Wednesday, January 09, 2008

New Hampshire: The Jerk Factor, Hillary, Big Media & more

By Diane Silver

All of the above and more are among the thoughts clogging the cyberways on this day after New Hampshire tossed the presidential race up in the air. And yes, I'm focusing on the Democratic race.

Here are some of the most interesting bits of the post-primary analysis.

What went wrong with the polls?

Big media pundits miss the point.
The coverage had been so out of control there was speculation about when Hillary might have to drop out. Polls giving Barack Obama an 8- or 10-point lead were accepted as fact.
Another Comeback Kid
Presidential campaigns rarely end this quickly, and it was as if the voters of New Hampshire on Tuesday were divided enough in their choice of candidates to assure that voters elsewhere will have the opportunity to settle the issue.

"I think it's awfully interesting that they made her the underdog and she came back," said Democratic strategist Bill Carrick. "Obviously, a lot of these voters don't want to close down the process. It's like, 'Wait a minute.' "

Rimjob at Daily Kos looks at the whole enchilada. Kos, himself, cites the Jerk Factor in helping to give Hillary the win.

Josh Marshall looks for meaning.

My personal favorite comes from Kevin Drum.
There's now a pretty good chance that, for the first time in my life, my vote in a Democratic primary will actually be meaningful. And it only took 30 years!

Hey, I'm in the same situation. The Feb. 5 Democratic caucuses in Kansas might actually mean something. What a hoot!

And a little pre-NH vote analysis of what is now known as "The Moment."
Guys may cry, after all, but tears, culturally, are a Female Thing. And the word ‘emotional’ is rarely used as flattery. (See John Edwards, who responded to a reporter’s question about The Moment with this: “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve.”)...

The press’s simultaneous amplification and shorthanding of Clinton’s display of emotion support (Gloria) Steinem’s point (in the New York Times): Clinton’s gender, in a still-sometimes-sexist society like ours, may be more problematic than we allow ourselves to acknowledge or believe.

No comments: