the blog of DC Drinking Liberally

February 11, 2008

Potomac Primary or Chesapeake Primary?


Judging by Google News search results, journalists seeking a name for the February 12 primary in DC, Maryland, and Virginia are breaking in favor of alliteration:

I prefer “Chesapeake primary” myself, because it covers the widest area. The vast majority of voters in tomorrow’s primary are not in the DC area. Besides, I don’t want my brother’s head to explode.

At least the odious name “Beltway primary” is losing badly.

Regardless of what you call it, if you’re a registered Democrat in DC or Maryland, or a registered voter of any sort in Virginia, make sure you get to the polls tomorrow. It’s not often that those of us outside the early states actually get a say in who our presidential candidate is, so let’s make the most of it. And if you’re having trouble deciding, the correct answer is Barack Obama!


  1. My logic for supporting the “Potomac Primary” doesn’t come from alliteration. Rather, it’s that the Potomac River touches all three states in contention tomorrow, whereas Chesapeake Bay doesn’t.

    Simple as that.

    But get out and VOTE!

    Rudi6:52 pm

  2. From wikipedia: “The Chesapeake Bay’s watershed covers 64,299 square miles (166,534 kmĀ²) in the District of Columbia and parts of six states: New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.” I see that the Post is using “Potomac Primary.” Damn them. Damn them to Hell…

    —Paul • 10:45 am, February 12

  3. I gather Mark Shields use of “Crabcake Primary” isn’t catching on.

    —AltHippo • 11:54 am, February 12

  4. No, and even though I generally can’t stand him, I could get behind that term. I feel certain that there are people in DC, Virginia and Maryland who enjoy a nice crabcake. When I voted this morning, poll workers outnumbered voters about 2 to 1. Obama Fever has yet to spread to Powhatan County, apparently.

    —Paul • 12:05 pm, February 12

  5. sorry- I think I was confusing Mark Shields with some other pundit I can’t stand.

    —Paul • 12:08 pm, February 12

  6. Mark Shields is the one who does the PBS News Hour with David Brooks. Maybe Brooks is the one you can’t stand? He’s kind of like a reptile with a boyish grin.

    I can’t be sure this is Obamania, but the voters substantially outnumbered poll workers in my DC location this morning. Rough numbers: 6 poll workers, 30 voters.

    —AltHippo • 12:35 pm, February 12

  7. Wait, I thought the reptile with the boyish grin was Bill Kristol.

    I’d better get back to my polling place to whip up the Obamania, though it’s a slow time of day.

    Keith2:10 pm, February 12

  8. I think Brooks looks kind of like he’s Karl Rove’s younger brother, but in the panthoen o’ pundits he’s not that objectionable. He does All Things Considered with E.J. Dionne too, doesn’t he?

    —Paul • 4:07 pm, February 12

  9. The timing of my commute means I don’t get to listen to ATC anymore.

    Brooks has a style that’s very different from, say Krauthammer, who’s almost a cartoon villain. With Krauthammer I always want to throw popcorn at the TV. With Brooks my reaction is more shaking my head over what he just said. Remember, as conservative-lite as he appears, he was still one of the founders of the Weekly Standard.

    Here’s an example from a recent NewsHour. Note the way that Brooks pulls off the suggestion that the whole necon thing is just overblown, while eliding the Iraq policies of McCain and Clinton: (link.)

    JUDY WOODRUFF: David, we have a question from New Zealand, Chad Taylor, and he said, “We’ve heard so much about the neocons in the Republican Party in the last six years, are they still a factor in 2008? And if so, which presidential candidate would they vote for?”

    DAVID BROOKS: I’ve lost track of who they are. Is Donald Rumsfeld a neocon? Is Dick Cheney a neocon? Is Paul Wolfowitz? I guess Paul Wolfowitz is part of it — Doug Fife? I guess they would vote for McCain, they, I think McCain was more in tune with more aggressive foreign policy, I think on Iraq, if you talk to people inside the White House instead of the Pentagon, they think McCain and Hillary Clinton are the ones who will fight the war the way they think it should be fought.

    They think Hillary is — doesn’t say that publicly now — but based on the, sort of, three years they worked together on the Armed Services Committee, they thought McCain and Clinton pretty much agreed on how to proceed in Iraq.

    And so, I think they have a high degree of confidence in those candidates.

    Pretty slick, huh?

    —AltHippo • 5:30 pm, February 12

  10. The transcriber seems to have confused Doug Feith with Barney Fife.

    Keith2:23 am, February 13

  11. Okay– forget what I said about Brooks not being that objetionable. What an idiot:

    “Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?”

    —Paul • 8:29 am, February 20

post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


DCDL is a blog by Washington, DC-area members of Drinking Liberally. Opinions expressed are the writers’, not those of Drinking Liberally, which provides no funding or other support for this blog.

Upcoming Events

See information on the revived DC chapter (2012).

DCDL Member Blogs

DCDL Speaker Links

DC Links

Liberal (Mostly) Blogs

Liberal Groups

Internal Links


Drinking Liberally

Recent Comments

Recent Posts


Search Blog



46 queries. 0.550 seconds