home

The Tweety Effect Goes National

After winning New Hampshire for Hillary Clinton by galvanizing women voters to support Hillary, the Tweety Effect (Media Misogyny pushing women voters to Hillary) has gone national:
Clinton is at 49 percent in the new poll, up nine points from the December survey, with Obama at 36 percent, which is a six-point gain from his December standing." . . . Clinton has re-established herself as the Democratic front-runner, especially among Democratic women," Schneider said.
Notice that Obama has also risen in this poll so it is not that Obama lost support, he is not blamed for the Media Misogyny, the Media is blamed. As it should be. Now we have a contest and hopefully, a chastened Media. May the best person win.

< Judis On The Wilder Effect: Kohut Is Irresponsible | Ben Nelson To Endorse Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Which is why I'm worried about the (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    campaign Jeralyn posted about to get MSNBC to get rid of Matthews. And you are cited in their campaign.  Are you trying to suppress the vote for Hillary Clinton?  

    Which we will call the Armando effect (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    because the BTD effect would sound stupid in the wiki and sort serial killerish ;)

    Parent
    forgot my "of" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:37:02 PM EST
    been out "of" coffee for 2 days now.

    Parent
    One can only hope we pick a candidate (none / 0) (#2)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    based on emotional reaction, instead of policy

    Baseball and Apple Pie (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:31:34 PM EST
    Did you guys watch Bill Maher last night? :-) (none / 0) (#6)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:41:21 PM EST
    Of course we all know, Bill is a terrible misogynist, so anything he says can be discounted, at least by these new emerging pseudo feminists, and their phony political movement. :-)

    Bill mercilessly went after Clinton's crying in his monologue, then went on to question the validity of the New Hampshire primary.  He also said that the Republicans don't want to run against Barack Obama, their preference being to run against Hillary Clinton.

    That's the great thing about Bill Maher, he always tells it like it is.

    At the end of the show he did come down on the Clinton haters on the right, but he was obviously unimpressed with Mrs. Clinton's calculated moment, which came in response to a question about her hair apparently, she wasn't even paying attention to what the person at the diner was actually asking her, she just used it to get her little emotional moment on TV.

    I'm beginning to think that the only reason Jeralyn and many other women support Hillary Clinton, is because she is a woman, and for no other reason.  Jeralyn's politics certainly don't jibe with Hillary's.  The fact is that she's a pro war candidate, and her Senate record proves that.

    So as one of Bill's guest said, the media establishment is manipulating the race so that we are left with the media's two anointed candidates, Clinton and McCain, and they're working hard to make that happen.  They know that both of these candidates can be relied upon to toe the line.

    Clinton has now transformed herself into a populist overnight, after her little fear mongering tactics turned out to be such a dismal failure, now she's proposing an economic plan which is little more than a payoff to the American people, the Democratic version of George W. Bush's tax rebate some years ago.  Vote for me and I'll put money in your pocket, the kind of thing that would get you arrested if you did it overtly.  What a despicable tactic, that the establishment is behind all the way.  Hardly better than the worms who constitute the front runners of the completely bought and paid for Republican Party.

    And of course those who defend Clinton have no other recourse but to play the gender card. It's not Hillary that everyone finds so objectionable and without credibility, it's all women.  Let's see if you can make the American people swallow this, yet another cheap political tactic.  I guess you have to use such an approach because you've got nothing else, nothing genuinely progressive to offer the American people.

    To say the media is picking Clinton is crazy. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:06:22 PM EST
    They are attacking her constantly.

    Parent
    And, no, I did not watch Maher. (none / 0) (#15)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    Turns out I was on a picket line outside the studio.

    Also, Hillary is using one of the PR consultants here in LA who was hired by the studios to break the union.

    Whatever it takes, Hillary.

    Parent

    A DA on the picket line? Now that (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    is solidarity.  (Kidding.)

    Parent
    You're not in the media are you? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:05:46 PM EST
    So I don't expect you to understand the subtle ways in which the media, and those who control the mainstream media set about influencing public opinion.

    Let's just say that it's sophisticated, and many of the smartest people don't catch it. But it's getting harder and harder for them as a direct result of the blogging world, and those who pay attention to these subtle and not so subtle manipulations.

    Parent

    Can you define for me how Hillary (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:45:16 PM EST
    is a pro war candidate.  What about her Senate record proves that?

    Parent
    Unfortunately, she voted for the AUMF, (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:02:29 PM EST
    giving the President discretion to invade Iraq.  

    Parent
    I know that....... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:24:44 PM EST
    But does that make her pro war?

    Parent
    Well, the problem seems to be she has (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:28:06 PM EST
    not publicly issued a mea culpa.  

    As to her vote in favor of Kyle-Lieberman, she and Dianne Feinstein both say they voted for it to encourage the U.S. to negotiate with Iran (doesn't pass the straight face test with me).  On the other hand, Obama Barack was not present to vote.  Was campaigning in NH and sd. he didn't get the message.

    Parent

    Kyl-Lieberman (none / 0) (#38)
    by BDB on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:23:05 PM EST
     I don't think Kyl-Lieberman was a vote for war.  Carl Levin and many other Senators who opposed the Iraq war also voted for it.   Now, I wouldn't have voted the same way Clinton did, but I do think  she deserves some credit for casting a vote based on what she truly believed because she had to have known it was not going to be popular with the anti-war democrats she's been trying to win over in the primary.   For all the talk of her "triangulating" it seems to me this is an example of her not pandering.  Whereas Obama skipped the vote, kept silent until he saw Edwards score points, and then beat Clinton up for voting for it when he had introduced a bill that did much the same thing as this one.  Not one of Obama's finer moments, IMO, although it's certainly been effective politically.

    Totally agree her AUMF vote was a mistake.  I don't think she'd have invaded Iraq if she had been President, but that still doesn't excuse a bad vote and it was a bad vote.  But I'm more interested in what she's going to do now than how she voted then because she had a lot of company, including John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd.  

    Parent

    Her vote for the war, maybe? (none / 0) (#12)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:04:32 PM EST
    Or her vote on Iran?  Seems pretty evident that she was pro-war until the country turned against it, then she was anti-war.  She follows the polls.

    Parent
    She voted to give a president (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:51:57 PM EST
    a power to increase his negotiating arsenal with a dictator and Bush threw the negotiating part out the window the next morning.  It was the most hawkish thing a President has done in decades, it floored people.....I remember.  

    And her Iran vote Per TimesOnline

    THE HEAD of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps slipped into the green zone of Baghdad last month to press Tehran's hardline position over the terms of the current talks with American officials, it was claimed last week.

    Iraqi government sources say that Major-General Mohammed Ali Jafari, 50, travelled secretly from Tehran. Jafari appears to have passed through checkpoints on his way into the fortified enclave that contains the American embassy and Iraqi ministries, even though he is on Washington's "most wanted" list.

    Last year Washington declared the guard a "foreign terrorist organisation" and imposed sanctions on it.

    One of the accusations that led to the designation was the charge that the Quds Force, a branch of the guard, was supplying rockets, mortars and roadside bombs known as explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) to Shi'ite militias in Iraq.

    Now this vote has led to talking. Iran IS a key player if we ever want stability for Iraq, and the country of Iran was already on our list of terrorist sponsoring states. The only thing that Hillary vote did was allow sanctions that brought the Revolutionary Guard to the table in the Green Zone and this is not a small thing.  Now hopefully the Bush administration has supplied a warm body that knows how to talk to someone.  Where's the pro war? The only thing I see here is someone who isn't stupid about the realities and facts of life.  Seems like Republicans aren't the only ones who have forgotten how to deal with difficult people successfully.


    Parent

    Man, when you support a candidate, you (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:00:44 PM EST
    really step up.  But, couldn't the U.S. negotiate w/Iran w/o the K-L?  

    Parent
    You forget that I want Edwards to win (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:22:33 PM EST
    I just can't digest the pro war stuff because nobody running for President with "D" anywhere near their name is pro war right now.  I'm not going to tell you that other forms of negotiating failed because any negotiating that this administration takes on never seems to meet my definition of negotiating.  I think what the Senator voted for was fair and reasonable given the facts.  It's just me, but I was waiting for that boat thing to be something pretty questionable and now it might be.  Who knows who would have created such a thing but does Dick Cheney really want negotiations with Iran to work?  They didn't really want negotiations with Saddam to work and do you remember if there ended being any truth to claims that Saddam was trying to contact the administration and speak to them about the way things were without having to bare his toothless gums to the whole world to include Iran.  I remember reading about it but I don't remember that it became a tale with proof.

    Parent
    I thought just after NH you (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    were speaking out in favor Hillary Clinton's candidacy.  

    That "boat thing" is very worrisome, I agree.  

    Edwards is the Dem. candidate who seems most "above the fray" at the moment, although that was not my opinion just after the last debate.  

    Parent

    I'm much more in favor of a Clinton (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:38:53 PM EST
    candidacy now.  If I had been a N.H. voter I probably would have voted for her that day because of my "issues" ;)  I still hope for Edwards but in the event he doesn't make it to the convention, given what has come up recently I'm very compelled to go Clinton.

    Parent
    Is the misogynist media driving (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:41:32 PM EST
    you to Hillary Clinton, or do you actually think she would be a good, electable Dem. Presidential candidate?  

    Parent
    It's finishing the debate for me (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:44:17 PM EST
    I'm not crazy about kumbaya and I'm not crazy about the conservatives coming onboard with Obama, it's creeping me out on the tails of the worst government ever, or at least in any history that I'm familiar with.  I don't like that Clinton has lobbyists falling out of her pockets at a rate much greater than Obamas but when I weigh it all out I feel myself slipping Clinton.

    Parent
    Wow, gimmee a minute here (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:09:33 PM EST
    I have to put my butt back on ;)  I just talked to my spouse on the phone about the "boat" incident.  First of all, he says in this day it is in his opinion impossible to get the whole bridge of a destoyer to lie about an incident like the one that just happened.  He realizes that it is hard to have some faith right now but you aren't going to get a lie through like the Tillman thing when you have to involve a whole ship's bridge. Secondly the ship's command has been commended for not firing and showing restraint because in the higher ups opinion it was an attempt to make us look like bigger losers than we already are in middle east and now the larger debate is to figure out how to encourage fewer get togethers like this one because we may have allowed in a new boundary with the Revolutionary Guard to be set and we don't want that.  He says their tape is suspicious cuz how come the Farsi is so difficult to understand while the English spoken is so clear and text book, but he says that isn't a major thing just something that makes him wonder.

    Parent
    MT, I'm a tad (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:59:11 AM EST
    worried about you putting this on a blog.

    Parent
    Nah, we could get this info (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    off the net if we wanted it.  We might have to send an email or two, and the strategy of the ordeal I imagine most soldiers who put a little time in grasp or grasped easily where as I don't and only have a firm grasp on suspicion. Blackfive probably has several posts up from old soldiers stating Bring It On or something logical like that.

    Parent
    spoken like a (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:46:41 PM EST
    true Obama supporter. And you ignore my repeated statements that neither race nor gender will influence my ultimate choice of who to vote for on Feb. 5.

    Parent
    So for the record Jeralyn (none / 0) (#9)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:01:47 PM EST
    You haven't made up your mind right?

    You really want me and everyone else who reads this blog to believe that?

    :-) :-) :-)

    Parent

    She says she has not (none / 0) (#13)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:05:20 PM EST
    But actions speak louder than words.  At this point the claim is absurd.

    Parent
    Aaron, did you take the candidate preference (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:03:27 PM EST
    poll linked in Jeralyn's post yesterday?  Care to share your results?

    Parent
    Yeah, I just took test. Manipulation unappreciated (none / 0) (#25)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:18:35 PM EST
    And I reject it because it is quite obviously misleading.  Like the part that asks about mandatory health care, and claims that Obama doesn't agree with mandatory health care.

    That's an out and out lie, what Obama doesn't agree with his placing mandates on the people of this country, putting yet another burden on them instead of on the insurance companies where such mandates rightly belong.

    None of the candidates have the guts to do that, because the insurance lobby has way too much power in this country.

    So I reject phony little tests that would mischaracterize one candidate for the benefit of another.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see that kind of manipulation appearing here on talk left, given what I've seen over the last few months.

    It's as if Jeralyn and Armando look upon their readers as a jury, that they will do anything within the bounds of their own personal rather flexible ethics to sway in their clients favor.  I think this is a result of too many years of dealing with the adversarial legal system that places all emphasis on victory, regardless of the facts.  

    If you have to bend the truth and manipulate the facts in your favor in order to achieve victory, so be it.  That's great when you're representing a client, and their interests are your only concern, but unless Hillary Clinton is your client, then you're doing yourselves and everyone else a disservice by using such tactics in a political debate.  It undercuts your credibility and leaves the nasty taste of manipulation in the mouths of all those who are not falling for your closing arguments.

    Parent

    You aren't suggesting TalkLeft (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:32:59 PM EST
    rigged the quiz, are you?  I'm just curious how you came out, as I was quite surprised at my results.

    I don't see how the U.S. will ever have universal health care with the insurance industries in place.  Can't force them to pick up the cost anymore that gov't is willing to force all employers to do so.  

    Parent

    Yes, Talk Left has a responsibility (none / 0) (#34)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:30:06 PM EST
    Yes, if you're going to post something on your blog, then you have a duty to evaluate its efficacy and fairness.

    As to making the system work, It's very simple, the US government provides subsidies to private insurers that accept everyone and don't ration health care, allowing them to lower cost drastically across the board.  Every other insurer who doesn't want to abide by these stipulations can try and compete against that, and very shortly all private insurers will fall into line or they they'll find themselves out of business.  

    And slowly we will move towards a system that is the virtual equivalent of a nonprofit health insurance system, where all the money goes into providing health care and covering administrative costs. That way we can do away with the insurance industry making a half trillion dollars a year, and profiting off the pain and suffering of the American people.

    Parent

    Given your mischaracterizations here and (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    elsewhere of other people's positions, I'd wouldn't throw around phrases like:

    their own personal rather flexible ethics

    You haven't exactly been squeaky clean in this regard.

    Parent

    There's a difference between mischaracterization.. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:16:54 PM EST
    ...and reading between the lines.  I express my opinions without reservation, and with very little self editing.  If you don't see the difference between that and manipulation, then I submit your political viewpoints are blinding you.

    Also I've taken a position in support of a specific candidate, unlike Armando and Jeralyn, who continue to put themselves forward as some kind of impartial judge in the evaluation of the available facts and the rhetoric being thrown around.  Excuse me if I and others who read this blog find that disingenuous and more than a little bit manipulative.

    The differences between them and me is that you know who I am an advocate for, they on the other hand want to play advocate and judge at the same time.  I find that unfair, but I suppose it's their blog, and if you're comfortable playing judge, jury and executioner, that's cool.  But don't think you're not going to get called out for this.

    Parent

    BTD openly characterizes himself of (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:29:20 PM EST
    late as a "conditional" supporter of Barack Obama's primary candidacy.  He's trying to make Obama a better, more Democratically partisan candidate, is my read.  It is all for Barack Obama's own good.

    No comment on Jeralyn, except that she seems, like many women, prone to defend Hillary Clinton.  That's not really a sub silentio endorsement, I gather.

    Parent

    Playing fast and loose with the truth? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:39:36 PM EST
    I never said you were not overt in expressing your opinion. What I said was you mischaracterize statements of others. You just now mischaracterize what I previously wrote.

    As for JM, she has made no secret she prefers Edwards and Clinton, but will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. You mischaracterized her position of having not decided between Edwards and Clinton as her falsely claiming not to have made up her mind at all.

    I don't think you really want me researching all of your statements here and at Mydd. Suffice it to say, you don't have the requisite "clean hands" to malign the ethics of anyone.

    Parent

    Naturally (none / 0) (#19)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:31:20 PM EST
    Naturally people who were inclined to vote for Clinton in the first place, but who had gone into the Undecided column upon awareness of her competitors, will come back to her in part for her mature reaction to media infantility. But it is going too far, and insulting, to attribute this to an attempt by women to chasten Tweety et alia. If Clinton had played victim, she would not be getting these votes. But without Tweety she might well be getting most of them anyway.

    (A great example of victim-playing was Jesse Ventura, but you had to be around here in Minnesota to see it.)

    Interesting not on the NH primary (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:54:25 PM EST
    More than 80 percent of the ballots were counted by one PRIVATE company.  
    Just some food for thought.  The Tweety effect is nothing compared to how utterly insecure and easily rigged our elections now are.

     

    I really think if the NH Dem. primary (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:01:56 PM EST
    results were rigged, the vote count wouldn't have been so close.  

    Parent