woman wanted to rescue her and New Hampshireites don't like being told how they should vote.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to write with the same flourish as Little Brother, as referenced in Update III. So let me be plain.

If you're left-leaning, note how your opinion of a "messianic," crusading, idealistic public figure is affected by a comparison with Ronald Reagan and "Morning in America," as was done by Little Brother. Now compare that same person to a "messianic," crusading, idealistic public figure such as Martin Luther King, Jr., or Gandhi. What animates a tendency to want to compare to the former rather than the latter?

You can disdain or embrace the idealistic for no better reason than that they are idealistic -- either way, you are no better than your gullible or heartless opposite. Can we not acknowledge the possibility that not all causes and sources of passion are empty, dangerous, or ultimately sinister, by mere dint of being passionate, but that some indeed merit support because they stand enthusiastically and intelligently for genuinely good things?

Also, speaking to familiar thoughts like Little Brother's -- most usually less eloquently stated -- is it ever possible in the "blogosphere" for a single person or thing not to be automatically tainted by the mere fact that the CORPORATE MAINSTREAM MEDIA (booga booga) happens to like it?

Full circle -- how the skeptics can so quickly become the mindless and reflexive. Interesting, as well, how a hatred for orthodoxy and uniformity ends up creating an even stronger orthodoxy and uniformity. Perhaps not so much interesting as predictable.

I, for one, don't intend to throw my life away on the thin, cold soup of a scowling wordview that "knows" too much to ever make a whit of difference in the world.

To whomever: bitterness is like strong whiskey. Best not drink yourself to death.

MATTHEWS: Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess.

Answer: How about you report the freakin' news and analyze the candidates positions! Duh,

is a moderate Republican.

He thinks Reagan was a great president.

Mahatma Gandhi

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ronald Reagan

Which one doesn't belong?

Nevermind that "Morning in America" was just marketing bullshit.

And you sound a touch bitter, yourself. Sour grapes?

I guess I'm thinking: You're plenty eloquent on that one, and I agree with you about making such distinctions, so that when a Gandhi or King comes along we can be in there. On the other hand, I found Edwards' speech in Iowa to be the real 'I have a dream' type speech, so I found myself wondering (as it looks like Little Brother did) how someone could go from just another candidate to demi-god in 36 hours or so.

So I guess I'll take my skepticism in small sips, but I'll sip it on this particular occasion. I would love to be rallied to the cause, but this time round, it seemed as if the media did go running off a cliff before the rest of us had a good reason to do more than walk. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I'm as glad as Kitt that my vote still counts with only a month to go till I get to use it.

Yeah, maybe, Anonymous. Maybe more than one, too.

Anonymous_B

I have never said a word about Reagan. I'd say he was average to above average but not great.

But funny you should bring him up right now, as I am working on formulating my column due tomorrow for the weekly rag for which I write, and need to come up with a new outline, given the results are so far off from the polling predictions.

Hillary's tearful moment I think is going to be as defining for her as Reagan's "I paid for this Microphone, Mr. Green [sic]" at the Nashua Debate in 1980 was to his candidacy that had been deemed dead in the water after Bush beat him in Iowa.

I know. I was a Bush staffer sitting in the bleachers when it happened.

In each instance these "moments" went against the public's pre-conceived notion about the candidates. In Ronny's case it was that he was an affable dunce with no real opinions of his own, happy to go along with what his handlers shoved in his hands or put on his cue cards.

By getting his Irish Dander up and flashing a little anger, he showed the public he had a spine. He showed he would not be pushed around. He showed he could think on his feet. (Forgotten in all of this was that it had been a set up. Reagan agreed to a two person debate with Bush and then invited the other candidates behind Bush' back. So yeah, it was a little contrived, but it worked.)

The moment showed Reagan had some balls. The Hillary moment showed she doesn't. The rap on her by a lot of people is her being bitchy. That she has been running for this her entire life. That she felt she was entitled to the nomination and haughty at the fact this young upstart had usurped "her turn.'

By showing this other side, she showed folks that, gee, maybe she *IS* in this for some altruistic reasons. Maybe she really *does* care about the country.

Reagan's Microphone grab was the Saturday before the Tuesday, so there was time for the moment to fester and for poll data to track it. Hillary's kleenex grab took place but 18 hours before the polls closed and therefore more difficult to track. It was still being heard for the first time by people after the last round of polling data was being fielded.

In each case these moments allayed the public's biggest concern about the candidates.

That's my story, and I am sticking to it. In fact, I will be filing it at 10:00 am tomorrow.

Thrasher got back on his meds. Fooled you.

some analyst on MSNBC just "analyzed" that the extraordinary drop in Obaman's projected NH lead when compared to other such double-digit media "errors" was probably attributable to RACE; more specifically, the voting booth privacy afforded to New Hampshire voters (as opposed to public caucus members).

god bless america. oh yeah. loved this new age, post-race paradigm as long as it lasted.

I feel so manipulated.