Yes, I was the deluded moron twittering "Don't give up hope". A friend and I sat on the couch and played online poker while we watched the final returns; drawing to an inside straight while all-in was considerably less nerve-wracking. I was briefly cheered by Democracy in America's snarky liveblogging. But a more lasting boost comes from Ryan Avent:
In listening to the coverage of the New Hampshire primary, it strikes me as odd that no one is mentioning how the tight Obama-Clinton race is among non-Edwards voters. If we suspect that Edwards voters would tend to favor Obama, then one has to wonder how long he’s willing to stay in the race without winning any primaries. You have to feel like Obama would have run away with this had Edwards dropped out after Iowa.
I was surprised at how hard I was rooting for Obama, given that this election feels a lot like being asked "So, which of the plagues of Egypt would you like to be consumed by?" Watching the primary returns surrounded by a vast horde of Obama supporters may have something to do with it, but by the end of the night, I was the most agitated one.
"I was surprised at how hard I was rooting for Obama, given that this election feels a lot like being asked 'So, which of the plagues of Egypt would you like to be consumed by?'"
Hillary's victory is unfortunate. We're a little clsoer than we were to her socialist "sharing" society.
John McCain's victory is heartening though. It will be hard for Hillary to persuade people that she is more equipped to be commander-in-chief in a time of war than McCain.
Megan's readers should be mindful that she wrote a long, long, long essay explaining why we would be better off with four more years of W. (rather than a boring middle-of-the-road Democrat), despite the previous four years' mountains of evidence to the contrary. How'd that turn out for us?
This has been going around lately, but does it have any factual basis? Clinton won among women, the poor, the uneducated, Catholics, the elderly, and union members. Obama won among men, the middle class and the rich, college graduates, and the very young. Do people seriously think that John "Two Americas" Edwards draws his support from the latter? I don't see it. You should also recall how hard it is to beat the establishment candidate, regardless of who New Hampshire wants.
"So, which of the plagues of Egypt would you like to be consumed by?"
Brilliant.
BTW, I'll take the frogs, please. Or an extended police action in Iran.
"So, which of the plagues of Egypt would you like to be consumed by?"
Megan, the territory you tend to stake out is very similar to that of Joe Klein or Maureen Dowd. You are deathly afraid of the possibility that a politician might actually have a policy agenda you support, and that you might have to become identified with it. As I've said before, this means you're deciding to spend your life in the "irrelevant" bracket.
"As I've said before, this means you're deciding to spend your life in the "irrelevant" bracket."-brooksfoe
I agree with brooksfoe. There is a kind of pretntiousness in this "I'm too pure to support any candidate" routine.
If you want restrained government spending and an assertive foreign policy, then you have a perfectly honorable choice in McCain. If, instead, you want more spending on social services and a less assertive foreign policy, then you have a fine choice in Obama.
How either one could be described as a "plague" is a mystery to me. Perhaps Megan McArdle is waiting for Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson to rise from the dead and run again. But then, even they didn't look quite as perfect to their contemporaries as they do to us.
Guys, stop. Her recent hysterics show that the primary season is getting to her. Back of or she might choke up or something and God knows us men don't know how to handle a sobbing woman.
Well put.
Megan's readers should be mindful that she wrote a long, long, long essay explaining why we would be better off with four more years of W. (rather than a boring middle-of-the-road Democrat), despite the previous four years' mountains of evidence to the contrary. How'd that turn out for us?
You mean, compared to four years of the alternative?
Megan: ... one has to wonder how long [Edwards is] willing to stay in the race without winning any primaries.
It's not like he's got something more interesting to do with his life.
So, which of the plagues of Egypt would you like to be consumed by?
Definitely the frogs. Right on, McHugh.
There is a kind of pretntiousness in this "I'm too pure to support any candidate" routine.
Nonsense. If the policy positions don't appeal to you, then they don't appeal to you. I see no reason to throw your weight behind someone that you find only marginally acceptable just so you can have a favorite horse in the race.
...this means you're deciding to spend your life in the "irrelevant" bracket.
Irrelevant only until the brackets shift, and the more people taking the "none of these options is right for me" route, the more quickly a shift will occur. Or do you mean irrelevant as a voter? If so, we're all irrelevant to a first approximation. If you mean irrelevant as an opinion leader, that's belied by the number of us that are back everyday to hear what Megan has to say.
Just because you lie in the tail end of the distribution does mean you are naive or arrogant or idealistic or simplistic or doomed to irrelevance.