopoly, it affects the actual world economy.
- Chuck Norris uses tabasco sauce instead of visine.
- Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.
You get the idea….