Being Saved by the Bell Doesn't Equal Momentum
I'm sorry. Really, I am. I keep breaking my promises. But I'm a bit crazed today, as you might be able to tell. I really think this will pass by tomorrow. Really. One hopes.
But the New York Times (and others) keep using this word, "momentum," to describe Clinton's wins last night. I'm writing this post as an Obama supporter, yes, but please consider it more of a missive from a stickler for definitions. To borrow from Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, I don't think that word means what they think it means.
Momentum means "force or speed of movement; impetus." To lose 12 contests in a row and then win a critical contest by four points when you had been leading it by 20 very recently is not momentum in your favor. It's the opposite. But in this, as in all things, the Clintons can't cope with strict definitions. I get it -- she has to put the best possible face on things. I'd do the same in her place, I suppose. But claiming momentum at this point seems particularly Orwellian and absurd and, well, statistically untrue. Should this change, I like to think I'd be the first to admit it.
But the New York Times (and others) keep using this word, "momentum," to describe Clinton's wins last night. I'm writing this post as an Obama supporter, yes, but please consider it more of a missive from a stickler for definitions. To borrow from Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, I don't think that word means what they think it means.
Momentum means "force or speed of movement; impetus." To lose 12 contests in a row and then win a critical contest by four points when you had been leading it by 20 very recently is not momentum in your favor. It's the opposite. But in this, as in all things, the Clintons can't cope with strict definitions. I get it -- she has to put the best possible face on things. I'd do the same in her place, I suppose. But claiming momentum at this point seems particularly Orwellian and absurd and, well, statistically untrue. Should this change, I like to think I'd be the first to admit it.
posted by JMW at 2:56 PM
5 Comments:
obama goin down.
Any thoughts on the Rezko thing? The latest is that Rezko bought the lot next to Obama's house for the purpose of allowing Obama to use it without paying for it. (The blog MyDD has been publishing exposes about it.)
Here's what I find most troubling about this story: I don't find it troubling at all. If Clinton or Huckabee got caught with the same situation -- a $600,000 benefit from a contributor that was never declared -- I'd probably be shouting about dishonesty. But with Obama, I find myself still trusting him, thinking, "Well, unless someone can show me that Obama paid him back in kind, then I think it just seems like Obama found a wealthy benefactor. And let's face it, there's nothing wrong with accepting the generosity of others." And yet, I think that the mere fact that Clinton won't disclose her tax returns is nearly definitive proof that her books are shady.
But isn't this likely just me making excuses for someone I like? The cognitive dissonance troubles me.
-- MattM
It sounds like you are making up excuses for someone you like, Matt. I'm guessing you don't live in Chicago, so, like most people, you aren't aware of just how pervasive corruption is in this city. The national coverage of the Rezko trial is just starting to expose the rest of the country to what we see here now, and have witnessed for decades and decades. No matter what anybody can say about Hillary, she's not a Chicagoan like Barack Obama. Good thing she got out of the state before they had a chance to corrupt her.
Yes, there's cognitive dissonance. I think that's understandable in all walks of life -- if I found out something bad about my father or mother or college roommate, for instance, I would reactly differently than if I found it out about someone down the street I've never heard of. Makes sense. Likewise, since I think Hillary Clinton is far more corrupt (and corruptible) than Obama, I can handle the dissonance. As I've said on this blog many times, though some don't seem to believe me, I don't think that Obama or any other politician is saintly. I'm not looking to him for that.
There's also this, of course: That despite the ludicrous widespread belief that the press is taking it easier on Obama, Clinton gets to play the bully on "ethics" (ha ha). To the point, of the other five Rezko co-defendants:
"three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama."
Read all about it:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/123948/7839/356/470517
did any of those co-defendents buy the clintons a house? i'm going to guess no. i'm also going to guess that obama is a liar and cheat about 500,000 times worse than any of the rest.
Post a Comment
<< Home