So the problem is that if you start a blog, people expect you to actually post something. Truth is I work too hard and though I have a high ideal that I'll post daily, I haven't yet developed the discipline.
I have some serious concerns about the results we saw in the New Hampshire primary. Richard thinks I'm a conspiracy theory nut. I make no apologies here. I question everything. I believe we are totally manipulated by the media.
What do they tell us about John Edwards? NOTHING. Exactly nothing. He has been totally dismissed and is now not considered newsworthy. Of course, we hear tons about Dr. Phil and Britney and whoever else they plaster all over our psyches to keep us asleep and distracted.
John Edwards is a threat so he has been summarily shuffled out of the public's awareness. Here is how Fox News managed to smear him early on, calling him a "phony" and an "intellectual lightweight."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WNcV1S2H-3Q
So what do you think about the NH primary. I think we have to question whether or not there was black box fraud. Here are some interesting stats in a comment on the Zogby blog.:
"I used the Comma delimited database: NH municipalities hand count vs use Diebold machines from BlackBoxVoting.org to see if there was a deviation between the results from precincts which used hand counts and those which relied on Diebold machines. The results were astonishing. :
Updated: 5:05 AM (EST) - Results tallied for 209 out of 236 of the municipalities.
By Percentage
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 53.23% 46.77%
Hand Count 47.47% 52.53%
By Votes
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 82860 72807
Hand Count 18898 20912
By Number of Municipalities Won
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 54 33
Hand Count 43 77
About 81% of the votes will be "counted" by the Diebold machines
Reply Parent posted 04:41 pm on 01/09/2008"
This was a comment made on Zogby's blog, which is interesting in itself. Zogby can't really explain the discrepancies from the polls to the final count! Zogby's blog post on NH.
More evidence of the loss of democracy.
And if there was fraud, what are the motives behind it? What do you think?
BTW, I absolutely HATED that the media made a big deal about Hillary on the verge of tears. It is a manipulative sexist smear and I was offended. I saw Biden on the verge of tears this summer when he spoke about the war. I like to see people who are passionate and committed and moved to respond with heart-felt emotion, male or female! Some, including Zogby say that Hillary's crying is what turned the NH primary in her favor - people saw her human side. Puh-leeze! I still find it dismissive and a disgusting tactic. I don't agree with Hillary on probably several counts and she is not my first choice in candidates, but this is a subtle dig that I know they will exploit and milk for all it is worth and bravo for her comeback "Whose cryin' now?"
About Me
Nathan & Phoebe at Millenium Park
Nathan & Phoebe 2008
Nathan & Phoebe 2006
Inside a giant redwood.
Nathan & Phoebe 2003
Ommmmmmm!
7 comments:
Edwards isn't "the story." The story is Obama vs Clinton. The story is who's up and who's down. The story is who's crying, who's dealin' dirt, who's in trouble, who's raising money. Anything but the issues.
Sallee,
You wondered why the Repubs would want Hillary to win- well this guy who I am quoting has the answer: They don't want to face Obama in November:
The polls were correct!!!
After analyzing the NH polling details at
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
I am convinced that Diebold got hacked again.
The Republicans don't want to face Obama in November so they did the same thing they did in 2004 - fudge the actual results to get Clinton nominated.
All so interesting, but I want to focus on SC.
John's support on the ground there is very good.
Who will fly there and help?
I cannot. No cash as of yet and too much work responsibilities.
Yes, the media is smothering what they don't want to talk about. That is not news.
What is news is that John is in this for the long haul.
I sent the campaign $10. Who else will?
Um, whether people cry or not - remember Ed Muskie - is pretty irrelevant, although the coverage is always irritating.
Richardson dropped out yesterday.
So we effectively have what we thought we had all along --
three viable candidates.
The media cannot win again.
It will be too disheartening for the country, so blog away and may the best person win.
Sallee,
Also, when I commented above, I chose
"publish" and it "saved" it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/shut-up-larry_b_81091.html
I am exploring the astrology of the candidates right now for myself and for others who may be interested. Just looked up Edwards chart. He is a Gemini born on June 10th, 1953. In fact we both share our suns in Gemini in the 12th house - very spiritual. But his forcefulness comes from having Mars conjunct his sun in the 12th house. From numerology the birth date indicates leadership - the number 10. In terms of elements though, he has little fire or earth in his chart, and a lot of air and water.
Thanks Ruth,
I have copied Smiley's comments because it took me awhile to find them and this is easy:
From Jane Smiley on Huffington Post site:
When I read Lawrence O'Donnell's post calling John Edwards a "loser" and threatening a lifetime of infamy if he doesn't get out of the race, I immediately went to O'Donnell's bio to see his party affiliation. I was sure it would say "R" -- but it didn't. It didn't say anything.
However, I am fairly sure in my own mind that Karl Rove paid him to write that post. Look at it this way: O'Donnell attacks the only candidate in the race with explicitly progressive policy positions, and the only candidate in the race who hasn't accepted corporate money, and the only candidate in the race who understands how corporations are poisoning American politics and American life with their unrestrained power and influence.
In addition, O'Donnell maintains that the only two candidates we can have to choose between are Clinton and Obama. Both Clinton and Obama have serious electability issues. If you believe that there was no Diebold factor in New Hampshire (something that I think requires further investigation but will not get it, I am sure), then you have to acknowledge and fear the Bradley factor -- that there is a core group of American white voters who will not vote for a black man no matter what they say to pollsters. By the same token, polls among voters of all types have shown that Clinton has the highest negatives -- the highest number of voters who will not vote for her under any circumstances.
Hillary Clinton aroused incredible antagonism in the 1990s. The antagonism she aroused was not rational, but then, neither is voting. So, what O'Donnell proposes is prematurely reducing the choices of Democrats to the two candidates that are, on the face of it, the least electable. It was clear from the op-ed that Rove wrote a few weeks ago that the Republicans, whose own candidates run the gamut from the ridiculous (Fred Thompson) to the psychopathic (Rudolph Giuliani) and the theocratic (Huckabee) have already begun to see finagling the Democratic primary race as their only chance. If O'Donnell happens to be a Democrat and he buys into this strategy, then the infamy is his.
But I thank him for one thing -- he persuaded me to send a nice fat donation to John Edwards.
Post a Comment