Who won? Stewart and Cramer. They both got something out of it. Stewart showed that he's the intellectual heavy-weight, cross him at your own peril. Cramer, to his credit, showed up and took his lumps, probably putting an end to the media's fascination with "let's watch Cramer as he watches Daily Show clips" split screens.
The "I wouldn't say this on television" stuff was absolutely brutal though.
"We were lied to, we couldn't know better"
Roll 212! 'Well, it's illegal to lie, but no one can check'
Roll 216! 'And this is the sort of lie you want to tell'
For someone who makes money by telling people how to make money, that's a huge hit to credibility. Now, in the back of everyone's mind, that raises the question as to whether or not Cramer is any better than the spam e-mails with penny stocks that "are going to explode onto the market and should be trading at $4 at the end of the day!" Is he just sending out messages to benefit his own portfolio? Is he buying/selling short?
It's an allegation that's difficult to live down, especially when you get caught on tape telling people how to do it.
I did see Clinton's response as a mild self-deprecating rebuke. Besides the obvious infidelity angle, you have Clinton separating Bush into a category of "people from that generation who say things like that". He hung a candle on the joke and the hypocrisy of the right's "everything Clinton says requires intense scrutiny for immoral connotations" movement then (I assume) moved on after telling a joke about breakdancing which I think was stale in the 80s.
As for the joke, it was dumb but I tend not to read too much into dumb jokes. He didn't say "angry and ugly feminist", he didn't generalize those traits to all in the crowd and the joke, for each side, has been around forever. Carlin (?) gave one about pro-life people being ones that you'd never want to (censored!) anyways. I've heard various unfunny comedians (I want to say Mencia because that's the voice I'm hearing it in) use almost the exact same line before, except with the generalizing to all feminists rather than one individual woman. Doesn't make the joke funny or appropriate, but I'm not really up in arms about it.
No matter what happens next, as soon as the board finishes ruling, you're going to see a legal challenge. That will immediately be followed by an appeal.
Heck, if they eliminate the "duplicates" but Franken still wins, you may see both sides suing (Coleman to overturn some of the results like the unrecountable county, Franken to overturn counting the duplicates in case Coleman wins his case).
We probably won't have an answer until Coleman v. Franken (or vice versa) hits the state Supreme Court at least.
As for the first issue, they were discussing this yesterday. The problem is that the board can only accept information that's on the actual ballot. They can't (and, in the past, haven't) taken into account data outside the ballot to determine a ballot's validity.
The Coleman campaign wants them to do this, saying that if you look at the outside data, it's likely that these are double counts. The Franken campaign points out that they were already barred from doing this sort of "it's not on the ballot" challenges in other counties, so what's good for the goose...
Last night they stopped their meeting a little early so that the board members could re-read and sleep on the briefs.
Also, it looked like the heads of a couple of members were about to explode at the legal arguments.
The issue of whether or not you can determine a duplicate on its face, combined with "can we decide it's duplicate if it's not?" is the driest possible litigation, but it's an interesting ethical discussion:
Is it better to count all the ballots, even if there may be duplicates, or is it better to omit the "most likely" duplicates, even if you're not sure they're duplicates?
From CNN's exit polls, Obama won women 56-43 and men 49-48.
Since their data matches up with reality (it works out to 52.71% nationally when you incorporate the higher female voting population, compared to the official 53%), I'm more inclined to trust it than the AP's assumption on why they're wrong.
Actually, Obama won both the male and female demographics overall, so saying he won because of women seems unsubstantiated.
The reason that this post is absurd (and people are treating it as such) is because there are 15 cabinet secretaries and 6 cabinet-level positions. Nancy has taken the trouble of extrapolating the nine appointments that have been made (one by the voters themselves) to the entire group of twenty-one.
Oh, wait, we're not even waiting for the appointments to be made. We're just going to go with "announced as almost certain" by persons who totally know these things but have been wrong about pretty much everything this political season.