« The Expectations Game | Home | About Those "Ballots" With Only One Candidate's Name On Them... »

The Expectations Game

You're supposed to use that teeth-grindingly awful cliche on days like today, so I thought I'd give you a whole post with that name.

So here, in no particular order, is today's reading list on expectations for tonight, the setting of expectations for tonight, the spinning of expectations in advance of tonight, and all things expectation-related...

* The Obama campaign puts out a memo saying that Hillary needs a huge win tonight but adds that even a huge win wouldn't make any difference in the long run, anyway.

* Mark Blumenthal says that the polling showing a Hillary win is inconclusive, and rather aptly describes the polls as "blunt instruments."

* Adam Nagourney says that if the Hillary camp wins by less than 10 points and tries to spin it as a victory, things will "get murky."

* Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania.

* Hillary wonders, or pretends to wonder, why it is that Obama can't "close the deal' with voters.

* Atrios, after remaining scrupulously neutral for this whole primary and heaping much disdain on the whole process itself -- and on the two candidates from time to time -- votes today for Obama, increasing the chance of an Obama victory by one vote.

* And finally, because you all forgot this, I reported a few weeks ago that Obama privately told a group of California donors that a Hillary win of less than 10 points would be a "victory" for him.


Comments (145)

avatar

"Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania."

Maybe Jake Tapper can explain why someone with all the advantages of incumbency is fighting for her political life against an unvetted, inexperienced, Louis-Farrakhan loving, antipatriotic empty suit?

avatar

No kidding. Hillary has had more advantages than any non-incumbent in US political history.

I EXPECT TO LOSE BIG AND CONTINUE TO LOSE UNTIL I AM ELECTED

Dear Super Delagates
Please do not forget that I not YOU now control the guilt of this nation and as your commander I expect to see my name on the WH china come Nov.

Sincerely
Barry Obama

"Hey mister! You forgot your Change we can belive in!" Screamed the cashier as I drove away with the radio pumping JZ.

Wow. That was pretty painful.

OMG! It's the David of Willendorf. Or is it the Venus of Davendorf?

LOL, That's Michelangelo's David after a trip to New Orleans.

avatar

I would be interested if they would do a poll asking Pennsylvanians how many of them knew anything about Obama before the primary season. Then, ask them how many of them knew anything about Hillary Clinton before the primary season. I'm sure there would be a huge difference in those numbers.

I've used this analogy before: It's like the War of the Root Beers.

Hillary = A&W, a tried and true brand that almost everyone is familiar with.

Obama = Sprecher, which is another very tasty brand, but is only really well-known in the upper Midwest.

Which brand do you think would need to spend more money to get the word out that they're a better root beer? The nationally-known root beer that's bottled by a major soft drink company, or the boutique root beer that offers it's own new take on root beer goodness?

Sprecher is the shiznit.

A&W sux.

Oh Well.

Jake Tapper is the same guy who tried to make Obama sound like a liar after he admitted falling off the wagon...with his smoking.

This is not a serious journalist.

avatar

He has pulled quite a bit of those recently, attacking Obama for totally baseless crap.

Tapper, meet Krugman, Krugman, Tapper.

Barry did not fall off the wagon. We did bong hits with him after the Springsteen party while Michelle sat in the car honking the horn and screaming "Barry did you remember to pick up that Change We Can Believe In at the waffle stand?"

Sincerely
Mrs. The Boss

Isn't there an age and sobriety limit for posting here?

avatar

TPM's policy is "Republicans with no life and nothing better to do, please troll here." And has been for years.

Still not as bad as Politico.

avatar

Not to mention that (as Jonathan Alter informed us on Abrams) that PA is one of the states with the oldest demographics-HRC constituency). I do recall that HRC was ahead by as much as 20 points a couple weeks ago. Once voters are more familiar with Barack Obama, they shift to his campaign.

Jake Tapper is an idiot. No, really. On TV he is worse than he is in writing because he is winging it. It's not whether he leans Clinton or Obama, it's just that he is a very bad journalist. Bottom feeder.

"Quite rightly?" Are you serious?

avatar

You gotta love GS, not only using that turn of phrase, but putting it within the link text so that it's indexed by goog, etc that way.

Oh wait, it must have been the web interns.

The bench at TPM is not deep.

Yes, the Quite Rightly highlights do bother me as well. Greg Sargent claims neutrality but continually has pro-Clinton comments or edits like this. It would be a lot simpler if he just came out and stated his bias. Greg could as easily high-lighted a pro-Obama comment.

avatar

Quite rightly lacking all credibility.

They're just words, though, right?

Ah..take it easy on Greg. True he was extremely biased in giving credence to fallicies early on from the Clinton campaign, but in the past few weeks he has really tried to stay on the up and up.

avatar

HRC by HRC by 5-10, murky
HRC by > 10, good for HRC

It's that simple. Of course, nothing is good enough for HRC to close the pledged delegate gap significantly, but "good for HRC" means "can justify continuing".

avatar

errgg html formated my lt sign. Should read:

HRC by lt 5, good for O
HRC by 5-10, murky
HRC by gt 10, good for HRC

If she wins by 20 or more, in my mind it'll be a whole new ballgame. That'll be the only way that I can see her having a real non-destructive path to the nomination at this point.

If Clinton wins by 15 or more, then I believe the Supers will pause to evaluate the political landscape. She'll have 2 weeks to "obliterate" Obama's candidacy. It'll be a rough stretch, but I don't see Obama numbers tanking in NC in that time. This is probably the worst case scenario for the party as a whole as Clinton would be encouraged to blow up Obama in every possible way, and she would probably retain some significant support within the party all the way to the convention.

A Clinton 10 point win will be played up by television media pundits, but will change absolutely nothing in the race. A Clinton 5 point win, and you'll see superdelegates really start pouring towards Obama to begin shutting this thing down by May. And of course an outright Obama win ends things within hours.

Oh you're the one who got that quote about 10 points below her! I wondered where I got that.

I remember. I've been watching the whole charade to see how true it will turn out to be.

Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania.

Demographics. Nobody expected Hillary to win Mississippi, just like nobody expected Obama to win Pennsylvania.

avatar

Thank you.

avatar

Demographics, name recognition, and establishment support (i.e. the "machine").

At this point, I have a hard time taking anything Jake says seriously. But did he have amnesia for the 20+ point lead Clinton had just a little while ago?

avatar

He is ABC, what do you expect? They lost ALL credibility with me. I was pretty much annoyed with their bias before that little monstrosity they called a debate, but that thing settled the deal.

avatar

* Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania.

Hey there Hillary's Sargent at arms;

Does Hillary need to close the selected delegate, and popular vote count, with a very big win in Pa. or not.

What is your answer?

avatar

Quite rightly? What bullshit. Tapper is talking like he has Bill Clinton's hand shoved up his ass giving him the ventriloquism treatment, and you are saying "quite rightly"??

Why couldn't any Democrat win Utah in a general election no matter how much money and effort they threw at it? It is a stupid question. Hillary had a huge advantage in name recognition in PA, she has the "demographic advantage" (the state was said to be tailor made for her), and she also has a former president campaigning for her full time, and yes, she has the Party establishment on her side. Enough reasons for you? How about a press that has been running with every bullshit "scandal" they can come up with against Obama because of who he knows or what he said at a fundraiser no matter how true and unoffensive it was? Given all that and the fact that he has probably taken her lead down to single digits, I'd say that is pretty good.

Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania.

There's only so much you can do with money. There are many voters who are solidly for Clinton/Obama who wouldn't switch just because one candidate runs more ads than the other. It's not like they're trying to persuade them to switch their fabric softeners.

Also, and this is entirely anecdotal, but I know some Clinton supporters who admit that her cause is futile but they want to vote for the candidate they like the best. They know their vote isn't going to change things that much (because hype it or not, PA isn't going to change the outcome of this stupid race), but lots of them think they have a once in a lifetime chance to vote for a woman, they like Hillary, and they want to make a personally meaningful vote.

Obama's not just the frontrunner. He's the presumptive nominee. The fact that the media is in thrall to the Clinton drama doesn't change that. But that fact also doesn't make it necessarily any more likely for him to win nominating contests when the demographics favor Hillary big time.

That's a great perspective.

quite rightly
really?

Clinton machine joins with the Rendell/Nutter machines and that's seen as an advantage for Obama?

How?

avatar

Good lord, in addition to Nutter, Rendell and whatever Y'inser is in charge in Pittsburgh, Clinton has the State Dem Chairman on her side.

Obama is basically running against the party in PA.

avatar

It's all about Atrios! He has been remarkably tight-lipped about who he would vote for in the primary. In the end it appears that he was slightly less disdainful of Obama than Clinton. Paul Krugman probably wasn't happy to hear of Duncan's choice....

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner.

Losing it.

Too much pressure.

avatar

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" he said, when asked a foreign policy question by a reporter at the Glider Diner.

Losing it.

Oh yeah, he's positively hysterical.

avatar

Keep talkin' gotalife, keep talkin'

Like I said, I'll be thinking of you when Hillary drops out.

avatar

"Do you like waffles?" He said, when asked if he liked waffles by a reporter from the Waffle Times of Wafflesburgh.

"Yeah we like WAFFLES!"

Buttering it.

Can't take the syrup.

Gotalife presents a touching homage to Alice's Restaurant in this short scene, touching on an intensely poignant Pressure Point that harkens to the wildly tessellated Tender Mercies that have brought him so much love from the TPM audience this campaign season. Casual viewers may be tempted to overlook this example due to the terse, staccato dialogue - but long-time viewers will certainly revel in Gotalife's uncanny ability to weave a rich tapestry from only a handful of thread.

Known Troll: +5
Intellectual Dishonesty: +20
Willful Misinterpretation: +15
Bitter Modifier: +25
Waffle House Tip: +20 (New!)
--------------------------------------------
Troll Rating: 85

Dude, we've needed you. Welcome back.

My apologies, faithful reader. Union rules, unfortunately, prevent me from engaging in Bitter Irony in pointing to a hectic offline life in responding, given the Epic Branding of the performer to whom the review was attached.

They do not, however, preclude me from pointing that out with Mirthful Glee :)

TrollCritic, you've been gone much too long.

You've been gone so long that gotalife is starting to sound like a bizarre version of idiotic. (idiotic, please do not be insulted at the comparison. You continue to shine splendiferously, as always.)

avatar

At least he didn't cry when asked a question about his hair doo.

avatar

Regardless of Greg's supposed position/slant on things...I can see Greg winning a bet within the office over how mad he'll make the Obama supporters by simply adding "quite rightly".

ANd quite rightly so. Jake Tapper is responsible for some of the silliest stuff ABC puts out. He's sort of the poster boy for the crew ABC put up for the debate.

Jake Tapper quite rightly says things the same way that a stopped clock quite rightly tells the time. The work that Election Central does is significantly better than the pablum that Tapper spins out, so why is EC linking to him?

And maybe this is a knee jerk reaction, but the media is execrable these days. Don't link to crap, and don't flatter the crap that is linked.


This made me laugh.

avatar

Quite right.

"* Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania."

Well, HumanityCritic wonders, quite rightly - what exactly it says about the wife of a successful two term president who has been in the publics consciousness for more than a quarter century, part of a well oiled political machine who was up around 30 points more than a month ago, who was backed by many of the major political players in Pennnsylvania... How is she letting a 46 year old junior senator from Illinois who has only been in the public eye for 4 years make Penn so competitive?

"Pennsylvania" - spelling correction.

avatar

Hold the presses! There's one more bit of crucial news. Julie Nixon Eisenhower is an Obama supporter and has already donated the maximum to his campaign. She was also a big supporter of her father, who became the only President ever to have to resign from office, which is perhaps why Fox News found this story sufficiently embarrassing for Obama to merit a spot on its front page.

avatar

Most reasonable people denounce and reject those 'guilt by association' tactics.

avatar

Then I'm surprised ABC hasn't done the same.

Perhaps they are busy photoshopping Obama's face on Nixon's body.

avatar

Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.

Nuff said.

avatar

Hillary is a McCain Girl.

Nuff said!

Does the Nixon guilt-by-association cancel out the Wethermen guilt-by-association?

avatar

This Clinton talking point about Obama outspending her is ridiculous!
Why is the fact that he's OUTRAISING her getting lost in the spin?

"She was also a big supporter of her father"

She supported her father's presidency? That's shocking!!!

avatar

It truly is.

And yes, the only President ever to resign. To avoid impeachment. So it reflects poorly on Obama because the daughter of the only President to ever resign from office supports him. So what does it say about the other candidate who is married to one of the only Presidents to actually be impeached?

Answer: Neither matters.

avatar

"Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania."

What does Pennsylvania being "big" have to do with anything? It's not like the reason Obama or Hillary wins or loses a state is that one of them doesn't have enough money to buy ads in large media markets or across a large geographic area. Obama isn't supposed to win Pennsylvania because of demographics. Pennsylvania is 87 percent white and also the third-oldest state in the country. In Ohio, Hillary won senior citizens by 46 percent and non-seniors by 4 percent. Old white Democrats prefer Hillary to Obama and aren't going to change their minds. So what? Most of them will vote for Obama in November anyway.

avatar
What does Pennsylvania being "big" have to do with anything?

Didn't you get the memo? We're going to decide the race based on total square footage of the states in which primaries were held. Minus the square footage of caucus states. Except Nevada. Geez. Get with the program.

Ha! I love it...

Barack Obama has had three previous opportunities to knock Hillary Clinton out of the race. First, in New Hampshire in early January where all the polls pointed to an Obama win; second, on Super Tuesday in early February where a win in California would have been enough to cripple the Clinton campaign; and then most recently in Ohio and Texas in early March, where a popular vote win in either state would have been enough to effectively knock Clinton out of the race. And then their is Pennsylvania, where it appears that he will fail to knock her out of the race again.

When will he be able to knock her out?

I truly believe that after Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania tonight, she will use the above quotes to get the superdelegates and pleaged delegates to back her.

It's not boxing. Hillary is winning some states because people want to vote for her. But more people want to vote for Obama.

The argument that Obama won, and Hillary lost, but that because Hillary didn't lose by that much she should be declared the winner is absurd.

Dream on, Hillary. It's not going to happen.

Thank you for not posting poll results here.

For once. Sheesh.

Well, you can think that. But it's wrong. If it's under 10 points, the superdelegates will flock to Obama.

Fair enough, I do not see that she has a more effective pitch to make to the superdelegates, so she might as well run with this, tripe though it might be. That said, do you imagine that the Obama folks cannot rebutt this? The argument can be turned inside out like a sock - Clinton has had numerous chances to knock Obama out: first in Iowa, then in Nevada, then on Super Tuesday (when the polls had her far, far ahead of him everywhere but in Illinois just a few weeks before the voting). She managed, however, to blow a mind-boggling war chest and advantage in terms of machine connections and name recognition to lose to a not-even-one-term freshman senator.

The fact that neither has been able completely to eliminate the other shows that they are both good candidates. It is simply nonsense to spin it as if this situation shows that one or the other is a weak candidate.

My god, you people really do live in your own little world, don't you? A world where every hold 'em hand is a pair of aces, where everyone hits the big Lotto jackpot and where it's safe to play in thunderstorms because the lightning only strikes in this one place. Sounds nice, in some ways.

I'm sure the flying pigs in your world make tasty barbeque, but personally, I'd rather live out here in the real world. It kind of sucks sometimes, but here in the real world, we still have a little actual democracy left and our politicians and party hacks know that reversing the outcome of the primary process because they think they know best would be a catastrophe for the party, for the nominee and for the country.

But, hey, buy me a Lotto ticket before you leave. I promise I'll pay you back for it once it hits.

Oh, and I especially loved the part where you said that, in addition to the supers flocking to her banner, she'll "get the pledged delegates" to back her. Right. People hand-picked by the Obama campaign based solely upon their fanatical loyalty to him--loyalty that would make the most Obama-infatuated poster here at TPM go "whoa, that's over the top"--are going to see the light, betray their trust and vote for her.

Allrighty, then.

Unless, of course you were talking about her getting her own pledged delegates to vote for her. Given that she failed to timely put up a full slate of delegates in Pennsylvania, I can see why one might be worried.

Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania.

Jake Tapper and the whole ABC News Clown Car are full of crap. Obama won't win in PA because he was never expected to win there. He'll do fine in NC and Oregon, and he'll be the nominee.

Reason #1 - Demographics
Reason #2 - Rendell Political Machine backing
Reason #3 - Name Value/Known Entity
Reason #4 - Certain Familial ties to the State

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/34506.html

29 NC legislators endorse Obama.

Jake Tapper quite rightly wonders why it is that we've all decided that frontrunner Barack Obama, who's outspending Hillary by three-to-one, isn't supposed to win in a big state like Pennsylvania.

Phoebe Fay quite rightly wonders why the inevitable candidate with all the name recognition and the huge warchest didn't wrap this whole thing up on Super Tuesday.

Oh right, there's this thing called a campaign. And voters. And demographics. And delegates. And 20+ point deficits to make up for. Or in Hillary's case, giant leads to lose.

Pennsylvania has always been Hillary's state. If she were running a decent campaign, she'd be ahead there by 20 points or more.

Of course, if she'd run a decent campaign she might not be losing by just about unit of measurement we've got.

Oh right, there's this thing called a campaign.

Damn. Reality intrudes, again. Jake apparently has selective amnesia for reality, so quite rightly, nearly every commenter on this story has pointed that out.

CT Voter

Dream on, Hillary. It's not going to happen

Question, what is not going to happen?

If you are trying to say that Obama is going to win Pennsylvania, i don't agree.... no data shows that.

Will he knock her out of the race in north carolina... well, if she can pull off a Indiana win the same day that north carolina votes... i guess he will not.....

superdelegates and pleaged delegates are going to wonder ho wcome he can't finish this and how come he can't win big states....

GO HILLARY

superdelegates and pleaged delegates are going to wonder how come he can't finish this and how come he can't win big states...

And then they are going to turn right around and wonder how come she could not finish it and how come she could not win critical blue states like MN, WI, OR and WA. Once they are done reviewing those dizzying considerations, it will be interesting to see where they land.

avatar

I'm just hoping someone can explain the logic to me in assuming that if Democratic candidate "A" loses to Democratic candidate "B" in a particular state, it means that if "A" is the nominee, he or she will lose to the Republican candidate. Is everyone assuming that all of "B's" Democratic voters will vote Republican? Why?

avatar

Why can't she close the deal? Why can't she win in more states than him? Why can't she raise more money than him? Why can't she win more pledged delegates than him? blah blah blahdy blah.

She's not going to get the superdelegates to suddenly and miraculously back her after tonight. It's not going to be that wide of a margin. Second, she's probably going to get clobbered in North Carolina. In short, for the superdelegates to flock to Hillary, they'd have to disregard a number of factors and piss off a large swath of the American public, all to support a candidate who ran a miserable campaign and has never recovered from Super Tuesday. They're not going to do that, because at heart, they've got their own careers on the line.


The fact that Bill had a very awkward senior moment today isn't going to help, either.


Reason #5 - Clinton desperation and the fact she will do or say anything to live and fight another day.

The right wing slime machine and the Clinton campaign (the new Bosom Buddies) have been using this bullshit "Obama can't close the deal" argument for the last few weeks. Why are you picking up their trash and posting it as a piece of journalism?

You have been given more than a few good answers as to why Obama hasn't finished off Hillary, but let me just add....Hillary Rodham Clinton, probably the 3rd most well known political figure in America for the past 15 years vs. Barack Obama, Jr. Sen. from Illinois, who first made national news in 2004....Gee, why can't this "frontrunner" close the deal. Jesus, Greg. Give me a break. What planet are you on?

avatar

Obama can win the black vote easily but he can't win the white vote as easy. Clinton on the otherhand can win both. I don't even know what Cabinet position he'd be good at? Honestly.

Obama won the white vote in my lily white county two-to-one over Clinton. The notion that Obama can't win with whites is an absurd argument.

...

Sorry, that was rude of me. I shouldn't assault Hillary supporters with things like facts and reality. I don't want to give you a rash or anything.

And he didn't win the African American vote "easily" -- until late last year, Hillary had a majority of African American support. Then Camp Hillary started doing some disrespectful things that peaked around South Carolina, and her support in the community faded fast.

avatar

Wisconsin Primary: Over 90% white voters. Obama trounced Duck Blind Hillary in that Primary.

O you think so, huh?

Boy are you stupid. If Clinton is the nominee, all this record voter turnout will evaporate like the morning dew.

These are progressives and young voters as well as African Americans, who I don't really think will turnout for Clinton if she is nominated - not in any numbers.

Nope - we go right back to the Southern Strategy strangling the life out of the election if Clinton is nominated, because the only people who still like her are older working class voters who are basically conservative, and a bunch of women.

If you think that is enough to get her elected - then how come it wasn't enough to get Kerry or Gore far enough beyond the breaking points to win out over vote tampering? With enough votes, that gets harder to do.

But let's just go back to doing it the same old 20th century way and lose again.


No, Tapper is the fountain from which the ABCness flows into the rest of the network. He is one of the major reasons why ABC has joined Politico and Fox in the Axis of Imbecility. All three organizations are grimly committed to the freakshow against all attempts to make journlist cover real stuff instead than made up Dowdified tripe.

But Tapper in particular always has something snide to say about Obama and is always looking for something he can use to bring Obama down off his high horse (as Tapper sees it). Let us not forget that it was ABC that assigned someone to watch every second of Wright's recorded sermons and pull out the worst bits he or she could find so they could be strung together into an tirade that would hurt Obama.

It's not that he's pro-Clinton. He's pretty harsh on her, actually. it's just that a person like Obama offends Tapper to his very core. Tapper's whole career is built on the cynical, hyper-ironic, content-free personality based Beltway journalism spawned by fifteen years of Republican abuse of the press. He is, in short, the kind of guy who is incapable of believing that Obama is what he seems to be, sneers at those who are taken in by him and is determined to expose him for the fraud he must be.

And Obama must be a fraud, because if he isn't that would mean that Jake Tapper is an ugly, small-minded corporate whore, a creature not so much infected with the pervasive cynicism of the Beltway establishment as a creation of it.

Tapper and the rabble at Politico are to Obama as Cici Connally and Kit Seelye were to Gore in 2000.

You should blog this.

Tapper has to believe Obama is a fraud because Tapper, himself, is a fraud.

Analogous to the way that Hillary assumed Obama had attacked her--in her speech in Pittsburgh. So she attacked back, and got booed for it. Hillary assumes Obama is going to attack, because that's what she would do.

Tapper assumes that Obama is a fraud, must be a fraud, because if he's not, it's going to make looking in the mirror and seeing how shallow and petty he (Tapper) is very difficult.

By the way, "Axis of Imbecility" should be trademarked.

Thanks, but tradmark it? Perish the thought. On the contrary, I commit it to the public domain and encourage all to spread it as widely as possible. Widespread ridicule is the last desperate hope for salvaging our press.

avatar

I've always prided myself on my cynicism and my smart-aleckyness, if not my good English. But to see these ciphers trashing any sliver of idealism in the American voting public (unless it's a blind faith in the efficacy of war) makes me want to just grab them and beat them senseless.

I mean, it may be fun to play the anti-Washington game with the corporate whores in the Republican Party; they're not being paid to serve the people (and they probably serve quality food and drink at their parties). But to come from a privileged background (as I'm sure most mainstream journalists do), and to travel the country trying to understand and explain it, as these arrogant little fucks are paid to do, and not see the want and the hurt that government could do much to alleviate, just enrages me.

It's not cool to play it that way when the quality of millions of peoples' lives is at stake. These courtiers passing themselves off as journalists will be damned by any fair analysis of the end of the American Century.