Wednesday, February 6, 2008

What a Night!

Wow - I am severely sleep-deprived, but feeling pretty good about last night's results. Sure, Obama got states like Alaska, in which less than 1,000 people voted, but overall, she defied the pollsters once again! And once again,t he media completely downplayed why she won, like in CA. They attributed it to early voters - like Obama didn't have early voters (I saw comments from a NUMBER of Obama supporters in CA who voted early). I swear - it would just KILL them to actually say something oisitive about Clinton and her results. Oh, yeah - and then there is the way in which they describe the "women's vote" - like her wins are not as worhty because she gets a lot of women voting for her. The sexism/misogyny inherent in these comments is just staggering.

Then there is the air play time. Clinton spoke for about 5 minutes last night in NYC. Obama? At LEAST 20 minutes, if not more, on most of the networks. Free advertising for him, for his entire stump speech (at least CNN had the good grace to acknowledge that he got a lot of free air time). Oh, no wait - Obama's was an "exhortation," while Clinton's was a "wonkish" speech - I kid you NOT - this is what the bozo on CNN said. Specifically, Carl Bernstein, who HATES Clinton. He never misses an opportunity to diss her. Anyway - Obama took a bunch of swipes at Clinton. He also took swipes at her health care policy saying that it was like mandating to poor people that they had to buy a house. Anything to put her down - maybe that was in response to both Paul Krugman and Sanjay Gupta (of CNN) saying Clinton's health care policy would cover EVERYONE for not much more than Obama's plan . He dsoesn't like that sort of thing and gets angry when confronted on his policies. (Like we need more of THAT kind of response. Hellooo?? Remember Bush and his temper??)

One more media related thing - MSNBC - holy cow. I just don't even know what to say about them. Olbermann asked this one commentator which one she wanted to tackle first: Clinton and CA, or something about the Republicans. She smirked, gave him a look, and said, "I'll take the Republican one first." Sheesh. (Oh - in terms of Olbermann, he has never come out and said, "I support Obama." It has been his kid gloves treatment of Obama vs. the negative, sarcastic, undermining comments he has made about Clinton. Just to be clear. Though comments like, "Clinton's self-proclaimed victory in FL" pretty much says it all. Never in a gazillion years would he have said that about Obama.)

The interesting, and good news, is that many more people thought Clinton would be a better Commander in Chief (hell to the yes, we need to get out of Iraq, but we would still have troops in AFGHANISTAN), would do better with the economy, and with health care, of course. And, JOHN EDWARDS - are you listening?!?!? - that a HUGE constituency for her was people who made less than $50,000. (John??? John???? Tap, tap - can you hear me?? Poverty IS her issue, too!) Conversely, Obama, they said, got everyone who made over $150,000. (Yeah, okay - EVERYONE??? I kinda doubt that. Whatever.) That, of course, freaked Obama out since his big claim was to be a community activist for poor people. Seems the poor people like Clinton.

So - now, if the voters of Florida and Michigan get their say, Clinton will be in good stead. And if John Edwards has his delegates support HER, which he SHOULD, given his stance on poverty.

OK, you people of Louisiana - PLEASE vote for Clinton!!! :-)

No comments: