Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

An Inconvenient Resurrection

By Marty Kaplan, Huffington Post. Posted January 9, 2008.


Hillary fan or not, it's fun to see pundits eat the words of their premature obituaries.

Stalin was dead. He lay on a table, face ashen, eyes closed. The Kremlin inner circle was summoned and surrounded his body. At first, there was silence. Then, one after another, his top people began saying things impossible to imagine being expressed during his life. "He was a tyrant." "He betrayed the Soviet people." "A terrible time has finally ended." There were some demurrals: "He was a great man." "I loved him." "No one can fill his shoes." Then, again, silence.

And then Stalin opened his eyes. He had faked his own death in order to test the loyalty of his lieutenants.

I don't know if this story is true or apocryphal, but I'm pretty sure I read it, something like 35 years ago, in a book by Harrison Salisbury, the New York Times' longtime correspondent in Moscow.

No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton, no matter how this campaign turns out, there is undeniable satisfaction in watching the pundit class being forced to eat the words of its premature obituaries. The strategists who were called morons are suddenly geniuses again. The candidate and her husband, who were the subject of such undisguised journalistic venom just 24 hours ago, are suddenly worthy of awe again. The donors who dissed her are wondering whether they can retract with impunity. The White House staffers-in-waiting who danced on her grave are hoping they said nothing incriminating on the record.

In the Stalin story, the Kremlin firing squad was busy all night long.

In the Clinton story, if there were any justice, a number of chattering-class reputations would now be irrecuperable.

But even in an age of Google and YouTube, don't count on it. Some of the very media wizards who declared Hillary dumb and dead are already chiding savants, pundits and gurus for getting it so wrong -- as though they themselves were not the subjects and objects of their own amnesiac scorn.

To switch the metaphor, I wonder whether this humiliating turnabout, played out in real time over a very short period right in front of the American people, could be the MSM's Katrina. Political media, you've done a heckuva job.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: new hampshire, hillary clinton, hillary

Martin Kaplan, a former White House speech writer, is a research professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Obama Or Hillary: Little Difference
Posted by: left_libertarian on Jan 9, 2008 3:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both would keep troops in Iraq, both would maintain the US Empire.

And throw a bone to the masses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At last a feminist President
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 9, 2008 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever else she has said or done, Senator Hillary Clinton has held fast to her feminist orientation.

This, even more than her gender is the sgnificance of her candidacy.

If she fails, there will be other women running for high office, but how many decades will elapse before someone comes forward and explicitly demands gender equality?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow, it didn't take long Posted by: SavageDissension
» RE: Wow, it didn't take long Posted by: cmaciain
» "packages", cleavage, etc. Posted by: MobileSucks
» Hillary will not be President Posted by: MobileSucks
Hilarious!
Posted by: Markson on Jan 9, 2008 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't care for either Senators Clinton or Obama, but last night's election results were the best TV available. To see the corporate press baffled and, honestly, hurt made my day. I enjoyed it so much I had to see how FOX "News" was covering it: they went batshit crazy!

On a serious note: I hope this allows the public to get past all the smoke and mirrors and focus on the substance of the candidacies. People need to realize that, frankly, Obama is no better than Clinton. Worse, her policies on health care and SS are far better than his. He has all the potential to be a great progressive transformational candidate but he won't be due to his corporate ties, which reflects in his voting record (My God, even Clinton voted against CAFA!).

When the chips are down Obama either defers to the Washington establishment or avoids voting altogether (i.e. he hates confrontation--when it comes to dealing with the right). Hopefully, a competitive race will force him to stop being a centrist and show us he'll be a president who'll fight zealously to defend a progressive core set of principles. We'll see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hilarious! Posted by: hagwind
Harrison's Book
Posted by: johnjmccarthy on Jan 9, 2008 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moscow Journal: The End of Stalin, 1962 available online...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cisc
Posted by: cisc on Jan 9, 2008 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been afraid of Hillary since Bill started palling around with 41-but-when she dropped the "iron lady" facade and showed human emotion I was truly impressed. I love the message of John Edwards and I truly love the idea of a John Kennedy like restoration of faith in our country-but I know a woman hating, sex loving, religeous conservative who just craps himself at the thought of Hillary. He quit speaking to me about the time I said 'the jury is still out, us lefties like Obama or Edwards, but the right would back peddle like maniacs on executive power and would finally read the constitution if she won!" A nice long campaign shaking out REAL issues will serve the country quite well! (in the mean time, you go girl!!!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: cisc Posted by: Intellect
gee, election wasn't over after Iowa?
Posted by: abrock on Jan 9, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't believe how many people were saying Clinton was dead, that the election was over after ONE caucus. Hello? there are a lot of other states that still have to vote. Talk about feeling disenfranchised...why bother holding primaries if Iowa (or maybe Iowa and New Hampshire) decide it all? Glad we had a different result in New Hampshire, not so much because I prefer Clinton but because I didn't want to be told again it was all over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is so exciting!
Posted by: scott balogh on Jan 9, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love all the candidates and all the happy smiling faces all around them. Boy, things are really going to change now. The Iraq war is winding down, and everything will be fine soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It is so exciting! Posted by: Grandma Crabby
The Best Take
Posted by: jim_altman on Jan 9, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best take on this came hours before the polls closed in Stephen Colbert's interview of Slate Mag's Chris Beam. It was a welcome breath of reality. Check it out online!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Giuliani will defeat Hillary (or Obama)
Posted by: Sean Bos on Jan 9, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you don't like Bush, you're REALLY not gonna like Giuliani because he will have the same policies (more or less) and won't take half as much garbage from the left as Bush has politely done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Markos on Daily Kos was predicting
Posted by: cjohnson44 on Jan 9, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a double digit Obama win. Can someone please find this guy a boyfriend to occupy him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another election counted on Diebold machines ends in results that defy explanation
Posted by: Rune on Jan 9, 2008 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many times are we going to watch this trick being played out before our eyes without taking into account the devices that make the trick possible? It is not magic. It is not that all the polls and pundits suddenly lost their ability to track what was happening after doing so consistently well in other races held at the same time. It is more likely that much of the seemingly inexplicable surprise can be explained by easily hacked voting machines doing what they are made to do: allow the results to be tilted without leaving any evidence of tampering.

Well, almost no evidence: there is the striking disparity between hand counted and machine counted votes. Among hand counted ballots, Obama bested Clinton 38.6% to 34.9%. However, Clinton's official victory is due to the results of machine counted ballots, where the results tipped in her favor, 39.6% to 36.3%. Edwards did worse in the machine counted precincts, too, but by less than 1% of a difference. In fact, the only candidate on the ballots who did better in machine counted precincts was Clinton. Isn't that interesting?

Here are some other interesting tidbits regarding the spin surrounding the scam, courtesy of Bradblog (link provided above):

UPDATE 9:40pm PT: While the talking heads are trying to figure out what happened here on MSNBC, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, while paging through a stack of papers said to be Exit Poll data, just said: "Of those who made up their mind in the last three days, there was a slight favoring for Obama. If there was a huge difference in a move to Hillary, in the last three days, it doesn't seem to be reflected in the Exit Polling."

UPDATE 9:48pm PT: Olbermann repeated what Russert had said earlier, that Obama's internal polls showed him winning by 14%, Clinton's internal polls had Obama winning by 11%.

The effect of Obama being an African-American, the so-called "Bradley Effect", is now being discussed as the newest "reason" to explain the numbers. Though it's noted that it didn't effect Harold Ford in TN in '06, or even Obama in Iowa just five days ago.

(ADDED: Josh Holland from Alternet points out via email, correctly, concerning my point about the "Bradley Effect" not coming into play in Iowa: "The 'Bradley effect' would not work in an open caucus, where everyone can see whom everyone else is supporting. The theory requires the privacy of a voting booth." He's correct. Thanks for pointing that out! --- BF)

UPDATE 11:06pm PT: As we know, the presumption is always that the polls were wrong. Never the results. Despite how much less transparent the system used to count votes is than the system used to collect polling data. With that in mind, Matthew Yglesias at The Atlantic, makes the following point, in a post headlined "How Wrong Were the Polls?", suggesting that the only numbers that changed here were Clinton's. She surged. Everyone else, even Obama who just had an historic victory in Iowa five days ago, did not...

So where did her votes come from, if Exit Polling data showed, as mentioned by MSNBC above, that last minute deciders broke evenly, and even a bit more for Obama??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you GOP!
Posted by: Crazy H on Jan 9, 2008 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Hillary takes it, it will be primarily because the GOP has spent the last sixteen years making her a celebrity.

She'd be almost unknown otherwise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you media Posted by: thelostsailor
» RE: Thank you GOP! Posted by: wavydavy
» RE: Thank you GOP! Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Thank you GOP! Posted by: Intellect
It's not "fun" to see our country edge closer to
Posted by: thelostsailor on Jan 9, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
signing up for nearly the same program as the past '7 year American Rendition program'. It would be 'fun' to see a great candidate appear out of nowhere...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

old ladies never die
Posted by: solrev on Jan 9, 2008 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The pollsters were so excited about tracking the young guns they forgot to ask the little old ladies what they did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't it already decided?
Posted by: Hovey on Jan 9, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't the horserace aspect really just a smokescreen? I mean the DNC picks Clinton she goes on and the same for Obama. I think Clinton was the choice this year and I don't see that changing unless Obama can sweep up so many primaries that the Superdelegates, 40% (?) or so of all convetion delegates feel pressure to move away from the chosen one. The democratic party has always been a club and although a guy like Howard Dean and Obama can get membership don't they first have to pay their dues? Clinton not being the nominee at the end of the process would be very surprising to me. Everything from then and now is just to try to fool the public into thinking they actually have some say in matters. --Damn am I getting cynical as I age. Eddie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An "Oops" By The Media
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Jan 9, 2008 4:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since I'm a journalist I recognized that this was a major "oops" by the nation's press. I know I have made mistakes in my reporting, too.
Look at what happened to Louisiana State University-LSU, for short, in college football, for example. They overcame two losses to win the national championship. It's like they wanted to say one loss and you're done. There are 48 more primaries to go.
But even if you do not vote for senator Clinton, we have to encourage her for trying. You go, girl!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time to Take the Trash Out of the White House
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 9, 2008 4:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoever gets elected, even a Repub., it will be a vast improvement over what we have now. Of course, a liberal Dem. will be best, but, what we have seen for almost 8 years now is the worst President in USA history. Unproved wars, illegal spying, torture, etc. Election time, good. Time to take the trash out of the white house.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the future of our nation we are voting for...
Posted by: niliadis on Jan 9, 2008 8:48 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
except hold on..Can we trust our nation's future to an inexperienced person. Remember our economy is on the floor, Gas prices are in the sky, we are at war, danger of terrorism, need I say more!
Are we ready to vote in a person that may put us futher into a depression or the continuance of more wars? No I don't think so..And as nice as Mr. Obama is...so far words of change and hope do not make it a reality.Has he said how, when and what he has done in the past to bring forth all this change he talks about? No I am sorry..we need to vote responsibly and carefully! After all It's our Nation, It's our future we are putting in his hands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Doc Reality
Posted by: jfingers1 on Jan 10, 2008 7:29 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well lets take a look at who won, since Diebold votes for 81% of NH we know for sure when matched against paper, Diebold wins again! It's a God damned NWO dog and pony show for the plebs. Please, please, please if you are still under the illusion of 'free & honest' elections, please seek psychological help to get you to gain a grasp on reality and how things truly work. As soon as we get off our keyboards and asses and go out and seriously secure the vote, the only ones who are being fooled are ourselves and the future of our prodigy.
Diebolds in New England are programmed by LHS and the dubious Mr. Silvestro who had a partnership with a convicted drug felon. INVESTGATE PEOPLE< INVESTIGATE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]