You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2008.

Assorted giggles for your workday enjoyment:

“How It Works”

Juno Taught Me

“Duty Calls”


Shamelessly stealing this entire post from Shakesville:

On Monday, Mannion wrote a piece called Clinton is going to lose. I was going to link to it when I first read it, and then I thought, “Fuck it. He’s so bloody right, I’ll just wait and do a post about it on Wednesday and reveal his clairvoyant genius to the world.” Cheap thrillz for both of us. So here it is—Mannion’s Mystic Magnificence:

Based on what I’ve been reading I predict Hillary Clinton’s going to lose.

She’ll probably wind up pocketing the most delegates but she’s going to lose.

The Media will see to it.

It’s unlikely she’ll get out and out beaten across the board, but she’ll still lose. She’ll lose by not beating Obama across the board or she’ll lose by not winning in every big state or she’ll lose by not winning by a large enough margin in the states she’s supposed to win or by not coming close enough in the states she’s expected to lose or she’ll lose by not getting the votes of the right demographic or she’ll lose by not getting enough votes in the demographics that were going to vote for her anyway or she’ll lose because not enough people tell the exit pollsters on their way out how excited they were to cast their vote for her.

Whatever, however.

She’s going to lose.

She’s going to lose because they’re going to say she did and they’ll say it because they want her to.

I was up until 4am last night, by which point I’d been watching television coverage of Super Tuesday for 10 straight hours. Mainly, what I learned is that Hillary lost.

I also learned that when Obama wins, he “beats Hillary in Missouri,” but when Hillary wins, she “ekes out a victory in Tennessee.” I learned that Hillary Clinton is divisive and polarizing and divisive and unlikable and divisive—hey, did I mention that Hillary is divisive? I learned that she needs to do something about being so divisive. I learned that whatever percentage of women didn’t vote for her reflects badly on her, because it’s too many; also, whatever percentage of black voters did vote for her reflects badly on her, because it’s too few. More women should be voting for her, but, gawd, it’s so divisive when she plays the gender card!

Mannion’s point—and subsequently mine—is not about Hillary v. Obama. It’s not even Hillary v. The Media. It’s about The One Who Isn’t the Favorite v. The Media. Right now, Obama’s the favorite, in his match-up with Hillary. But guess what…?

This is not sour grapes. This is the way it’s been going on for fifteen years now. And those of you who think that this is a good reason not to support her, so we can get away from this, those of you who think that Obama will somehow be able, through the sheer force of his personality or the beauty of his rhetoric or the wonderfulness that is him or through the plain fact that he is not a Clinton need to consider this very real possibility:

The reason he’s a media darling now is because he’s not a Clinton. He gives them a way to dump on the Clintons while congratulating themselves on how cool and post-partisan they are.

If and when Hillary’s beaten and Obama’s the nominee he becomes the Democrat running for President.

And you watch.

If the Republican running against him is John McCain then every single move Obama makes will be the wrong one.

Everything he says will be a lie.

Every time he appears to win he will lose.

You can take that to the bank.

Because Mannion’s a psychic.


In case it isn’t perfectly clear, this post isn’t meant to be an exhortation to support Hillary. Or, for that matter, to not support Obama. It’s just a memo about what we’ll be facing either way.

…. I’m thinking of starting my own media conglomerate.

Rebecca Traister on Salon encapsulates my own mental conflict:

“Voting for the white guy — based on how I feel about the “issues” — would have afforded me a guilt-free way to rise above the nasty psychobabble of identity politics taking place between the two people who actually have a chance in hell of becoming president. I wouldn’t have to get my hands dirty by choosing between two very similar candidates whose major differences seem to swirl around their race and gender; I wouldn’t have to tap one under-represented population on the shoulder and say, “I pick you to advance first”; I wouldn’t have to entangle myself in the extremely sticky question of how, exactly, my gender and my feminist politics are supposed to be guiding me here.”

Ultimately, I’m coming down on the side of Clinton, and again, Traister nails why:

“When I think about doing the deed, I consider the fact that she’s brilliant, that she’s competent, that she knows her shit inside and out, that she’s battle-tested, tough as nails, and that she wipes the floor with Obama in the debates. She provides a steel-solid track record, he a nimbus of vague hope.”

Clinton has been vetted for 20 years; I doubt there’s anything left to SwiftBoat her. There’s been 8 years of disastrous Monkey Rule, and a rather overwhelming mess to clean up – I think she’s the stronger candidate all around.

Now, if only I could actually vote.