Q-and-A with Daisy - Volume Three

Left: Mr Natural by R. Crumb

~*~

A defender of Bob Jones University writes me, blood a-boilin, and wants to know WHY I dislike the school. Seriously, he wants to know WHY!! What, dear God, can one say to that?

My reply:

Did you bother to read my posts? Isn't it CLEAR? If not, I can't help you.

My question: How could you NOT hate a backward, reactionary, disgusting, repressive, anachronistic, warmongering, heretical, duplicitous, power-hungry, racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist organization like that, unless you are unAmerican and think repression is GOOD?

The USSR is history. Hopefully, BJU will be next.

Ciao,

Daisy

That answer didn't set too well with BJU-defender. He replied and I pseudo-fisked his reply, most of which is included below for your amusement, edification and as a cautionary tale. Names and details left out to protect actual BJU students. [I will say: I don't know anyone NOW attending Bob Jones University, at this moment. Thus, what I have said below applies only to past students and alumni I have known. BJU ANTI SEX LEAGUE: Please do not use what I have written below to start a witch hunt against anyone NOW attending BJU. Thank you.]

~*~

Mr BJU-Man replies:

Of course it's not clear, Daisy. All I see is a bunch of raw emotion and no facts.

One fact, just one of 12,000 of any "facts" I could randomly provide: gay people are denied the right to marry, a right that heterosexual couples enjoy and that confers the rights of adoption, automatic parental rights, inheritance, tax deductions, insurance, and so forth... and BJU financially backs politicians (proudly!) who avidly work to continue to deny these rights.

Do you deny that this is so?

There's a fact for ya.

Great catch phrases in your description--those self righteous terms are typical of folks that are unwittingly narrow minded. U are simply another simpleton with no understanding of the school, just what U choose to believe.

I've known gay students at BJU who have to slink around and arrange to meet their girl/boyfriends off campus, lest the BJU Anti-Sex-League (SEE: Orwell's 1984) catch them. I've also known AA and NA members, BJU students, who likewise had to lie and sneak around. Why? Why is it the business of the school what individuals do in their personal lives? It has been personally described to me many times as an intrusive, damaging cult environment.

I doubt you have met those particular BJU students, because they would NOT TRUST someone like you, who defends the fascist rules of the school.

Why does what a student does in their off hours matter? That's FASCISM, sorry.

It's so much easier to spout off endless ranting of hate and stereotype than to dig a little deeper and actually educate yourself, right? Hey, the world's a complicated place and it takes a little effort to gain new perspectives.

I've been to the Bob Jones University campus to hear various right-wing speakers, such as Pat Buchanan. It is one of the few times the campus IS open to the public [with the exception of the Art Gallery, a somewhat separate entity].

The students were ordered to attend. I saw and heard for myself their political engagements, the employment of the student body for political ends, the expectation that the students would automatically share the politics of Pat Buchanan and Bob Jones III.

And when BJ III started to talk, BANG, I never saw a buncha kids jump into shape so fast in my life--SHUUUUUSH. Like, right now. Nobody talked over him, or dared say anything while he was speaking. He commanded an almost-cultlike respect, in my humble opinion. Of course you would not agree with me, since I speak as an outsider. You are completely accustomed to the adulation. However, I considered it spooky and Stepford Wives-ish, like a bunch of androids, all dressed alike, all abruptly silenced on cue.

Yes, I do my homework, as I think my posts make clear. Although if you want more posts explaining even further why I dislike BJU, I can certainly provide that.

How about another fact: BJU party hacks monopolize the Republican Party in this area, they pack every local district/precinct meeting and in a block, elect each other as delegates to the state and national conventions. (What EXACTLY does this politicking have to do with the Lord? Render under Caesar, etc.)

[Here in] the USA, unlike the USSR, we celebrate diversity and tolerance.

Does BJU allow openly gay students to attend? No. That is discrimination, not diversity... certainly, it has no resemblance to tolerance. What a joke.

BJU would be glad to support your right to think incorrectly and choose to believe anyway U wrongly desire, because that group of people actually understand the US Constitution and what America is all about. If U ever want to visit the school and learn for yourself what this place is all about, I'd be happy to give U a tour.

I've been many times, XXXX, as stated above. I love the painting of St Francis receiving the stigmata in the art museum, although I find the Catholic-hating theology, cheek-by-jowl with the Catholic art, more examples of the same repugnant, disgusting hypocrisy always present at Bob Jones University.

But hey, I will try not to take it personally, right?

Like I said, I have many gripes about BJU myself, but that doesn't mean I just lump them into a boiling pot of emotion without educating myself first.

I got plenty more where the above examples came from. So I think I am the one educating YOU.

Happy thinking and enjoying your first amendment.

First Amendment is properly capitalized, but probably not at BJU. [Note, this was after he implied I didn't know what certain words meant, so I was being petty and correcting his punctuation. Yes, I know, I know...]

Same backatcha, Mr BJU-Man!

Daisy

Edit: Another timely plug for the Carnival for Progressive Christians - First Edition
----------------
Listening to: The Pogues - Transmetropolitan
via FoxyTunes

Suspect Device

They play their games of power
They mark and cut the pack
They deal us to the bottom
But what do they put back?

--Stiff Little Fingers, Suspect Device

~*~

It ain't over till its over! Check out:

Vanessa's piece titled And more on that 1968 thing, in which I wrote an epistle in her comments. (Sorry about that, Vanessa!)

Crooks and Liars features Jesse Ventura vs Pat Buchanan on gay marriage. Video included--a must-see!

At Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants, a most EXCELLENT rant: Simple Reason.

Obama, like most black folks, rarely thinks about white racism. Or, black is the new black at Wear Clean Draws.

And finally, by way of American Leftist, we have Stephen Soldz at Counterpunch, writing about the involuntary drugging of detainees:

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has been systematically administering psychotropic drugs to immigrants in the process of being deported as the Washington Post reported this week. Deportees who in the past had resisted deportation were injected with drugs, often a three drug "cocktail," in order to keep them pliant during deportation. These drugs included the powerful antipsychotic drug Haldol, as well as the antianxiety drug Ativan, and Cogentin, a drug used to treat the often severe Parkinsons illness like side effects of Haldol.

These drugs were prescribed by psychiatrists and administered by specially selected nurse "medical escorts." The drugs were administered in extremely high doses, sometimes rendering the deportees unable to speak. It sometimes took deportees days or even weeks to get the drugs out of their system.

So don't forget, kids, overusing drugs is bad, except when the government does it to dark non-citizens. Got it? Good.

----------------
Listening to: Stiff Little Fingers - Suspect Device
via FoxyTunes

Odds and Sods: The bitter edition

Someone left a Jack Chick comic on my windshield! I figure this has something to do with the Pope's visit to the US.

The frame at left is from This Was Your Life, one of his most famous, and the exact one left on my car. It's been years since I've read the whole thing, so I was tickled pink to get it! (I heartily suggest the Jack T. Chick Parody Archive, for an afternoon of fun!)

And speaking of the Pope (great segue!) I confess to being an unabashed fan of Politico's SHENANIGANS, where this week, Anne Schroeder Mullins tells us:

Scalping tickets to see the Pope — oh, the irony. But it's goin' on. A quick search has the price up around $100 a pop. We asked your thoughts:

*"Seems fairly sinful, but I think if you leave face-value of the tickets in the plate on Sunday you're cool." — MSNBC's Willie Geist

*"If you want the Hallmark moments you got to pay ballpark prices." — Dem Hill staffer

*"The Pope hasn’t played Washington since ’79. It’s like the Stones returning to Baltimore after 40 years.” — Senate staffer David DiMartino

*And, "Of course there is scalping, he’s the Hannah Montana of religious leaders." — High level senate staffer, understanding free market economics.

This explains so much!

~*~

Meanwhile, the media continues ravaging Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for his much-repeated (and rather tepid) statements about how some working class people are "bitter" and cling to religion and guns. I didn't initially blog about this (like a lot of lefties, I notice) because I didn't regard it as any big deal and assumed all related foofaraw would blow over quickly. I mean, everyone knows this, yes? Didn't Pat Buchanan build his entire presidential campaigns (in both 1992 and 1996) on these same proto-populist, anti-NAFTA sentiments? Hasn't Ron Paul said as much?

Ohh, wait. I get it now. THOSE ARE WHITE PEOPLE!!!

The Angry Black Woman breaks it down, in a piece aptly titled Is it still an insult if it's true? She discusses a fascinating book (that I've just ordered)--Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War, by a fellow named Joe Bageant:

[Bageant] points out, for example, that the American educational system was initially designed to produce good workers — specifically, people who were just educated enough to handle complex industrial labor, but purposefully not educated enough to question authority. Educational methods which would promote critical thinking have historically been de-emphasized versus rote learning, and few American school systems have endorsed subject matter that gave equal time to global versus local knowledge, complete versus Eurocentric history, etc. We’ve heard this before, of course; IMO, it’s the main reason America’s schools are crap, and yet too many are blaming that poor performance on immigrants and PoC. What Bageant points out is that this “teach them to be good, unquestioning, America-first workers” trend disproportionately affected rural and small-town communities, simply through scarcity of resources. After all, a 2000-person town can hardly support both a Montessori school and a regular kindergarten. It’s not going to have the wealth of options that larger cities provide via charter schools, etc. And since fewer parents in such communities went to college versus parents in cities (where often there were low-cost educational options available, like New York’s CUNY system, which was free until 1975), the likelihood that those parents would then encourage their kids to seek higher education was low, versus the population in cities.

The result of all this, according to Bageant? People from rural, poor communities have been virtually programmed for generations to listen not to their own reasoning, but to whoever speaks loudest and most authoritatively on any subject. They respond to simple, emotionally charged messages — even when the the issues that the messages involve are complex and nuanced. They resent, and therefore distrust, those Americans who had greater access to education, or who were taught to question as they were not; Bageant believes this is less about anti-intellectualism/anti-elitism than it is simple schadenfreude towards the more fortunate. And they’ve developed the perfectly reasonable survival mechanism of listening to whoever seems willing to help them, regardless of whether those people actually are helpful. Bageant notes cases of conservative politicians who visited rural areas and shared a beer with poor constituents — then turned right around and instituted policies that made health care, housing, food, and education unaffordable for those same people. Frequently these politicians got elected multiple times in spite of this. Loyalty, after all, is one of the values their constitutents were taught in school.

She links a bunch of people, so go over there and read the whole thing.

Similarly, Nicholas Von Hoffman brings the facts and figures over at THE NATION:

Last week Barack Obama, destiny's tot, suggested blue-collar Americans are feeling bitter about their financial condition, which has been on a bit of a decline during the last five, ten, fifteen, twenty years or so. Rival politicians immediately pounced and they've been whaling on him ever since.

How dare Obama suggest people are bitter? Americans are not bitter! Americans are happy, proud, peppy, content and optimistic!

Maybe. But if millions of them are not bitter and/or angry at this point, there is probably something wrong with them.

Hoffman's piece is titled Bitter? You Should Be! Why Obama Is Right.

~*~

Octogalore defends feminism! She makes it clear why it must be done. I just love her for it:

I hurt when I hear someone I respect opting out of the principle that says: these people deserve better.

Because that’s all it is. That’s all feminism is. There are tens, hundreds of different varieties. But feminism is very simple. No matter how dominant-seeming, no matter how vocal, no group can define for any individual woman what comes along with believing she is equal.

YES, YES, YES!

----------------
Listening to: Uncle Tupelo - Chickamauga
via FoxyTunes

William F. Buckley 1925-2008

William F. Buckley on the cover of TIME magazine, November 1967.




For a period of time in the late 1980s, I became obsessed with William F Buckley. I had never met such a person in real life, and I was convinced that this was part of my problem: I had no proximity to privilege and didn't understand the privileged mind. His aloof, haughty manner of speaking was utterly strange to me; his bored facial expression was also very odd. Why have a TV show or write books if you are so bored with everything? The upper classes are foreign to me, and he was as close as I was ever going to get. So, I studied him carefully, like an exotic butterfly under a microscope.

Reading his books, I finally learned what it was to be a wealthy, educated and erudite white man with plenty of family connections. I learned that to such a person, the New Deal, the Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, feminism, liberalism, equality (the very concept of which he openly jeered at) were quite simply RUDE. Who were these ruffians, encroaching on decency? I watched his TV show Firing Line religiously, as he argued with everyone in the world, using words I had never heard anyone actually use in conversation. I can still remember a conversation he had with Lynne Cheney, when she was chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. At one point, she said democracy demanded all people in the republic be educated, and I can still remember Buckley's answering snort of derision. She paused, flummoxed: "I don't know how else we can function in a democracy," she said. He rolled his eyes, in one of his trademark expressions of disgust. The idea of educating everyone? Obviously, you could see that he thought it was a charming notion, like pixies or elves, but it simply wasn't, you know, something that really happened, or should happen.

Despite his ongoing proud, arrogant snootiness, Buckley managed through his influential magazine The National Review, to unite the Old Right (then consisting mostly of croquet-playing, yacht-club types like himself) with the new Goldwater/Reagan, wild-west Republicans, and together, they would kick the nation's ass come 1980 (although it took them 16 years after the crushing defeat of Goldwater in 1964). Tenacious, well-oiled, well-connected and plenty loaded, they stood ready to grab the reigns when Jimmy Carter stumbled, and grab the reigns they did. Buckley saw his right wing become the big tent, bringing together in a coalition the southern evangelicals and paleocons, Jewish neocons, and loudmouthed talk radio riff-raff like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. If he privately had contempt for any of these people (who were remarkably like the 60s ruffians he used to sneer at on TV), he never said so. His only public disassociations were from the ultra-right, looney-tune John Birch Society, and columnists Joseph Sobran and Pat Buchanan, whom he accused of anti-semitism. Racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism, war-mongering, all the rest were broadly winked at. He even called Gore Vidal a queer on network TV, during a celebrated feud, one of the few times he publicly lost his temper:

Buckley appeared in a series of televised debates with Gore Vidal during the 1968 Democratic Party convention. In their penultimate debate on August 22 of that year, the two disagreed over the actions of the Chicago police and the protesters at the ongoing Democratic Convention in Chicago. At one point Vidal called Buckley a “proto- or crypto-Nazi”, to which Buckley replied, “Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered.”

This feud continued the following year in the pages of Esquire Magazine, which commissioned an essay from both Buckley and Vidal on the television incident. Buckley's essay "On Experiencing Gore Vidal," was published in the August 1969 issue, and led Vidal to sue for libel. Vidal's September essay in reply, "A Distasteful Encounter with William F. Buckley," was similarly litigated by Buckley. The presiding judge in Buckley's subsequent libel suit against Vidal initially concluded that "[t]he court must conclude that Vidal's comments in these paragraphs meet the minimal standard of fair comment. The inferences made by Vidal from Buckley's [earlier editorial] statements cannot be said to be completely unreasonable." However, Vidal also strongly implied that, in 1944, Buckley and unnamed siblings had vandalized a Protestant church in their Sharon, Connecticut, hometown after the pastor's wife had sold a house to a Jewish family. Buckley sued Vidal and Esquire for libel; Vidal counter-claimed for libel against Buckley, citing Buckley's characterization of Vidal's novel Myra Breckenridge as pornography. Both cases were dropped, but Buckley's legal expenses were reimbursed by Vidal, and Vidal's were not. Buckley also received an editorial apology in the pages of Esquire.

And plenty more, of course. His was a life filled with controversy and attention-seeking. He wrote spy-novels and ran for Mayor of New York City. He was a fixture of the times.

And now he is gone. Michelle Malkin (the type of uppity-gal-of-color he would have sneered at in those Days of Yore) is gloriously praising his holy name, as is Rush and the whole Hee Haw Gang.

We'll be hearing a great deal, no doubt, about what a "gentleman" he was, as of course, rich white privileged men can usually afford to be.

~*~

From Buckley's book ON THE FIRING LINE, published in 1989, he reproduces a 1965 column in which he continues an unpleasant row with James Baldwin, after their debate in Cambridge. The two appeared on David Susskind's TV show Open End, and fought some more. Finally, Buckley had enough, and writes a column about Baldwin:

The objective of those who seek equality for the Negro is equality within the American system. If Mr Baldwin and his coterie of America-haters continue to give the impression that such as Roy Wilkins go along with their indictments, then they may very well wind up satisifying the American people that identification with the civil rights movement is an alternative to maintaining the American system. How long, one wonders, before the Baldwins will be ghettoized in the corners of fanaticism where they belong? The moment is overdue for someone who speaks authentically for the Negroes to tell Mr. Baldwin that his morose nihilism is a greater threat by far to prospects for the Negroes in America than anything that George Wallace ever said or did.

And he really believed it, too.

Michelle Obama attacked by ex-Vicodin addict!

Left: John and Cindy McCain.


If you are following the foofaraw over Michelle Obama's harmless remarks, you'll notice that it's mostly a bunch of (surprise!) privileged white guys doing the finger-pointing. USA TODAY reports:

Michelle Obama is getting some attention across the spectrum today for a remark she made yesterday at a rally in Milwaukee. "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change," she said.

As pointed out numerous times, she said "really" proud, not that she wasn't AT ALL proud or that she disliked or was dissatisfied with her country.

The Boston Globe's Political Intelligence blog, headlined their post Pride in the name of Self-love (excuse me? When did she say she loved herself, in that quote?) with Sasha Issenberg commenting:

So what did Michelle Obama think of the United States before her husband decided he wanted to run the place?

Couldn't be any worse than what a lot of us have been thinking for decades. And at Slate (which is supposedly liberal, but I keep waiting for evidence) Mickey Kaus titled his post Is that an S-Chip on Your Shoulder or Are You Just Glad to See Me?:

If Michelle Obama's default position is set to "Aggrieved," it also suggests something personal, no? Maybe, like many strong wives, she wonders why her husband is the one on the top of the family ticket--which might also explain her strange occasional habit of belittling him in public ("snore-y and stinky" ). Beats me. For whatever reason, she sure seems to have a non-trivial chip on her shoulder and it's not a winning quality.

Chip on her shoulder? (BUZZER SOUNDS!!)

Someone hasn't read Nezua's definition of Wite-Magik Attaks, particularly in this case, The Drowning Maestro:

A Wite-Magik Attak that pretends to be utterly concerned with the brown person's tone. It matters not that the brown person might be speaking passionately of hurts they have suffered their entire life, hurts they suffer as they speak, starving children, raped women or murdered millions. The person hurling the Wite-Magik Attak fixates upon the TONE of the complaint or insight. Because what really bothers them is that a brown person has the nerve to speak with such self-confidence and passion. This, in fact, scares them. If it weren't such a demeaning move when you have something you feel is important to say, this Attak would be downright comical. Just picture a conductor waving his wand as he plummets to the bottom of a darkening sea.

• ARROGANT mexican
• SHRILL woman
• UPPITY negro
• WRONG SIDE OF THE BED
• CRYBABY
• CONFRONTATIONAL
• CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER
• LEADING FROM YOUR CHIN
• MEAN

NOTE: This Attak often comes with a carrot. In other words, what is really desired is for the brown person to admit the desired hierarchy, to get "back in place." To achieve this, the power-holding person will often criticize the tone of the desired subjugate while making it clear that a withheld reward might come their way if they submit to the invisible pecking order being violated.

• "We'd admit about your point if you presented it nicer."
• "I have this work I was going to throw your way, is there a problem?"
• "People would listen to your complaint if you weren't so loud."
• "If you want people to care about this, you should learn to be smoother."

Yup, I'd say Mickey Kaus' comment certainly qualifies.

Predictably, conservatives at National Review, as well as Pat Buchanan at MSNBC last evening, ripped Michelle a new one. Nepotism-beneficiary John Podhoretz* dutifully and obediently lines up and mindlessly parrots the neocon views he learned from daddy and mummy, writing in daddy's periodical COMMENTARY:

[The] pseudo-messianic nature of the Obama candidacy is very much a part of the way the Obamas themselves are feeling about it these days.

And how does asswipe Podhoretz know how they are feeling???? (Or is it just that neocons know EVERYTHING???)

The most celebrated response, of course, came not from a finger-pointing white man, but from the ex-Vicodin addict wife of the probable Republican nominee for president, Cindy McCain, who made news trashing Michelle by stating she is proud of her country.



Apparently, not back in the early 90s, when she was stealing drugs from her "relief" organization (yes, we all need relief sometimes, don't we Cindy?) the American Voluntary Medical Team. You call that PRIDE, girlfriend? I call it GETTING HIGH. Did she stop to wonder what the pain-ridden folks in deprived countries might think about the fact that drugs originally intended for THEM were instead filched by a rich Senator's wife? That is hardly an American-pride moment, ma'am.

As the Arizona Republic reported, during McCain's previous presidential run:

Cindy blamed two back surgeries and the Keating Five scandal - a blend of physical and emotional pain - for hooking her on drugs.

Things started to unravel when a Drug Enforcement Administration audit found irregularities in the charity's records, prompting an investigation, Cindy told the reporters.

In 1992, as the Keating affair surfaced again during McCain's run for a second Senate term, Cindy's parents confronted her about her drug use.

What had been clear to Cindy's parents was lost on McCain, who said he had not noticed his wife's addiction.

Was she proud of her country, while all of this was going on? Did she even know what country she was IN?

Before anyone says I am "mean" for picking on Cindy, rest assured, I know from drug addiction, and that's exactly why I write this. Cindy, sit down and shut the fuck up. Barack Obama is too nice to say anything about your thieving addict ways, but Michele just might. People in glass houses... etc etc etc.

Then again, if the women go at it, it might be fun. Is that why the media is harping on this stuff? The guys want the girls to fight? Figures.

*HUMOROUS ASIDE: The late paleoconservative writer Samuel Francis referred to William Kristol and John Podhoretz as "the neocons' unemployable offspring"--which I thought was funny, as well as accurate. Do these fortunate sons have minds of their own, or only spout what their All-Powerful Daddies tell them to? In any event, it's usually best to ignore them, except when you MUST mention their constant yammering, as in a story like this.

----------------
Listening to: Jimi Hendrix Experience - Third Stone from the Sun
via FoxyTunes

Cry me a River

Left: photo from New York Magazine.

I wasn't going to write anything about Hillary's so-called meltdown, including her now-legendary teary moment, until the New Hampshire primary was over. If the girlie-tears hurt her campaign, that would be a pretty predictable story.

But they didn't. They DIDN'T! I'm actually quite stunned.

On Politico.com, Mike Allen writes:

Senator Clinton on "Good Morning America," from Chappaqua, on whether the teary moment in Portsmouth made a difference with older women, who went for her 57 percent: "Well, I think it could well have been. Certainly people mentioned it to me."

"WHO'S CRYIN' NOW?" asks the New York Daily News. "Hillary slows Obama Express with stunning N.H. victory."

It would seem many Democratic votes were undecided until fairly late. The tears were definitely a factor, in that case:

AP on the exit poll: "The New York senator went from narrowly losing the women's vote in Iowa to Barack Obama to swamping him in New Hampshire among females, 46 percent to 34 percent. ... Independents were a strength for Obama, the young senator from Illinois, who won 41 percent of them in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But while Clinton attracted less than one in five of them in Iowa, she garnered nearly a third of independents in New Hampshire, eating into his advantage. ... People who chose their candidate in the final three days were also kinder to Clinton in New Hampshire, where she and Obama each got more than a third of their vote. In Iowa, the late-deciders had favored Obama by 33 percent to 22 percent."

What does it mean that shedding a few tears helped Hillary? Would similar tears help a male candidate? Is it because of her ice-queen persona?

Frankly, I found the tears rather calculated, although my co-workers thought she just looked tired and frazzled. A female caller on local talk-radio said that Hillary has always seemed guarded and finally appeared emotionally accessible, ending with the statement, "You just can't trust a woman who holds her emotions in. Hillary finally looked human!" Interesting that men are expected to hold THEIRS in, but a woman politician who does the same, is seen as calculating and guarded in a way that a man is not. I found the tears calculated, whereas it appears most people find her usual presentation calculated, and the tears genuine. (I just find her very wonky and somewhat boring.)

Pat Buchanan (who won the GOP New Hampshire primary in 1996), commenting on MSNBC, believes that the Iowa/New Hampshire early-primary rivalry also made a difference; people in New Hampshire will often vote contrary to Iowa voters, in an "Oh, yeah?!?" sorta way. Also, they habitually prefer underdogs, and Hillary shedding tears obviously tapped into that.

Domenico Montanaro at FIRST READ, writes:

Here’s the question that has to be on everyone’s minds: Did Clinton tearing up on Monday change the dynamics of the race? One thing is for sure -- women flocked to her in droves. The fact is, Clinton partisans had just as little clue about their actual chances as the rest of us. They are pointing to the choking up moment, as well to the ABC debate in which Edwards ganged up on her. We noted yesterday the anecdotal evidence from our mini-focus group of professional Democratic women, who were not happy with how quickly this race was ending. Well, apparently, these anecdotes were telling. Clinton pointedly noted in her victory speech that New Hampshire helped her "find her voice." The more emotionally open Clinton is probably the Clinton we'll see for the rest of this primary. Are we looking at a battle between Clinton and her army of women versus Obama and his army of independent crossover voting men?

Again, I repeat, I am stunned the tears helped. And it was women who made the difference. Is this a feminist moment? I'm not sure.

Discuss.

~*~

Real or calculated? You decide.