Seattlest: Presidential Round Table Discussion

bigyaz

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:48:23 -0800

To slam the entire state of N.H. because you met some redneck types is as fair as judging Washington because you spent time in Packwood or Hoquiam. Like Washington, there are many different parts of N.H., and it has changed markedly in recent times. The south has a lot of Massachusetts refugees as well as an increasing immigrant population. And of course there are still plenty of rural areas that cling to the old ways.

BigGreenFrank

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:25:44 -0800

Get off NH's back. Yes, there are some "Deliverance" like places in the state, but most of the state (where most of the people live) is just as much of a city as Tacoma or Everett. It's not Seattle, but then again Seattle isn't Boston, either. Also, it's not Washington or Illinois liberal, but it's not Iowa or Tennessee conservative either. And with all the Massachusetts folks moving northward, it is becoming more and more liberal, especially in the larger southern cities like Manchester and Nashua.

TroyJMorris

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:31:12 -0800

I love the jokes more than the next guy. But jokes have the tendency to educated the ignorant: Hillary did not cry. I believe it was Huckabee (or Romney? - I dunno, one of those crazy Reds) cried... TWICE at press interviews. Nobody said shit.

Michael van Baker

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:23:47 -0800

I'd never heard anyone use the word "coon" as a derogatory term for black people until I spent a summer in New Hampshire. Jesus, it was like I'd walked into Deliverance. Some grizzled old native swilling beer from a can and talking about hunting "coons" *wink* "the two-legged kind" in the woods. I'm not particularly surprised Obama didn't win the state.

romulus

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:10:16 -0800

I love how all the pundits keep calling New Hampshire a liberal or progressive state. It shows just how completely full of shit and clueless they are, by exposing just how little time they've spent there, or anywhere else north of Massachusetts. I mean, maybe compared to, say, Utah, but not compared to, say, Illinois. New Hampshire is the crazy old codger uncle of New England, and has been notoriously so at least ever since this guy. It's the least remotely liberal place in the region; in fact, it voted for Bush in 2000.

Seth

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:04:49 -0800

I heard an interview last night on Canadian radio with the lady who asked the "how do you do it question"...her interpretation was Clinton started to tear up, then caught herself. interestingly, she said she voted for Obama. Weird! I think it was just unexpected because Clinton always seems so stony. I think it's fair to say that she didn't actually cry--but she wouldn't have been the first presidential candidate to do so--Edward Muskie supposedly cried in '72 after some newspaper wrote articles attacking him and his wife--one of which turned out to be a hoax!

Kim Ruehl

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:13:06 -0800

1. Hillary didn't cry. She softened and got real for a second. There were no tears. Her face didn't even squirm like you do when you're choking back tears. Get over it. 2. Interesting the discussion of the woman frontrunner degraded almost immediately into b.s. about "boning" Madeleine Albright, whereas the discussion of the all-guy race included actual attention to strategy and politics. WTF?

Marboreality

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:50:21 -0800

Perhaps the reason that Hillary's near-tear moment was such unbelievably big news is that every political writer is a man, and apparently men believe that every woman in New Hamp voted for Hillary because she came near tears the day before the primary. As though they all threw off the months of political discussion and debate and whatever decision they may have made prior to that moment and instead cast their vote for Hillary. Because women are emotional like that.