Today's most viewed
Night of comebacks in New Hampshire
 |
| ON THE WAY BACK: Mr McCain and his wife Cindy react to the news of his victory. Charles Dhaparak/AP |
GLEN JOHNSON
CONCORD, New Hampshire
The New Hampshire primaries turned into a night of remarkable comebacks for Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
Senator McCain won the Republican vote and climbed back into contention for the US presidential nomination.
Mrs Clinton, who had been eight points behind Senator Barack Obama in final polls for the Democratic race, raced back into contention in the vote.
Mr McCain rode a wave of support from independent voters to defeat former Governor Mitt Romney of the neighbouring state of Massachusetts.
"We showed the people of this country what a real comeback looks like," Mr McCain said.
By tradition, the primary in the north-eastern state, the first on the political calendar, has the power to propel winners into the rush of primaries that follow and to send the losers home for good.
Mrs Clinton, who finished third in Iowa and had been widely written off in New Hampshire, mounted an unexpectedly stiff challenge to Mr Obama in the first large-scale primary of the presidential campaign.
With votes counted from 24% of the state's precincts, she had 40% to 34% for Mr Obama, who is seeking to become the first black US president. Former Senator John Edwards had 17%.
Mr McCain had 37% of the Republican vote; Mr Romney had 28%.
The voting pattern reflected a very late swing for Mrs Clinton following her celebrated tearful moment in the campaigning
earlier this week and was being seen as a measure of the fact that, despite Mr Obama's attractive message of change, Mrs Clinton has the strategy and ability to close the gap.
The economy and the war in Iraq were the top issues in both party primaries, according to interviews with voters leaving their polling places.
American politics were shaken up
by last week's Iowa caucuses, where Mr Obama defeated Mrs Clinton and Mr Romney lost to Mike Huckabee, a Baptist preacher turned politician.
Mr Obama, a first-term senator and son of a Kenyan father, has brushed aside complaints that he is too inexperienced to lead the US, campaigning on a message of hope and change in the aftermath of George W Bush's presidency.
His appeal in Iowa and New Hampshire, both overwhelmingly white states, has eased doubts about whether America was ready to elect a black president.
Mrs Clinton, wife of former President Bill Clinton and a senator, has campaigned on her experience and, until a few weeks ago, seemed to have a lock on the nomination.
However, she finished third in Iowa, and fell to second in pre-election New Hampshire polls. Nationally, she is deadlocked with Mr Obama.
Interviews with voters leaving their polling places showed she was winning readily among registered Democrats, while Mr Obama led her by an even larger margin among independents.
The early results in New Hampshire surprised even her own inner circle.
In the hours leading up to the poll closing, her closest advisers had appeared to be bracing for a second defeat at the hands of Obama.
Officials said her aides were considering whether effectively to concede the next two contests, caucuses in Nevada on January 19 and a South Carolina primary a week later, and instead try to regroup in time for a 22-state round of contests on February 5.
Neither of the two Republicans leading in the latest national Gallup poll were top contenders in New Hampshire. Huckabee won in Iowa largely on the strength of the evangelical Christian vote, which is less of a factor in New Hampshire.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is counting on presumed success in later states to give him momentum going into the February 5 primaries.
Mr Huckabee finished third in New Hampshire with 12%; Mr Giuliani was fourth with 9%.
McCain, a maverick, independent-minded senator and a Vietnam War hero, was saw his standing fall last year partly because he was seen as too liberal on immigration.
While other candidates faltered, he has surged in New Hampshire, where he defeated Bush in the 2000 primary. His national standing also has been helped by his advocacy of sending more US troops to Iraq.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Cynicus on 3:38am Wed 9 Jan 08
The Comeback Gal? The big turnout seems to have favoured Miz Hillary-combined with a swing from John Edwards to her,
I look forward to the comments of Messrs Kerr and Walker -Barrack's two local sweetie-wife cheerleaders- in a few hours.
The Comeback Gal? The big turnout seems to have favoured Miz Hillary-combined with a swing from John Edwards to her,
I look forward to the comments of Messrs Kerr and Walker -Barrack's two local sweetie-wife cheerleaders- in a few hours.
Posted by: donald, glasgow on 3:56am Wed 9 Jan 08
I didn't even like Old Hampshire. They are still reactioanary voters, like Old and New Labour.
I didn't even like Old Hampshire. They are still reactioanary voters, like Old and New Labour.
Posted by: Seannair, Oban on 10:13am Wed 9 Jan 08
Hugh Kerr demonstrated yesterday with post after post and a considerably detailed CV how he was well qualified to display his expertise on US politics.
Then he revealed he was a member of Solidarity.
This, apparently, was to indicate his more general political awareness.
Say no more. Doh!
Hugh Kerr demonstrated yesterday with post after post and a considerably detailed CV how he was well qualified to display his expertise on US politics.
Then he revealed he was a member of Solidarity.
This, apparently, was to indicate his more general political awareness.
Say no more. Doh!
Posted by: steve, Fife on 11:00am Wed 9 Jan 08
what hasnt been said here is that the voting machines were machines used are suspect, and there have been legal challenges over their flawed use.
what hasnt been said here is that the voting machines were machines used are suspect, and there have been legal challenges over their flawed use.
Posted by: redcliffe62, brisbane on hols, wine or whine on 12:06pm Wed 9 Jan 08
All we have learned is that when a woman is in trouble she starts crying and gets her way. Works on the whole planet so why not in New Hampshire. Before you scream "sexist" consider this.
MY wife did a crying test today, she can cry on demand, (not because I smack her might I add) and within 2 seconds tears were rolling down her cheeks as she whinged about some wine (which she loved) not being very good.
Not only crying but lying at the same time. If my wife can do it then Hilary who would be well taught about trying to show her softer side could also do it no problem..
Clinton needed to show America that the actions of the last 20 years are wrong, and that she was not a cold hearless political professional, and a swing of 10% yesterday shows that the 40-70 year old women demographic who voted in droves for her have shown they are woman fiirst and serious voters second.
This was calculated, as the question she welled up on, how was it going?, was not even one that my wife could cry about easily.
All we have learned is that when a woman is in trouble she starts crying and gets her way. Works on the whole planet so why not in New Hampshire. Before you scream "sexist" consider this.
MY wife did a crying test today, she can cry on demand, (not because I smack her might I add) and within 2 seconds tears were rolling down her cheeks as she whinged about some wine (which she loved) not being very good.
Not only crying but lying at the same time. If my wife can do it then Hilary who would be well taught about trying to show her softer side could also do it no problem..
Clinton needed to show America that the actions of the last 20 years are wrong, and that she was not a cold hearless political professional, and a swing of 10% yesterday shows that the 40-70 year old women demographic who voted in droves for her have shown they are woman fiirst and serious voters second.
This was calculated, as the question she welled up on, how was it going?, was not even one that my wife could cry about easily.
Posted by: Jaggy on 1:05pm Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Cynicus[/bold] wrote:
The Comeback Gal? The big turnout seems to have favoured Miz Hillary-combined with a swing from John Edwards to her, I look forward to the comments of Messrs Kerr and Walker -Barrack's two local sweetie-wife cheerleaders- in a few hours.[/quote] Just goes to show that you cannot rely on the polls!
I am stil unconvinced that Hilary will be the best candidate for the Democrats in a head to head with the Republicans.
Cynicus wrote:
The Comeback Gal? The big turnout seems to have favoured Miz Hillary-combined with a swing from John Edwards to her, I look forward to the comments of Messrs Kerr and Walker -Barrack's two local sweetie-wife cheerleaders- in a few hours.
Just goes to show that you cannot rely on the polls!
I am stil unconvinced that Hilary will be the best candidate for the Democrats in a head to head with the Republicans.
Posted by: Jaggy on 1:07pm Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Seannair[/bold] wrote:
Hugh Kerr demonstrated yesterday with post after post and a considerably detailed CV how he was well qualified to display his expertise on US politics. Then he revealed he was a member of Solidarity. This, apparently, was to indicate his more general political awareness. Say no more. Doh![/quote] Not really fair ..... it was a very good, civilised and interesting discussion. New Hampshire just demonstrates that politics is an art and not a science.
Personally, I was and remain unconvinced by Obama. But, I am not convinced Clinton can win the presidency either.
Seannair wrote:
Hugh Kerr demonstrated yesterday with post after post and a considerably detailed CV how he was well qualified to display his expertise on US politics. Then he revealed he was a member of Solidarity. This, apparently, was to indicate his more general political awareness. Say no more. Doh!
Not really fair ..... it was a very good, civilised and interesting discussion. New Hampshire just demonstrates that politics is an art and not a science.
Personally, I was and remain unconvinced by Obama. But, I am not convinced Clinton can win the presidency either.
Posted by: Cynicus on 1:23pm Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote]I am stil unconvinced that Hilary will be the best candidate for the Democrats in a head to head with the Republicans[/quote] -Jaggy
Nor I. But even better for the Republicans would be Obama. My US friends, supporters of the Democrats and "equal rights" champions all, fear that the social conservatism of US voters will, when push comes to shove, reject a woman (even a tough cookie like Hillary and even more, a black candidate. Given the decline of their great white hope(!) John Edwards, things look bleak. We should prepare for President McCain or President Giuliani.
I am stil unconvinced that Hilary will be the best candidate for the Democrats in a head to head with the Republicans
-Jaggy
Nor I. But even better for the Republicans would be Obama. My US friends, supporters of the Democrats and "equal rights" champions all, fear that the social conservatism of US voters will, when push comes to shove, reject a woman (even a tough cookie like Hillary and even more, a black candidate. Given the decline of their great white hope(!) John Edwards, things look bleak. We should prepare for President McCain or President Giuliani.
Posted by: Gem, Stirling on 2:22pm Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote]redcliffe62 said:
Clinton needed to show America that the actions of the last 20 years are wrong, and that she was not a cold hearless political professional, and a swing of 10% yesterday shows that the 40-70 year old women demographic who voted in droves for her have shown they are woman fiirst and serious voters second.[/quote]
So can you not be a woman and a serious voter together at the same time? Presumably from your comment, only men can be serious voters without allowing something as ridiculous as gender to get in the way.
Also I assume from your statement that she needed to prove she wasn't a 'cold heartless professional', that firstly, only female voters respond negatively to that sort of image. Do male voters not? Secondly, I presume it does not matter if a man is cold hearted professional because that is natural... and it is un-natural for a woman to be that way.
redcliffe62, I would not make the obvious accusation of sexism, although your statements appear to solicit this tag, however I would strongly suggest that when making sweeping statements and accusations on the basis of gender, that you take the time to understand the full implications of what that is, and not base it on some absurd expirement on your wife.
redcliffe62 said:
Clinton needed to show America that the actions of the last 20 years are wrong, and that she was not a cold hearless political professional, and a swing of 10% yesterday shows that the 40-70 year old women demographic who voted in droves for her have shown they are woman fiirst and serious voters second.
So can you not be a woman and a serious voter together at the same time? Presumably from your comment, only men can be serious voters without allowing something as ridiculous as gender to get in the way.
Also I assume from your statement that she needed to prove she wasn't a 'cold heartless professional', that firstly, only female voters respond negatively to that sort of image. Do male voters not? Secondly, I presume it does not matter if a man is cold hearted professional because that is natural... and it is un-natural for a woman to be that way.
redcliffe62, I would not make the obvious accusation of sexism, although your statements appear to solicit this tag, however I would strongly suggest that when making sweeping statements and accusations on the basis of gender, that you take the time to understand the full implications of what that is, and not base it on some absurd expirement on your wife.
Posted by: Jaggy on 4:25pm Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Cynicus[/bold] wrote:
[quote]I am stil unconvinced that Hilary will be the best candidate for the Democrats in a head to head with the Republicans[/quote] -Jaggy Nor I. But even better for the Republicans would be Obama. My US friends, supporters of the Democrats and "equal rights" champions all, fear that the social conservatism of US voters will, when push comes to shove, reject a woman (even a tough cookie like Hillary and even more, a black candidate. Given the decline of their great white hope(!) John Edwards, things look bleak. We should prepare for President McCain or President Giuliani.[/quote] I agree. You will recall that I view Giuliani and McCain as a serious force for a number of reasons.
Cynicus wrote:
I am stil unconvinced that Hilary will be the best candidate for the Democrats in a head to head with the Republicans
-Jaggy Nor I. But even better for the Republicans would be Obama. My US friends, supporters of the Democrats and "equal rights" champions all, fear that the social conservatism of US voters will, when push comes to shove, reject a woman (even a tough cookie like Hillary and even more, a black candidate. Given the decline of their great white hope(!) John Edwards, things look bleak. We should prepare for President McCain or President Giuliani.
I agree. You will recall that I view Giuliani and McCain as a serious force for a number of reasons.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 5:12pm Wed 9 Jan 08
Well here I am, thanks to Cynicus making an effort to find me. I wrote a long post this morning - a "mea culpa" if you will - on the board we used yesterday. I am sorry that Cynicus has chosen to represent both Hugh Kerr and myself in the name-calling manner he has in his first post above. I thought he was better than that, but I got other more important things wrong yesterday. To be fair it's not like him which is why the debate yesterday was a valuable and good-natured affair. Anyway, I am still scraping the egg from my face and eyes. You may find therefore some of my words hard to discern......
It will take a day or two for the careful analyses to be carried out as to why Hillary won. Tentatively, my guess is that the combination of extraordinary weather and a last minute sympathy vote (the tearie factor) are likely pointers. We shall see. I think that Jaggy's observation that "politics is an art not a science" is both profound and germane. I take some solace from the fact that I am not alone in getting things wrong as far as the psephology is concerned..
I also speculate that calibrated by McCain's good performance, Iraq was less potent than it has been for several months now, the "surge" in Baghdad being perceived as successful in the eyes of more people than hitherto. McCain seems to be the only candidate who actually believes the war is being "won" and he majors on this. If perceived to be true more generally this damaged Obama on the Democrat side.
I continue to believe that Mr Obama will be the best candidate for the Democrats - yesterday's result only a few days ago would have been seen as a triumph given the massive lead Clinton has held for months. The GOP has massive problems because of its inherent fissures. America is sick of all three of its factions - the neo-cons, the theo-cons and the anti-tax wing. Ideologically it remains the party as embodied by Bush, the most despised President of all time. That's the baggage that any Republican candidate will carry in to the election itself. Worse, there is no Republican around to break this mould.
Obama's task, as I said last evening, will be to define his philsophy and aspirations over the coming weeks in policy terms. He has robust postions on energy conversation, social security and health care as well as determination to get America out of Iraq.. He is running as a candidate who happens to be black, not as a black candidate.
Cynicus would have people believe Obama is a reincarnated Blair. Frankly this is not said (by Cynicus) from any knowledge in depth that I have seen of Obama's biography, character or policy statements. Above all not even his worst enemy has called him a liar, the noun that now indelibly defines Blair, the war criminal.
Well here I am, thanks to Cynicus making an effort to find me. I wrote a long post this morning - a "mea culpa" if you will - on the board we used yesterday. I am sorry that Cynicus has chosen to represent both Hugh Kerr and myself in the name-calling manner he has in his first post above. I thought he was better than that, but I got other more important things wrong yesterday. To be fair it's not like him which is why the debate yesterday was a valuable and good-natured affair. Anyway, I am still scraping the egg from my face and eyes. You may find therefore some of my words hard to discern......
It will take a day or two for the careful analyses to be carried out as to why Hillary won. Tentatively, my guess is that the combination of extraordinary weather and a last minute sympathy vote (the tearie factor) are likely pointers. We shall see. I think that Jaggy's observation that "politics is an art not a science" is both profound and germane. I take some solace from the fact that I am not alone in getting things wrong as far as the psephology is concerned..
I also speculate that calibrated by McCain's good performance, Iraq was less potent than it has been for several months now, the "surge" in Baghdad being perceived as successful in the eyes of more people than hitherto. McCain seems to be the only candidate who actually believes the war is being "won" and he majors on this. If perceived to be true more generally this damaged Obama on the Democrat side.
I continue to believe that Mr Obama will be the best candidate for the Democrats - yesterday's result only a few days ago would have been seen as a triumph given the massive lead Clinton has held for months. The GOP has massive problems because of its inherent fissures. America is sick of all three of its factions - the neo-cons, the theo-cons and the anti-tax wing. Ideologically it remains the party as embodied by Bush, the most despised President of all time. That's the baggage that any Republican candidate will carry in to the election itself. Worse, there is no Republican around to break this mould.
Obama's task, as I said last evening, will be to define his philsophy and aspirations over the coming weeks in policy terms. He has robust postions on energy conversation, social security and health care as well as determination to get America out of Iraq.. He is running as a candidate who happens to be black, not as a black candidate.
Cynicus would have people believe Obama is a reincarnated Blair. Frankly this is not said (by Cynicus) from any knowledge in depth that I have seen of Obama's biography, character or policy statements. Above all not even his worst enemy has called him a liar, the noun that now indelibly defines Blair, the war criminal.
Posted by: the Vikelt, California on 5:42pm Wed 9 Jan 08
A quick visit to the future will reveal that the next President of the USA will be John McCain, with Tim Pawlenty as VP. Not a wish, just a prediction.
A quick visit to the future will reveal that the next President of the USA will be John McCain, with Tim Pawlenty as VP. Not a wish, just a prediction.
Posted by: Cynicus on 6:04pm Wed 9 Jan 08
Welcome Chris Walker! The message from Baquba obviously reached "Saddam's gardener."
[quote]I am sorry that Cynicus has chosen to represent both Hugh Kerr and myself in the name-calling manner he has in his first post above.[/quote] -Chris Walker
If the term "sweetie-wife" is offensive then I apologise. It was an attempt to continue the theme of "Tory old dears falling for Blair in '97" inspired by Hugh Kerr's point late yesterday, about unlikely support for Obama.
Cutting to the chase, I do not believe that Obama is Blair remade flesh. He has much in common with the young Blair:charm. a seemingly endless supply of warm words, telegenicity, press popularity ............and gob-smacking inexperience at the top level of politics. I think, though, that Barack's bubble is burst. This is just as well, for McCain or Giuliani would be a shoo-in against him (At least Blair could win elections). As Jim Blumenthal (a Hillary supporter)
pointed out on chaanel 4 news, America remains "socially conservative." and will not yet accept a black president. (It will be hard enough to elect his gal-but John Snow didn't press that point)
The failure of my own man John Edwards is disappointing, to say the least. He, in my view, still represents the most realistic means of stopping the Republicans. But it now looks like Hillary (it was her organisation, fueled by her money, that delivered the vote, Chris -alied to a "women's rights" gibe at Obama that will come back to haunt her against the Republicans). That means anothe Republican presidency. I'm very depressed.
Welcome Chris Walker! The message from Baquba obviously reached "Saddam's gardener."
I am sorry that Cynicus has chosen to represent both Hugh Kerr and myself in the name-calling manner he has in his first post above.
-Chris Walker
If the term "sweetie-wife" is offensive then I apologise. It was an attempt to continue the theme of "Tory old dears falling for Blair in '97" inspired by Hugh Kerr's point late yesterday, about unlikely support for Obama.
Cutting to the chase, I do not believe that Obama is Blair remade flesh. He has much in common with the young Blair:charm. a seemingly endless supply of warm words, telegenicity, press popularity ............and gob-smacking inexperience at the top level of politics. I think, though, that Barack's bubble is burst. This is just as well, for McCain or Giuliani would be a shoo-in against him (At least Blair could win elections). As Jim Blumenthal (a Hillary supporter)
pointed out on chaanel 4 news, America remains "socially conservative." and will not yet accept a black president. (It will be hard enough to elect his gal-but John Snow didn't press that point)
The failure of my own man John Edwards is disappointing, to say the least. He, in my view, still represents the most realistic means of stopping the Republicans. But it now looks like Hillary (it was her organisation, fueled by her money, that delivered the vote, Chris -alied to a "women's rights" gibe at Obama that will come back to haunt her against the Republicans). That means anothe Republican presidency. I'm very depressed.
Posted by: Cynicus on 6:07pm Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote][bold]the Vikelt[/bold] wrote:
A quick visit to the future will reveal that the next President of the USA will be John McCain, with Tim Pawlenty as VP. Not a wish, just a prediction.[/quote] This prediction, alas, my well come true. Still, better than Romney or Huckabee.
the Vikelt wrote:
A quick visit to the future will reveal that the next President of the USA will be John McCain, with Tim Pawlenty as VP. Not a wish, just a prediction.
This prediction, alas, my well come true. Still, better than Romney or Huckabee.
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 6:30pm Wed 9 Jan 08
Cynicus
Since you keep bringing the matter up, perhaps I could tell you the story of Saddam's gardener. (You said you were "depressed" and i want to cheer you up - the Republicans won't win the next election, by the way, and you really should pay more attention to what I said about the fissures within the GOP, for they are toxic to their prospects).
Last March when the then Herald Letters' Editor was retiring some journalists issued a spoof edition of the paper's letters' column. Presumably because I have many letters published the featured letter was one from yours truly. I was referred to as "Saddam's gardener". Since I like soubriquets and concomitant self-deprecation - and I may have a tendency towards pomposity - I have used the term myself. I am quite happy to keep doing so. I have a wonderful future behind me and unlike politicians no reputation to defend or worry about. It may however have outlived its usefulness. As you said to some clown yesterday it may be a tad "in".
Besides, when Saddam disappeared down his spider hole so did his garden. Incidentally, the best garden in Baghdad was that of the British Ambassador. His name was Walker when I was there. And 'No', it wisnae me. Well, that's this board deid!
Cynicus
Since you keep bringing the matter up, perhaps I could tell you the story of Saddam's gardener. (You said you were "depressed" and i want to cheer you up - the Republicans won't win the next election, by the way, and you really should pay more attention to what I said about the fissures within the GOP, for they are toxic to their prospects).
Last March when the then Herald Letters' Editor was retiring some journalists issued a spoof edition of the paper's letters' column. Presumably because I have many letters published the featured letter was one from yours truly. I was referred to as "Saddam's gardener". Since I like soubriquets and concomitant self-deprecation - and I may have a tendency towards pomposity - I have used the term myself. I am quite happy to keep doing so. I have a wonderful future behind me and unlike politicians no reputation to defend or worry about. It may however have outlived its usefulness. As you said to some clown yesterday it may be a tad "in".
Besides, when Saddam disappeared down his spider hole so did his garden. Incidentally, the best garden in Baghdad was that of the British Ambassador. His name was Walker when I was there. And 'No', it wisnae me. Well, that's this board deid!
Posted by: Jaggy on 6:33pm Wed 9 Jan 08
As regards the republicans, I think the business lobby that finances them will overrule the neo-cons and the religious right. I continue to predict McCain or Giuliani.
As regards the republicans, I think the business lobby that finances them will overrule the neo-cons and the religious right. I continue to predict McCain or Giuliani.
Posted by: bonnie Lassie on 9:06pm Wed 9 Jan 08
I think Clarence Page (the highly respected black columnist with the Chicago Tribune) got it just about right when he referred to the bursting of the bubble of "irrational exuberance" regarding Obama after Iowa. And it wasn't just non-New Hampsherite voters and ordinary citizen-observers who got it so badly wrong--tell me the name of an "expert," "pundit" "media hypester" or "politico "who got it right. Shades of Truman and the equally insubstantial lawyerly " man on the wedding cake" in 1948.
With South Carolina (where black voters account for 50% of the Democrat electorate) up next for the Democrats (after the Michigan Democratic Party's imbroglio), three things come to mind when we discuss the two front runners there (between whom there is not a dime's worth of difference ideologically):
(i) the importance of Bill (who even Mr. Page has described as the first "black" president ), particularly with older black male voters and office holders;
(ii) the major role (and conflictedness within the hearts) of middle-aged, church going , black female voters. Referred to as the "beauty parlor" voters , these ladies could be as decisive (in the Democratic primary) as the groups called "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads" are here and elsewhere;
(iii) the influence of that other "agent of change"--"the Spoiler from Seneca," who won here in 2004. By taking c. 17% of the voters away from Obama yesterday in the Granite State he deprived him of the momentum of a second victory.
One comment above caught my eye --"Ideologically it (the Republican Party) remains the party as embodied by Bush, the most despised President of all time." All time? Hasn't the writer heard of FDR (and his class' apoplectic hatred of him) or LBJ ( hated and feared by pretty much everyone--Democrat and Republican), "Tricky Dicky," and some others in the 19th century the writer can surely dig up for our edification?
I think Clarence Page (the highly respected black columnist with the Chicago Tribune) got it just about right when he referred to the bursting of the bubble of "irrational exuberance" regarding Obama after Iowa. And it wasn't just non-New Hampsherite voters and ordinary citizen-observers who got it so badly wrong--tell me the name of an "expert," "pundit" "media hypester" or "politico "who got it right. Shades of Truman and the equally insubstantial lawyerly " man on the wedding cake" in 1948.
With South Carolina (where black voters account for 50% of the Democrat electorate) up next for the Democrats (after the Michigan Democratic Party's imbroglio), three things come to mind when we discuss the two front runners there (between whom there is not a dime's worth of difference ideologically):
(i) the importance of Bill (who even Mr. Page has described as the first "black" president ), particularly with older black male voters and office holders;
(ii) the major role (and conflictedness within the hearts) of middle-aged, church going , black female voters. Referred to as the "beauty parlor" voters , these ladies could be as decisive (in the Democratic primary) as the groups called "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads" are here and elsewhere;
(iii) the influence of that other "agent of change"--"the Spoiler from Seneca," who won here in 2004. By taking c. 17% of the voters away from Obama yesterday in the Granite State he deprived him of the momentum of a second victory.
One comment above caught my eye --"Ideologically it (the Republican Party) remains the party as embodied by Bush, the most despised President of all time." All time? Hasn't the writer heard of FDR (and his class' apoplectic hatred of him) or LBJ ( hated and feared by pretty much everyone--Democrat and Republican), "Tricky Dicky," and some others in the 19th century the writer can surely dig up for our edification?
Posted by: Reekin' Lum on 11:13pm Wed 9 Jan 08
"Ideologically it remains the party as embodied by Bush, the most despised President of all time. That's the baggage that any Republican candidate will carry in to the election itself. Worse, there is no Republican around to break this mould."
What a ridiculous statement from yet another Little Scotlander/Englander who has no idea of what goes on in the US.
50% of this country, Walker are conservative whether you like it or not.
"Ideologically it remains the party as embodied by Bush, the most despised President of all time. That's the baggage that any Republican candidate will carry in to the election itself. Worse, there is no Republican around to break this mould."
What a ridiculous statement from yet another Little Scotlander/Englander who has no idea of what goes on in the US.
50% of this country, Walker are conservative whether you like it or not.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 8:39am Thu 10 Jan 08
Reekin' Lum Says Bush A Bum[quote]"Ideologically it remains the party as embodied by Bush, the most despised President of all time.[/quote] Body bags and bank accounts will be his judge and jury.
Reekin' Lum Says Bush A Bum
"Ideologically it remains the party as embodied by Bush, the most despised President of all time.
Body bags and bank accounts will be his judge and jury.
Posted by: T. McLaughlin on 1:10pm Thu 10 Jan 08
bonnie Lassie on 9:06pm Wed 9 Jan 08 writes,[quote]One comment above caught my eye --"Ideologically it (the Republican Party) remains the party as embodied by Bush, the most despised President of all time." All time? Hasn't the writer heard of FDR (and his class' apoplectic hatred of him) or LBJ ( hated and feared by pretty much everyone--Democrat and Republican), "Tricky Dicky," and some others in the 19th century the writer can surely dig up for our edification?[/quote]
Of course, who is the worst/most despised etc. president is a matter of subjective political or historical conjecture. However, in this situation I suggest we lend weight to to the views on this very question expressed (December, 2006) in The Washington Post by five distinguished American scholars. Most overtly scathing were articles by Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University and Douglas Brinkley, director of the Roosevelt Center at Tulane University. “It's safe to bet”, writes Brinkley, “that Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom rungs of the presidential ladder…he has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president.” Professor Foner, too, places Bush on “the bottom rung”, beside Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Even in such company, Foner thinks “there is no alternative but to rank (Bush) as the worst president in U.S. history.” Two other historians **** with faint praise. One rates Bush “the fifth worst” while the other claims that he is at least better than Nixon. Bush’s best hope is the last: a fence-sitting fifth, who considers it too early to judge.
A year on, I doubt if President Bush's relative standing has improved.
bonnie Lassie on 9:06pm Wed 9 Jan 08 writes,
One comment above caught my eye --"Ideologically it (the Republican Party) remains the party as embodied by Bush, the most despised President of all time." All time? Hasn't the writer heard of FDR (and his class' apoplectic hatred of him) or LBJ ( hated and feared by pretty much everyone--Democrat and Republican), "Tricky Dicky," and some others in the 19th century the writer can surely dig up for our edification?
Of course, who is the worst/most despised etc. president is a matter of subjective political or historical conjecture. However, in this situation I suggest we lend weight to to the views on this very question expressed (December, 2006) in The Washington Post by five distinguished American scholars. Most overtly scathing were articles by Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University and Douglas Brinkley, director of the Roosevelt Center at Tulane University. “It's safe to bet”, writes Brinkley, “that Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom rungs of the presidential ladder…he has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president.” Professor Foner, too, places Bush on “the bottom rung”, beside Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Even in such company, Foner thinks “there is no alternative but to rank (Bush) as the worst president in U.S. history.” Two other historians **** with faint praise. One rates Bush “the fifth worst” while the other claims that he is at least better than Nixon. Bush’s best hope is the last: a fence-sitting fifth, who considers it too early to judge.
A year on, I doubt if President Bush's relative standing has improved.
Posted by: bonnie Lassie on 9:28pm Thu 10 Jan 08
It's ALWAYS premature to write history when your emotional nose is pressed so tightly against events. Knee-jerk, card-carrying liberals, like Clinton and Brinkley, want to cash in on the media-activated spleen among non-thinkers in the populace (and abroad), and presumably have books in the works, whose major premise will be how bad Bush was as a president. They are probably still gnashing their respective teeth at his appointment of (the fairly young) Alito and Roberts (and who knows if the geriatric Stevens will depart in the next few months for that Great Supreme Court in the sky), and at the impending success of Bush's change in military strategy in Iraq.
Thoughtful academics usually don't make such facile judgements about presidents when they are still in office, and they try to display their political bias only around their kitchen tables.
If we come back to some more objective historians (like our fifth party here, perhaps) in a few years we'll get a better feel for how good or bad Bush really was as president
It's ALWAYS premature to write history when your emotional nose is pressed so tightly against events. Knee-jerk, card-carrying liberals, like Clinton and Brinkley, want to cash in on the media-activated spleen among non-thinkers in the populace (and abroad), and presumably have books in the works, whose major premise will be how bad Bush was as a president. They are probably still gnashing their respective teeth at his appointment of (the fairly young) Alito and Roberts (and who knows if the geriatric Stevens will depart in the next few months for that Great Supreme Court in the sky), and at the impending success of Bush's change in military strategy in Iraq.
Thoughtful academics usually don't make such facile judgements about presidents when they are still in office, and they try to display their political bias only around their kitchen tables.
If we come back to some more objective historians (like our fifth party here, perhaps) in a few years we'll get a better feel for how good or bad Bush really was as president
Posted by: cynicus on 1:13am Fri 11 Jan 08
[quote]Knee-jerk, card-carrying liberals, like Clinton and Brinkley, want to cash in on the media-activated spleen among non-thinkers in the populace (and abroad), and presumably have books in the works, whose major premise will be how bad Bush was as a president.[/quote] -bonnie Lassie on 9:28pm Thu 10 Jan 08
What the politics of these academics may be is something that I -and I suspect you, bonnie lass-do not know. Nor do I know which, if any, has a book in the works and about what subject. I do, however, know their names. None of them is Clinton. Perhaps the thought that it was led to your intemperate outburst above. I took the Washington Post series at face value: a series of articles from scholars qualified to evaluate the relative strengths of various presidents, including the present incumbent. Although you may have a point about premature historical judgments made about leaders still in office, I cannot help but think that your approval of the fifth scholar (Professor "too early to say") chimes with your own political viewpoint. You would have been unimpressed by the analysis given by a black American comedian on BBC Television tonight. He explained large voter turnouts in Iowa and New Hampshire in very stark terms: people don't want another monkey in the White House.[quote][quote]quote[/quote] [quote]quote[/quote] [/quote]
Knee-jerk, card-carrying liberals, like Clinton and Brinkley, want to cash in on the media-activated spleen among non-thinkers in the populace (and abroad), and presumably have books in the works, whose major premise will be how bad Bush was as a president.
-bonnie Lassie on 9:28pm Thu 10 Jan 08
What the politics of these academics may be is something that I -and I suspect you, bonnie lass-do not know. Nor do I know which, if any, has a book in the works and about what subject. I do, however, know their names. None of them is Clinton. Perhaps the thought that it was led to your intemperate outburst above. I took the Washington Post series at face value: a series of articles from scholars qualified to evaluate the relative strengths of various presidents, including the present incumbent. Although you may have a point about premature historical judgments made about leaders still in office, I cannot help but think that your approval of the fifth scholar (Professor "too early to say") chimes with your own political viewpoint. You would have been unimpressed by the analysis given by a black American comedian on BBC Television tonight. He explained large voter turnouts in Iowa and New Hampshire in very stark terms: people don't want another monkey in the White House.
quote
quote
Posted by: bonnie Lassie on 1:27am Fri 11 Jan 08
Cynicus,
"Intemperate," by gum. I thought it was a fairly low-key request to allow just a little water to pass under the bridge before people rush to judgement. Ah well. Different strokes...
Your use of the word "monkey", by the way, in the phrase "people don't want another monkey in the White House." might get you into trouble with the "Thought Police." Now that is intemperate language.
Cynicus,
"Intemperate," by gum. I thought it was a fairly low-key request to allow just a little water to pass under the bridge before people rush to judgement. Ah well. Different strokes...
Your use of the word "monkey", by the way, in the phrase "people don't want another monkey in the White House." might get you into trouble with the "Thought Police." Now that is intemperate language.
Posted by: cynicus on 2:28am Fri 11 Jan 08
[quote]Your use of the word "monkey", by the way, in the phrase "people don't want another monkey in the White House." might get you into trouble with the "Thought Police." Now that is intemperate language.
[/quote]
Thank you for your concern -but the term is not mine. I was quoting a fellow-countryman of yours. I'm sure you'll look out for him.
Your use of the word "monkey", by the way, in the phrase "people don't want another monkey in the White House." might get you into trouble with the "Thought Police." Now that is intemperate language.
Thank you for your concern -but the term is not mine. I was quoting a fellow-countryman of yours. I'm sure you'll look out for him.
Posted by: thrawnwifey, Glasgow on 3:30am Fri 11 Jan 08
I have to admit being a Guardian reader, who was astonished in the run up to the New Hampshire result at how confidently they were predicting an Obama win. It made me angry that they were following the leader of the notoriously uncritical, and right wing, American press. My brother,who lives in California, and I have been discussing the primaries for several weeks and, being somewhat cynical, immediately got down to the nitty gritty. Were the Americans more likely to elect a mixed race candidate or a woman. We both thought the latter.
We also, unlike the media, remembered that Oprah brought out the crowds in Iowa, which is one of the three states where her largest audience share is to be found. That's why Obama won, that's why Oprah turned up. Clinton did not expect to win in Iowa because she has little in common with the locals. My brother predicted that she would win New Hampshire because people there have a reputation for being independant and being smarter than the average Iowan. We also think that despite what is being said the right wing press find Obama less likely to beat a McCain than Clinton, which is why she is depicted so negatively. However, outside of the results, I am **** off that the press, supposedly quality, are exercising such poor judgement and gittering on about the first black president to the exclusion of real critical analysis. Perhaps its time to start our own broadsheet since I have difficulty finding one that offers intelligent critique. I stopped buying the Guardian for over a year and tried other broadsheets but couldn't get no satisfaction - so Steve Bell their political cartoonist, who is also their most succinct political commentator, drew me back.
I mention Obama being mixed race because that is what he is and I know through my own family that both black and white people can treat those who are mixed race in an extremely racist way, that is true in America, with knobs on. I hope a Democrat wins.
I have to admit being a Guardian reader, who was astonished in the run up to the New Hampshire result at how confidently they were predicting an Obama win. It made me angry that they were following the leader of the notoriously uncritical, and right wing, American press. My brother,who lives in California, and I have been discussing the primaries for several weeks and, being somewhat cynical, immediately got down to the nitty gritty. Were the Americans more likely to elect a mixed race candidate or a woman. We both thought the latter.
We also, unlike the media, remembered that Oprah brought out the crowds in Iowa, which is one of the three states where her largest audience share is to be found. That's why Obama won, that's why Oprah turned up. Clinton did not expect to win in Iowa because she has little in common with the locals. My brother predicted that she would win New Hampshire because people there have a reputation for being independant and being smarter than the average Iowan. We also think that despite what is being said the right wing press find Obama less likely to beat a McCain than Clinton, which is why she is depicted so negatively. However, outside of the results, I am **** off that the press, supposedly quality, are exercising such poor judgement and gittering on about the first black president to the exclusion of real critical analysis. Perhaps its time to start our own broadsheet since I have difficulty finding one that offers intelligent critique. I stopped buying the Guardian for over a year and tried other broadsheets but couldn't get no satisfaction - so Steve Bell their political cartoonist, who is also their most succinct political commentator, drew me back.
I mention Obama being mixed race because that is what he is and I know through my own family that both black and white people can treat those who are mixed race in an extremely racist way, that is true in America, with knobs on. I hope a Democrat wins.
Posted by: bonnie Lassie on 3:33am Fri 11 Jan 08
Cynicus,
Where in Scotland does my "fellow countryman" live? And where does this certainty you have come from that I will look out for him? And when you get down to it, what does "you'll look out for him" actually mean?
Your statements, like "I do, however, know their names. None of them is Clinton" and "I cannot help but think that your approval of the fifth scholar (Professor "too early to say") chimes with your own political viewpoint," would, I believe, be fairly incomprehensible to someone who actually read what I posted, rather than just shallowly skimming it and comes up with the odd phrase "chimes with your own political viewpoint." By gum, again. How do you know what that is?
I think I am with Chris Walker when he says above: " I am sorry that Cynicus has chosen to represent both Hugh Kerr and myself in the name-calling manner he has in his first post above." Perhaps, you are the role-model for those in other threads who are beautifully encapsulated in the word "troll." The only word I would change in tMr Walker's comment is "represent." I think most reasonable people would use the word "misrepresents" to describe some of your thought processes.
Cynicus,
Where in Scotland does my "fellow countryman" live? And where does this certainty you have come from that I will look out for him? And when you get down to it, what does "you'll look out for him" actually mean?
Your statements, like "I do, however, know their names. None of them is Clinton" and "I cannot help but think that your approval of the fifth scholar (Professor "too early to say") chimes with your own political viewpoint," would, I believe, be fairly incomprehensible to someone who actually read what I posted, rather than just shallowly skimming it and comes up with the odd phrase "chimes with your own political viewpoint." By gum, again. How do you know what that is?
I think I am with Chris Walker when he says above: " I am sorry that Cynicus has chosen to represent both Hugh Kerr and myself in the name-calling manner he has in his first post above." Perhaps, you are the role-model for those in other threads who are beautifully encapsulated in the word "troll." The only word I would change in tMr Walker's comment is "represent." I think most reasonable people would use the word "misrepresents" to describe some of your thought processes.
Posted by: Cynicus on 11:04am Fri 11 Jan 08
[quote]We also, unlike the media, remembered that Oprah brought out the crowds in Iowa, which is one of the three states where her largest audience share is to be found. That's why Obama won, that's why Oprah turned up.[/quote] -thrawnwifey, Glasgow on 3:30am today
For this precious aperçu, much thanks. Especially since it comes from a self-confessed Guardian reader -whose view of Steve Bell I share. Your view that Republicans would prefer an Obama candidacy is, I am sure, correct. It chimes with the opinion of a letter-writer in Thursday's Herald. (Commenting on this issue continues there, with some of the above actors). I share the view he (Mr McLaughlin) reports, also from US contacts, that the Republicans are likely to beat Hillary and ,even more so, to beat Barack. Jim Blumenthal, a Clintonite, made the same point in a Channel 4 News interview two days ago when he referred to America's social conservatism. He thought it would be hard enough for the Democrats to have a woman president elected, far less a black one.
, nonethe
We also, unlike the media, remembered that Oprah brought out the crowds in Iowa, which is one of the three states where her largest audience share is to be found. That's why Obama won, that's why Oprah turned up.
-thrawnwifey, Glasgow on 3:30am today
For this precious aperçu, much thanks. Especially since it comes from a self-confessed Guardian reader -whose view of Steve Bell I share. Your view that Republicans would prefer an Obama candidacy is, I am sure, correct. It chimes with the opinion of a letter-writer in Thursday's Herald. (Commenting on this issue continues there, with some of the above actors). I share the view he (Mr McLaughlin) reports, also from US contacts, that the Republicans are likely to beat Hillary and ,even more so, to beat Barack. Jim Blumenthal, a Clintonite, made the same point in a Channel 4 News interview two days ago when he referred to America's social conservatism. He thought it would be hard enough for the Democrats to have a woman president elected, far less a black one.
, nonethe
Posted by: Cynicus on 11:34am Fri 11 Jan 08
[quote]Where in Scotland does my "fellow countryman" live?[/quote] -bonnie Lassie on 3:33am today
Come, come ma'am. Your kitsch Scotch soubriquet fools nobody. You are far too exquisitely well-informed on American affairs to be other than a citizen of the Great Republic. Or I'm a Dutchman's uncle, by gum.
You go on to say, [quote]Your statements.......wou
ld, I believe, be fairly incomprehensible to someone who actually read what I posted[/quote]
I am truly sorry if I have done that. But could the words not also apply to a poster who accused me of calling President Bush, "a monkey" instead of reading what I [italic]actually[/italic] posted.
Does the following count, in your lexicon, as[italic] [bold]TEMPERATE[/bold][/italic] language?[quote]Knee-jerk, card-carrying liberals, like Clinton and Brinkley, want to cash in on the media-activated spleen among non-thinkers in the populace (and abroad)[/quote] Many readers will make a conjecture similar to mine about your own political opinions. I suspect they would include the estimable Mr Walker who, I hope, will make a return visit before the board dies. By the way you have it wrong, like him but with a greater excuse, about the alleged name-calling above. It was an allusion to something said on another board(then recently deceased) which he didn't grasp and you, of course, never saw.
To be cast as the role-model for trolls must rank as some kind of compliment. Let us hope my debased mimics revisit their fount of wisdom and add the armoury of argumentation to their stunted little jabs and prods.
Where in Scotland does my "fellow countryman" live?
-bonnie Lassie on 3:33am today
Come, come ma'am. Your kitsch Scotch soubriquet fools nobody. You are far too exquisitely well-informed on American affairs to be other than a citizen of the Great Republic. Or I'm a Dutchman's uncle, by gum.
You go on to say,
Your statements.......wou
ld, I believe, be fairly incomprehensible to someone who actually read what I posted
I am truly sorry if I have done that. But could the words not also apply to a poster who accused me of calling President Bush, "a monkey" instead of reading what I
actually posted.
Does the following count, in your lexicon, as
TEMPERATE language?
Knee-jerk, card-carrying liberals, like Clinton and Brinkley, want to cash in on the media-activated spleen among non-thinkers in the populace (and abroad)
Many readers will make a conjecture similar to mine about your own political opinions. I suspect they would include the estimable Mr Walker who, I hope, will make a return visit before the board dies. By the way you have it wrong, like him but with a greater excuse, about the alleged name-calling above. It was an allusion to something said on another board(then recently deceased) which he didn't grasp and you, of course, never saw.
To be cast as the role-model for trolls must rank as some kind of compliment. Let us hope my debased mimics revisit their fount of wisdom and add the armoury of argumentation to their stunted little jabs and prods.
Posted by: T. McLaughlin on 1:34pm Fri 11 Jan 08
Cynicus: Thanks for your letters page alert. This page is fiendishly hard to find on the clues you supplied Try advertising the URL:
http://www.theherald
.co.uk/news/news/dis
play.var.1951465.0.0
.php
Although The Washington Post series referred to received much UK coverage, I have to ask: did you actually read them? I did -and wrote a letter to The Herald about them a year ago. The series was, as bonnie lass suggests, focused on George Bush under the title: What Will History Say? In so sense were they an impartial study of lousy presidents. The present incumbent was their starting point. You say [quote]I took the Washington Post series at face value: a series of articles from scholars qualified to evaluate the relative strengths of various presidents, including the present incumbent[/quote]
I suspect what you took at face value was my comment on them above and concluded, without checking (I just did -they are still there), that they were "a series of articles from scholars qualified to evaluate the relative strengths of various presidents, including the present incumbent." This misrepresents their character -not the first occasion, I see, that this charge has been levelled against you.
Cynicus: Thanks for your letters page alert. This page is fiendishly hard to find on the clues you supplied Try advertising the URL:
http://www.theherald
.co.uk/news/news/dis
play.var.1951465.0.0
.php
Although The Washington Post series referred to received much UK coverage, I have to ask: did you actually read them? I did -and wrote a letter to The Herald about them a year ago. The series was, as bonnie lass suggests, focused on George Bush under the title: What Will History Say? In so sense were they an impartial study of lousy presidents. The present incumbent was their starting point. You say
I took the Washington Post series at face value: a series of articles from scholars qualified to evaluate the relative strengths of various presidents, including the present incumbent
I suspect what you took at face value was my comment on them above and concluded, without checking (I just did -they are still there), that they were "a series of articles from scholars qualified to evaluate the relative strengths of various presidents, including the present incumbent." This misrepresents their character -not the first occasion, I see, that this charge has been levelled against you.
Posted by: bonnie Lassie on 6:33pm Fri 11 Jan 08
Cynicus,
Mr McLaughlin, like Mr Walker, and I would imagine, many, many others, appears to have got you down to a "t" when he charges you with misrepresentation, by saying:
"This misrepresents their character -not the first occasion, I see, that this charge has been levelled against you." He obviously has, for a much longer time than I, been exposed to your "sayings."
He also draws readers' attention to a more serious charge than your (frequent?) "skimming" of an article or post; "skimming," that is, which appears to be your substitute for actually reading what the individual wrote. He states: " I suspect what you took at face value was my comment on them above and concluded, without checking..." Cynicus, you appear not to even undertake elementary checks of the article(s) people refer to in their posts. Why is that?
In an earlier post you say;: "people don't want another monkey in the White House." One might ask for the name(s) of the other monkey or monkeys you or your source is inferring when the word "another" is used.
Later, you go on to say that the "monkey" reference was not yours, although some might construe it as a Freudian slip. After a careful checking of all the posts I can find no mention of anyone accusing you of "calling President Bush a monkey;" is this more of your infamous misrepresentation? Again, we come back to your inability or unwillingness to follow some of the simpler rules of writing, which (even in your day, surely) were learned by schoolboys. One of these is that when you quote someone else you indicate that that is what you are doing by putting their comment inside quotation marks. It prevents confusion in the reader's mind.
Another mark of a writer is that he/she uses clear, easily understood language.The use of words like "apercu," "kitsch" and "soubriquet" reveals a need by you to impress, rather than a desire on your part to be understood. Again, why is that?
You also say: "You are far too exquisitely well-informed on American affairs to be other than a citizen of the Great Republic. Or I'm a Dutchman's uncle, by gum." Do you mean that if someone lives in Scotland they are precluded from having sources (friends, family members, fellow workers, the media, etc., etc.,) overseas who can inform them of what is happening in the "Great Republic"? Do you actually believe that Scots people, alone I would imagine in the world, are prevented from evaluating these research sources, drawing their own conclusions and making intelligent comments on, for example, political matters in the US and elsewhere?
Is the use of the term "Dutchman's uncle" another mark of the obscurantist? And, in these days of political correctness, shouldn't that be "Dutch person's uncle"?
Finally, I think you have (deliberately) misunderstood the context in which other posters used the word "troll." Go back and check them carefully. And, please remember not to "skim."
Cynicus,
Mr McLaughlin, like Mr Walker, and I would imagine, many, many others, appears to have got you down to a "t" when he charges you with misrepresentation, by saying:
"This misrepresents their character -not the first occasion, I see, that this charge has been levelled against you." He obviously has, for a much longer time than I, been exposed to your "sayings."
He also draws readers' attention to a more serious charge than your (frequent?) "skimming" of an article or post; "skimming," that is, which appears to be your substitute for actually reading what the individual wrote. He states: " I suspect what you took at face value was my comment on them above and concluded, without checking..." Cynicus, you appear not to even undertake elementary checks of the article(s) people refer to in their posts. Why is that?
In an earlier post you say;: "people don't want another monkey in the White House." One might ask for the name(s) of the other monkey or monkeys you or your source is inferring when the word "another" is used.
Later, you go on to say that the "monkey" reference was not yours, although some might construe it as a Freudian slip. After a careful checking of all the posts I can find no mention of anyone accusing you of "calling President Bush a monkey;" is this more of your infamous misrepresentation? Again, we come back to your inability or unwillingness to follow some of the simpler rules of writing, which (even in your day, surely) were learned by schoolboys. One of these is that when you quote someone else you indicate that that is what you are doing by putting their comment inside quotation marks. It prevents confusion in the reader's mind.
Another mark of a writer is that he/she uses clear, easily understood language.The use of words like "apercu," "kitsch" and "soubriquet" reveals a need by you to impress, rather than a desire on your part to be understood. Again, why is that?
You also say: "You are far too exquisitely well-informed on American affairs to be other than a citizen of the Great Republic. Or I'm a Dutchman's uncle, by gum." Do you mean that if someone lives in Scotland they are precluded from having sources (friends, family members, fellow workers, the media, etc., etc.,) overseas who can inform them of what is happening in the "Great Republic"? Do you actually believe that Scots people, alone I would imagine in the world, are prevented from evaluating these research sources, drawing their own conclusions and making intelligent comments on, for example, political matters in the US and elsewhere?
Is the use of the term "Dutchman's uncle" another mark of the obscurantist? And, in these days of political correctness, shouldn't that be "Dutch person's uncle"?
Finally, I think you have (deliberately) misunderstood the context in which other posters used the word "troll." Go back and check them carefully. And, please remember not to "skim."
Posted by: George Sweeny on 6:49pm Fri 11 Jan 08
I see Cynicus is being referred to (again) about his own particular predilections of misrepresentation and not checking the facts. His use of language (words like apercu, kitsch and soubriquet) appears also to be getting less and less clear. He also doesn't appear to know that if you are quoting someone else (like his source on the monkey reference) you indicate that to the reader by puting such a quote in quotation marks. That ability minimises confusion in the reader's mind.
I don't see any reference in these posts to anyone accusing him of calling President Bush a monkey. And he also doesn't appear to believe that Scotsmen and women can have sources in the US who can provide them with information and raw data on the political process there, which can enable them to draw their own conclusions and make intelligent comments. Strange. Bring back Messrs Kerr and Walker.
I see Cynicus is being referred to (again) about his own particular predilections of misrepresentation and not checking the facts. His use of language (words like apercu, kitsch and soubriquet) appears also to be getting less and less clear. He also doesn't appear to know that if you are quoting someone else (like his source on the monkey reference) you indicate that to the reader by puting such a quote in quotation marks. That ability minimises confusion in the reader's mind.
I don't see any reference in these posts to anyone accusing him of calling President Bush a monkey. And he also doesn't appear to believe that Scotsmen and women can have sources in the US who can provide them with information and raw data on the political process there, which can enable them to draw their own conclusions and make intelligent comments. Strange. Bring back Messrs Kerr and Walker.
Posted by: Cynicus on 10:17pm Fri 11 Jan 08
T. McLaughlin on 1:34pm today
[quote]Cynicus: Thanks for your letters page alert. This page is fiendishly hard to find on the clues you supplied Try advertising the URL: http://www.theherald .co.uk/news/news/dis play.var.1951465.0.0 .php[/quote] - T. McLaughlin on 1:34pm today
I did that. And like your own post above, the URL line was fragmented. The Herald is notorious for this -as I thought you might know. Mind you, your own metier is the Letters Page -although it is very good of you to descend from on high to address us mere mortals, even if only to deliver an online Glasgow kiss. Thanks a bunch. I WAS careless in precis of your post -but at no time did I set out to misrepresent you personally. I hope you accept this.
T. McLaughlin on 1:34pm today
Cynicus: Thanks for your letters page alert. This page is fiendishly hard to find on the clues you supplied Try advertising the URL: http://www.theherald .co.uk/news/news/dis play.var.1951465.0.0 .php
- T. McLaughlin on 1:34pm today
I did that. And like your own post above, the URL line was fragmented. The Herald is notorious for this -as I thought you might know. Mind you, your own metier is the Letters Page -although it is very good of you to descend from on high to address us mere mortals, even if only to deliver an online Glasgow kiss. Thanks a bunch. I WAS careless in precis of your post -but at no time did I set out to misrepresent you personally. I hope you accept this.
Posted by: Cynicus on 11:08pm Fri 11 Jan 08
[bold]bonnie Lassie on 6:33pm today[/bold]
Hell hath no fury like a woman praised. Is the description," far too exquisitely well-informed on American affairs to be other than a citizen of the Great Republic" misleading ? I note that you describe yourself, implicitly, as "someone who lives in Scotland." That, as keen observers of our exchanges will note, does not rule out US citizenship. I don't want to be accused (again)of misleading you. So, Do YOU deny being American -Yes or No?
Please be assured that terms like "soubriquet" etc.are common currency in circles where I move and live. I am astonished, by gum, that you should think obscurantist the term "Dutchman's uncle." Not common in the USA, is it?
You obviously have some ammunition on skimming. I have been posting on a number of other threads and it can be difficult to keep track. I envy Mr Walker's ability in this regard. Please regard that as an explanation -not an excuse, leasdt of all for any misrepresentation.
On the "monkey" business (nothing to do with former Sen. Gary Hart), I repeat: the reference was to remarks made by a guest, an American actor, on BBC1's This Week. You can log on and hear the broadcast, if you are truly interested. I am sure you know that quotation marks should be used only when quoting the exact words of they original speaker. I merely alluded to the remark which may or may not be the exact words. Because of the doubt, I chose, deliberately, to omit them. Does this read like the act of one given to deliberate misrepresentation?
I am baffled by your latest remarks on "troll." In case I am again accused of misrepresentation, please feel free to unpack them for me.
bonnie Lassie on 6:33pm today
Hell hath no fury like a woman praised. Is the description," far too exquisitely well-informed on American affairs to be other than a citizen of the Great Republic" misleading ? I note that you describe yourself, implicitly, as "someone who lives in Scotland." That, as keen observers of our exchanges will note, does not rule out US citizenship. I don't want to be accused (again)of misleading you. So, Do YOU deny being American -Yes or No?
Please be assured that terms like "soubriquet" etc.are common currency in circles where I move and live. I am astonished, by gum, that you should think obscurantist the term "Dutchman's uncle." Not common in the USA, is it?
You obviously have some ammunition on skimming. I have been posting on a number of other threads and it can be difficult to keep track. I envy Mr Walker's ability in this regard. Please regard that as an explanation -not an excuse, leasdt of all for any misrepresentation.
On the "monkey" business (nothing to do with former Sen. Gary Hart), I repeat: the reference was to remarks made by a guest, an American actor, on BBC1's This Week. You can log on and hear the broadcast, if you are truly interested. I am sure you know that quotation marks should be used only when quoting the exact words of they original speaker. I merely alluded to the remark which may or may not be the exact words. Because of the doubt, I chose, deliberately, to omit them. Does this read like the act of one given to deliberate misrepresentation?
I am baffled by your latest remarks on "troll." In case I am again accused of misrepresentation, please feel free to unpack them for me.
Posted by: Cynicus on 11:35pm Fri 11 Jan 08
[quote]He also doesn't appear to know that if you are quoting someone else (like his source on the monkey reference)[/quote] -George Sweeny
Welcome Mr Sweeny. Good to meet you. Are we acquainted? There is something familiar about your nonsense. For example, "he" and "his" WRT bonnie lassie, who will, I suspect will be none too chuffed by your gender misrepresentations -a result of skimming? Especially given ger reference to Dutch Person's Uncle.
Nobody accuses "him", bonnie lass, of calling George Bush a monkey. If you actually read the posts, you will discover that (s)he accuse ME of that vile crime -when in fact I was quoting a guest on the BBC's This Week. Of course, you may be apostrophising bonnie lass wjen you say. "
I don't see any reference in these posts to anyone accusing him (ie me!) of calling President Bush a monkey." -and not me(ie "him"-bonnie lassie).
Well, how about this:
[quote]You would have been unimpressed by the analysis given by a black American comedian on BBC Television tonight. He explained large voter turnouts in Iowa and New Hampshire in very stark terms: people don't want another monkey in the White House.[/quote] -cynicus on 1:13am today
That was the original reference.
Bonnie lass's first reference to this reads:[quote]Your use of the word "monkey", by the way, in the phrase "people don't want another monkey in the White House." might get you into trouble with the "Thought Police." Now that is intemperate language.[/quote] -bonnie Lassie on 1:27am today
Did I hear you accuse bonnie Lassie of skimming? You may sy that, George, but I couldn't possibly comment.
He also doesn't appear to know that if you are quoting someone else (like his source on the monkey reference)
-George Sweeny
Welcome Mr Sweeny. Good to meet you. Are we acquainted? There is something familiar about your nonsense. For example, "he" and "his" WRT bonnie lassie, who will, I suspect will be none too chuffed by your gender misrepresentations -a result of skimming? Especially given ger reference to Dutch Person's Uncle.
Nobody accuses "him", bonnie lass, of calling George Bush a monkey. If you actually read the posts, you will discover that (s)he accuse ME of that vile crime -when in fact I was quoting a guest on the BBC's This Week. Of course, you may be apostrophising bonnie lass wjen you say. "
I don't see any reference in these posts to anyone accusing him (ie me!) of calling President Bush a monkey." -and not me(ie "him"-bonnie lassie).
Well, how about this:
You would have been unimpressed by the analysis given by a black American comedian on BBC Television tonight. He explained large voter turnouts in Iowa and New Hampshire in very stark terms: people don't want another monkey in the White House.
-cynicus on 1:13am today
That was the original reference.
Bonnie lass's first reference to this reads:
Your use of the word "monkey", by the way, in the phrase "people don't want another monkey in the White House." might get you into trouble with the "Thought Police." Now that is intemperate language.
-bonnie Lassie on 1:27am today
Did I hear you accuse bonnie Lassie of skimming? You may sy that, George, but I couldn't possibly comment.
Posted by: Cynicus on 11:43pm Fri 11 Jan 08
[quote]Bring back Messrs Kerr and Walker[/quote] .George Sweeny
I have tried by advertising on another thread where all three of us were posting under Mr McLaughlin's letter. The great man himself showed up-he was as welcome as a fart in a space-suit. But neither of the Barackophiles has yet answered the call. If you have any contact with them, then please assure them they will be welcome. As, of course, will you!
Bring back Messrs Kerr and Walker
.George Sweeny
I have tried by advertising on another thread where all three of us were posting under Mr McLaughlin's letter. The great man himself showed up-he was as welcome as a fart in a space-suit. But neither of the Barackophiles has yet answered the call. If you have any contact with them, then please assure them they will be welcome. As, of course, will you!
Posted by: bonnie Lassie on 12:25am Sat 12 Jan 08
Cynicus,
Shouldn't I have presumed that sexism eventually would raise its ugly head in your posts? Is your attitude towards women another of your "intellectual" techniques? Do you actually believe that your use of the phrase "Come, come ma'am. Your kitsch Scotch soubriquet fools nobody. You are far too exquisitely well-informed..." should be interpreted by the average female reader of The Herald (or any other newspaper, for that matter) as a compliment to a woman, dripping as it is with its mix of sarcasm and male pseudo-superiority? If you have access to a dictionary you might confirm that the word "kitsch" means "pretentious bad taste, especially in the arts." I also notice that the word "cynical" (from the Latin "cynicus) means "scornful of the motives or virtue of others." I would imagine from your "trolling" above that you are particularly "scornful of the motives or virtue of women." As Gem says, which appears to be completely applicable to you: "So can you not be a woman and a serious voter (and thinker) together at the same time? Presumably from your comment, only men can be serious voters (and thinkers) without allowing something as ridiculous as gender to get in the way." I am sure she will allow me my additions of "and thinker" and "and thinkers."
What is this difficulty you have with simple, clear words, like "yes" and "no"? Has it something to do with the "rarefied" circles in which you claim you travel (or should I say trawl?), where words like apercu and soubriquet are common currency? Let me spell it out for you in a simple sentence. Take a deep breath and concentrate now. "No. I am not an American living in Scotland." Let me say it again for you. " No. I am not an American living anywhere." Have you got that?
If you are unable to keep track of and remember the comments you post, and cannot recollect statements like you are a "name-caller," offensive," and "misrepresent what others say," perhaps it's time for you to hang up one of your boots.
And when, in the context of a highly charged political campaign, which includes an African-American, you use such an inflammatory word as "monkey," without accurately and fully quoting your source you should give serious consideration to hanging up the other. Comments like the one you made, which you seek to defend by saying "I was only alluding," are dangerously open to misinterpretation.
Before you do retire from the lists you might have the common decency to admit that you have been seriously wrong in your approach to at least 5 Herald posters. You also might apologise to them. Or, is that a hope too far?
Cynicus,
Shouldn't I have presumed that sexism eventually would raise its ugly head in your posts? Is your attitude towards women another of your "intellectual" techniques? Do you actually believe that your use of the phrase "Come, come ma'am. Your kitsch Scotch soubriquet fools nobody. You are far too exquisitely well-informed..." should be interpreted by the average female reader of The Herald (or any other newspaper, for that matter) as a compliment to a woman, dripping as it is with its mix of sarcasm and male pseudo-superiority? If you have access to a dictionary you might confirm that the word "kitsch" means "pretentious bad taste, especially in the arts." I also notice that the word "cynical" (from the Latin "cynicus) means "scornful of the motives or virtue of others." I would imagine from your "trolling" above that you are particularly "scornful of the motives or virtue of women." As Gem says, which appears to be completely applicable to you: "So can you not be a woman and a serious voter (and thinker) together at the same time? Presumably from your comment, only men can be serious voters (and thinkers) without allowing something as ridiculous as gender to get in the way." I am sure she will allow me my additions of "and thinker" and "and thinkers."
What is this difficulty you have with simple, clear words, like "yes" and "no"? Has it something to do with the "rarefied" circles in which you claim you travel (or should I say trawl?), where words like apercu and soubriquet are common currency? Let me spell it out for you in a simple sentence. Take a deep breath and concentrate now. "No. I am not an American living in Scotland." Let me say it again for you. " No. I am not an American living anywhere." Have you got that?
If you are unable to keep track of and remember the comments you post, and cannot recollect statements like you are a "name-caller," offensive," and "misrepresent what others say," perhaps it's time for you to hang up one of your boots.
And when, in the context of a highly charged political campaign, which includes an African-American, you use such an inflammatory word as "monkey," without accurately and fully quoting your source you should give serious consideration to hanging up the other. Comments like the one you made, which you seek to defend by saying "I was only alluding," are dangerously open to misinterpretation.
Before you do retire from the lists you might have the common decency to admit that you have been seriously wrong in your approach to at least 5 Herald posters. You also might apologise to them. Or, is that a hope too far?
Posted by: bonnie Lassie on 12:39am Sat 12 Jan 08
Cynicus,
Shouldn’t I have presumed that sexism eventually would raise its ugly head in your posts? Is your attitude towards women another of your "intellectual" techniques? Do you actually believe that your use of the phrase "Come, come ma'am. Your kitsch Scotch soubriquet fools nobody. You are far too exquisitely well-informed..." should be interpreted by the average female reader of The Herald (or any other newspaper, for that matter) as a compliment to a woman, dripping as it is with its mix of sarcasm and male pseudo-superiority? If you have access to a dictionary you might confirm that the word "kitsch" means "pretentious bad taste, especially in the arts." I also notice that the word "cynical" (from the Latin "cynicus) means "scornful of the motives or virtue of others." I would imagine from your "trolling" above that you are particularly "scornful of the motives or virtue of women." As Gem says, which appears to be completely applicable to you: "So can you not be a woman and a serious voter (and thinker) together at the same time? Presumably from your comment, only men can be serious voters (and thinkers) without allowing something as ridiculous as gender to get in the way." I am sure she will allow me my additions of "and thinker" and "and thinkers."
What is this difficulty you have with simple, clear words, like "yes" and "no"? Has it something to do with the "rarefied" circles in which you claim you travel (or should I say trawl?), where words like apercu and soubriquet are common currency? Let me spell it out for you in a simple sentence. Take a deep breath and concentrate now. "No. I am not an American living in Scotland." Let me say it again for you. “No. I am not an American living anywhere." Have you got that?
If you are unable to keep track of and remember the comments you post, and cannot recollect statements like, you are a "name-caller," offensive," and "misrepresent what others say," perhaps it's time for you to hang up one of your boots.
And when, in the context of a highly charged political campaign, which includes an African-American, you use such an inflammatory word as "monkey," without accurately and fully quoting your source you should give serious consideration to hanging up the other. Comments like the one you made, which you seek to defend by saying "I was only alluding," are dangerously open to misinterpretation.
Before you do retire from the lists you might have the common decency to admit that you have been seriously wrong in your approach to at least 5 Herald posters. You also might apologise to them. Or, is that a hope too far?
Cynicus,
Shouldn’t I have presumed that sexism eventually would raise its ugly head in your posts? Is your attitude towards women another of your "intellectual" techniques? Do you actually believe that your use of the phrase "Come, come ma'am. Your kitsch Scotch soubriquet fools nobody. You are far too exquisitely well-informed..." should be interpreted by the average female reader of The Herald (or any other newspaper, for that matter) as a compliment to a woman, dripping as it is with its mix of sarcasm and male pseudo-superiority? If you have access to a dictionary you might confirm that the word "kitsch" means "pretentious bad taste, especially in the arts." I also notice that the word &
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (52)
