Hillary: Debate Set Me On Path To New Hampshire Victory

Comments (58)

CT Voter wrote on January 9, 2008 12:37 PM:

As galling as it may be, that reaction seemed genuine, and while I think Senator Clinton is the weakest candidate, and, is going to be a deadweight on the Democratic party if she's the nominee, it also was the first time Senator Clinton seemed like a human being, and not a robot.

But aside from the tears, her answer to that question troubled me more. We can't go back--(indistiguishable to Obama's turn the page)--but let's remember the 90s, and how good they were? Which is it? We can't go back, or, let's remember the 90s?

And this is very person to her? Just like how personal John Edwards is taking it, in the debate SAtursday night?

The reaction was genuine, and welcome, but the words seemed both contradictory to her own campaign messages and borrowed from other campaigns.

If the media keeps "picking" on Senator Clinton, women may turn out in droves on her behalf. Just fabulous.

Audacious_One wrote on January 9, 2008 12:38 PM:

I am humbly asking all Obama supports to stop the negative comments that have become so common place on message boards and in comment sections. Whether they are against the repulicans, against Hillary or against individual posters, you need to think long and hard about how your actions, and speech, affect the political discourse (or lack of) going on in this country.

From The Audacity of Hope Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there’s no escaping our great political divide, an endless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Or maybe the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most people see it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch-bellied gladiators and those who bother to pay attention just fans on the sidelines: We paint our faces red or blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or cheap shot to beat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters.

But I don’t think so. They are out there, I think to myself, those ordinary citizens who have grown up in the midst of all the political and cultural battles, but who have found a way—in their own lives, at least—to make peace with their neighbors, and themselves.

If you really believe in his campaign and really believe he can help finally end the bitter vitriol everybody has become so addicted to, start with yourself. When you post, you are attaching your views to his campaign. You are linking them together in the minds of those who read it. Creating an impression about who he is and who his supporters are.

So stop the negativity. There is no place for it within his campaign and each negative comment thrown at republicans or fellow democrats, lowers us all.

If you support Barack Obama, you are supporting his ideals that politics need to move away from the constantly negative, us versus them mentality. This will be impossible unless THE PEOPLE abandon these tactics as well as the politicians.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 9, 2008 12:43 PM:

To Audacious_One

Laughing next thing ya know, you'll be chasing Hannity through the streets with a snowball in your hand shouting obscenity!

LOL!

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 12:45 PM:

Agreed Audacious One, I wonder how much of this can be attributed to Obama's fans, they are doin him no favors. I personally know that the my most significant negative for him is his followers, they need to follow his lead if they truly want him elected. They constantly talk of others attacking him, following suit is their answer? Not appealling.

I am voting for a DEMOCRAT, period, be it the best one or not.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 9, 2008 12:47 PM:

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 12:45 PM:

"I am voting for a DEMOCRAT, period, be it the best one or not."

As a Republican I can assure you that I'm keeping an open mind and not promising my vote until November!

Laughing

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 12:48 PM:

Perhaps we should be asking the other candidates supporters to stop distorting his record. Just because their candidate of choice does it, doesn't mean they should do it either.

Integrity matters.

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 12:59 PM:

Does anyone want to talk about what Obama may have done wrong? I don't think you can explain the whole turn-around solely on the basis of what Clinton did right and the MSM and pollsters did wrong. Most perhaps, but not all.

I also find myself wondering if any of the pollsters have data we never saw on registered voter preferences as opposed to just LVs. With shirtsleeve weather in New England in January yesterday, I would not rule out that some significant number of people who failed likely voter screens in opinion polls might have turned out just to get out of the house/office on such a beautiful day.

Debra wrote on January 9, 2008 1:01 PM:

She only won by 2 percentage points! Not a blow-out by any means. I'm really not trying to be critical of her tactics, but when I hear Bill Clinton talking about Obama and his "superior judgement" it made me laugh out loud. Wasn't it President Clinton saying the same "I've been against the war since the beginning" line just a few weeks before? As a woman, that closely follows politics, I would never in a million years change my vote based on sympathy. I could care less that she got choked up. The press, on the other hand, were the ones shoving that down everyones throats for 2 days..so if there is anyone to point a finger at..it's the news "know-it-all" pundits who don't know when to shut up! They drove the sympathy vote straight to the polls. Now that they are all sitting there, specifically Chris Matthews, with EGG all over their faces..he want's to say that it was the people not being honest with pollsters and they didn't want to say that they did not intend to vote for Obama because of the race issue. Women changed their minds at the last minute..case closed. The "you-owe-me-this-inevitability-factor" is over and we actually have a race on our hands. The public will be happy about that and the press will be miserable. They can't stand being wrong and it has been proven this morning with the constant whining all over cable news. Why can't they just report the news or be journalists? Right now it seems like there are a lot of glorified & lazy gossip columnists parading around as political pundits.

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 1:02 PM:

Dee Illuminati wrote: As a Republican I can assure you that I'm keeping an open mind and not promising my vote until November!

I can see why.

BluePuppy wrote on January 9, 2008 1:03 PM:

Nic job, Audacious_One. It's suprised me that the most negative people on this site are the Obama people. I've read comments calling Hillary a man, a nazi, a robot, a corrupt politician, etc, etc...and that they can never vote for her. The truth is that she is an amazing, gifted, brilliant, and compassionate politician -- as is Obama. And believe she is our next president. Obama for VP!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 1:05 PM:

If the media keeps "picking" on Senator Clinton, women may turn out in droves on her behalf. Just fabulous.

And if Obama supporters (like myself) cannot win in such a circumstance then we deserve to lose. Nobody is entitled to the nomination, not even Obama. The one who gets it will have gotten it by earning it - and s/he will have earned it by running the best campaign in the circumstances which actually exist. Yesterday Bill Clinton was grousing about how his wife was losing because the media was picking her. Now we are grousing about how we are losing because the media are picking on her? Really, be serious do.

The media will do what they do. The pollsters will do what they do. What sets the winners apart from the losers is not the breaks they get but how they deal with those breaks.

Obama is the best candidate, and he can win this in any circumstance - Clinton up, Clinton down, media friendly, media hostile, Edwards in, Edwards out, etc. We need to move forward with that in mind instead of complaining about double standards or dirty tricks or any other of the myriad different distractions which my grieve my fellow Obama supporters this morning.

(climbing back down off his soapbox, Mr DeLassus apologizes for the gratuituous clichés in the above, but pleads that he was unable to find other words to express the concepts required.)

CT Voter wrote on January 9, 2008 1:08 PM:

CalD

Part of the polling screw up was (I think) the percentage of undecided voters up until the very last minute.

And I also think that rather than comparing Iowa's results to NH's results, it might be more informative to compare the polling a week before (before the so-called "surge" of Obama) with the actual results--and they're pretty consistent with the polling.

In a way, that's similar to the Des Moines REgister Iowa poll three days before the election (with no intervening earthquake). The results were very consistent with the polls.

In NH, take away the earthquake (and granted, this sounds ridiculous), and the results are consistent with the polls: close race, slight Clinton advantage.

Cassidy wrote on January 9, 2008 1:08 PM:

I have done too much canvassing and grass-roots politics myself to think policy or facts really play much of a role. I don't think it was Clinton becoming emotional in tearing up that made the difference. I do think, along the lines of Rachel Maddow's comments, that the misogyny that revealed itself in comments made after her tearing up reminded women of the prejudices we face every day of our lives.

I am an Edwards supporter, but even he and his people made stupid how-can-she-lead-if-she-is-a-weak-female comments. It's OK for him to be emotional, but not for her? Had I been in NH, I might well have voted for Clinton myself.

DRinOH wrote on January 9, 2008 1:09 PM:

Audacious One,

Agreed. I'm an Obama supporter and I've been saying the same thing since Iowa myself. I'll admit, I was overly critical of Hillary in the first stages of this thing. I still believe by far that Obama is the much better candidate, but some of our colleagues (John McCutchon comes to mind) have been downright venomous in there vitriol. That said, Hillary supporters could use a look in the mirror as well (DemAC, DCshungu, I'm looking at you).

Let's all stick to our own message and take care of our own business. We'll have a better candidate if we do.

mike wrote on January 9, 2008 1:11 PM:

I completely agree with HRC... it was the debate (I'm an Obama volunteer, fyi).

That debate was prime time and regular tv, a big deal. They were all sleepy, Obama was kinda coasting...

wglad wrote on January 9, 2008 1:14 PM:

Greg, I expected you to be above spin like "The Tears." More macho posturing from TPM. Regretfull.

Audacious_One wrote on January 9, 2008 1:14 PM:

He was polling 37% leading up to it and received 37% in the end so anybody saying "Bradley Effect!" is doing his campaign more harm than good.

As for what he did wrong, I've heard a lot of grumblings from Obama volunteers that their orders to be low key at voting sites was confusing and made no sense. When they asked superiors to double check, the orders did not change and they stayed away.

The fact is women won Hillary NH. Why? Who knows. Edwards did himself no favors with his response to "The Tears" and likely drove away many of his female voters though.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 1:15 PM:

CalD:

I think the one thing Obama did was not put the Clintons on the spot about their statements over the five days leading up to the primary. I think his mere rebuttal wasn't enough to blunt the effectiveness of the (bogus) allegations/contrasts launched by her and her surrogates.

In short, I think he ran like a frontrunner, not recognizing that he just scored an upset and was still the underdog to get the nomination. If he wants this thing, he's going to have to pivot.

brewmn wrote on January 9, 2008 1:20 PM:

Hillary: "what we’ve done to help other people, what our accomplishments are and what we want to do for the future."

And she lied through her teeth about all of those things. She has always been a corporatist Democrat, willing to tinker at the margins but never confront Big Business generally and the Military-Industrial complex specifically.

With a Republican party wheezing and spent, mired in a war that 70% of Americans disapprove of, she is simply not what this country needs right now. If anything will help the Republicans get back on their feet, it will be a Hillary Clinton candidacy and administration.

bridoc wrote on January 9, 2008 1:20 PM:

How exactly are the most negative people on here Obama people? I've heard some total crap from the Hillary supporters, from Obama being a Muslim to Obama's supporters being "koolaid drinkers". I know I have been critical of Hillary, because I think she has run a slimy campaign (as many of us believe), and when she attacks Obama using lies or half-quotes taken out of context or by distorting his record and her own or by implying that if she isn't elected we could be attacked by terrorists, yeah, we get angry. I haven't said a thing about Hillary that wasn't true, I've just attempted to point out what her actions have revealed about her character, and how her attacks are false, her arguments about her own experience and history are false (or greatly exaggerated), and that she is being propped up (as previous surveys have shown) by the fact that she is Bill's wife, and not because she is necessarily the best candidate or the best person for the job.

Basically I've heard so much bullshit misinformation and distortions on here from the Hillary side that I think we have a right to respond. I agree that we should do so in a respectable manner, that we shouldn't resort to name calling or personal attacks (reasonable questions of character aside), and that we shouldn't lie for our candidate. I don't approve of Hillary people doing that, I don't approve of Edwards people doing that, and I don't approve of Obama people doing that.

So far though I haven't heard much in the way of lies directed toward Hillary from the other side, yet I have seen plenty of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks against Obama. Indeed, the majority of the negative stories on here are about Hillary attacking Obama. She has run a dirty and very negative campaign, she started that way and obviously intends to finish that way, and these tactics and falsehoods can't go unrefuted.

That's my two cents.

savvy wrote on January 9, 2008 1:21 PM:

Obama gets swiftboated on the issue of choice by Hillary Clinton and she weeps into the camera ...then Audacious One makes a plea for Obama's supporters not to speak out against Hillary and her smear tactics.

Hillary is the one sending out surrogates to call Obama a muslim, a cocaine dealer and a schooled in a radical madrassa, yet Obama supporters are being called to the carpet.

If suggest Audacious One that you go to another site. Start with Taylor Marsh, see if those vituperative posters will tone done any of their diatribes, rants and screeds about Obama.

See if you even get to support Obama thoughtfully or with valid facts and evidence on Marsh's site. She will bann posters who argue for Obama.

This is America, and we have freedom of speech. If you Audacious want to not vent about how horrific a candidate Hillary would be as our nominee. Great.

Just don't try to tell the rest of us what to say...it's unconstitutional and downright unAmerican on your part.

Kerrey didn't fight back when he was swiftboated and we have had to endure eight years of an idiot who has squandered our nations global reputation and pursued the worst foreign policy in the history of our nation.

And you want us to sit back and not say a word about Hillary's lies, deceptions, distortions and mischaracterizations of Obama's record and statements.

Sorry that is not going to happen twice.

Don't you read the polls? Almost 50% of the electorate doesn't find Hillary likeable and with very good reason, even if it does 'hurt her feelings'

grover_rover wrote on January 9, 2008 1:24 PM:

i doubt it was her debate performance, she looked tired as hell for the first half of the debate, worse than the others, but she did perk up a bit in the second half.

i'd have to say the debate was a draw overall. but then again i realize that her "talk vs action" argument is hollow given her record and Obama's, so maybe that made me less moved by the performance.

savvy wrote on January 9, 2008 1:25 PM:

bridoc wrote on January 9, 2008 1:20 PM:

"I've heard some total crap from the Hillary supporters, from Obama being a Muslim to Obama's supporters being "koolaid drinkers". I've heard so much bullshit misinformation and distortions on here from the Hillary side that I think we have a right to respond"

You are dead right Bridoc.

Audacious is obviously new to the Obamahatefest at this site or he is a very selective reader. i.e. hillary supporter in disguise.

As the old folks say:

Don't start no rootin and tootin and there won't be no cutting and shooting.

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 1:26 PM:

"This suggests that the The Tears allowed her to "win the final news cycle," as the political pros like to put it, and that this was perhaps at least as instrumental as the debate in helping her win, as galling as that is."

Note to Greg Sargent, et al: Please go back and re-watch that video clip as many times as it takes and tell my how many tears you see. Then please stop repeating that meme. This is one of the ways Republcan talking points write themselves. Thanks.

I watched it several times myself and I would also submit that what impressed me most about that clip and convinced me that it was going to help her, not hurt her, was not the fact that she misted up for a moment there, it was the fact that a moment later the strength was back. It was though she had given herself a moment to indulge a very human response to physical exhaustion and being bludgeoned, non-stop, for four straight days by the media and rival campaigns, but said to herself, "Buck up, Hillary. You've got a job to do." Grace under pressure. I imagine that was the take-away for a lot of people.

Tom wrote on January 9, 2008 1:27 PM:

I'm an Edwards supporter and I definitely have seen most of the negative and mean-spirited attacks coming from Hillary and her supporters throughout this campaign. Obama supporters are just reacting to their guy's devastating loss.

It's interesting that Greg continues to push this idea that Hillary gained ground on Obama in the last few days even though the exit polling data does not show that at all.

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 9, 2008 1:28 PM:

thank you savvy and bridoc!

I completely agree, Kerry showed that if you don't respond to these underhanded attacks, no matter how obviously false they may be, the swiftboating will work and you'll have the high ground maybe, but the bad guys win the war.

Someone has to stand up to these attacks, and obviously the media can't be trusted to refute them (despite Bill's whining that the media hates them, the media isn't doing a very good job at exposing their false attacks and negative tactics).

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 9, 2008 1:28 PM:

I agree with the people above who suggest that Obama made the mistake of playing not to lose (he bought the hype about his frontrunner status) rather than playing to win. I don't think he'll make that error again, even if the fickle MSM once again anoints him after Nev. and SC.

By the way, you don't have to be an Obama supporter (I'm not- I'm a somewhat disheartened but loyal Edwards man) to dislike Hilary and more generally, the Clinton cabal in the party. Perhaps my attitude would soften a bit if she dumped toads like Mark Penn from her campaign, but that doesn't look like happening.

Gregor wrote on January 9, 2008 1:30 PM:

From Hillary's troubling campaign trail comments in NH on herself, LBJ, Obama, and MLK--to Bill Clinton's bladder-control outbursts on Obama the last two weeks--well--my mouth is still hanging half-open in shock. Was that really the President I voted for-- quaking in incoherent anger about Obama? Was Hillary really saying that MLK was just the lay-up guy so that LBJ could get "all the important work" done?

For two years I've been negative not on HRC as a person, but, negative as an political observer when gaming her chances to become President. But that's all changed now.

I am now devoted to seeing that HRC does not get the nomination.

ToM wrote on January 9, 2008 1:30 PM:

Call D wrote:
It was though she had given herself a moment to indulge a very human response to physical exhaustion and being bludgeoned, non-stop, for four straight days by the media and rival campaigns, but said to herself, "Buck up, Hillary. You've got a job to do." Grace under pressure. I imagine that was the take-away for a lot of people.

I'll believe that as soon as they find WMDs in Iraq.

The nonsense she's pumped out lately turns my stomach: the crying, the 'I have emotions, and 'I found my voice' are all bullshit mouthed by a power hungry unelectable politician.

I'm sure she's the Republicans candidate of choice. Anybody denying that is a fool.

freaktown wrote on January 9, 2008 1:30 PM:

i think it was the crying hillary...

the feminists must feel good about that. shed a tear, win the presidency. uh-huh. who needs policy, and positions when you can just cry your way to a victory.

hmm...wonder if she'll try that in november against the gop if she gets the nom.

RonK, Seattle wrote on January 9, 2008 1:32 PM:

As everybody else noted below (so I didn't have to), the same-day deciders had an insignificant impact on the outcome -- 0.51% margin (per the exit polling) of a 12% or better swing in expected to actual margin.

Editor of a major daily once blew off my mention of his equating millions and billions with "look, I'm not a numbers guy".

There's a lot of that going around.

CT Voter wrote on January 9, 2008 1:33 PM:

Greg DeL:

And if Obama supporters (like myself) cannot win in such a circumstance then we deserve to lose. Nobody is entitled to the nomination, not even Obama.

Oh, of course. My point (and why it put "picking" in quotes in the original) was that I think the inherent antipathy most in the media seem to have towards Hillary Clinton can boil over into the excessive coverage of the "Hillary, unplugged" moment might have annoyed enough people into supporting her. I know that I don't support her, and haven't, but even I wanted to hurl something at the TV at how she was being treated.

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 1:33 PM:

ToM,

You're mad because you know I'm right.

toM wrote on January 9, 2008 1:37 PM:

CalD, I'm not mad but I am disturbed by an electorate that can be so easily swayed by a power hungry egomaniac. She's much like W in many ways, except she's unelectable. Her unpopularity crosses all political boundaries. I'm very liberal and every other liberal I talk with will not vote for her. Think of how the Republicans must feel.

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 1:37 PM:

RonK, I still think Obama had to meet her part way. I do not believe that surge can be entirely attributed to what Clinton did right and the MSM/pollsters did wrong.

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 1:40 PM:

ToM,

You might want to take a tip from Audacious_One, above. Then again, you might not I guess. It's just a suggestion.

bridoc wrote on January 9, 2008 1:41 PM:

Gregor: I agree, the MLK thing was appalling. I'm sure it wasn't meant as racist, but I think it is hard to deny the racist implications of the whole thing. White voters might not take notice, but African-American voters will. Oh wait, that's right, the media didn't really report on that story...so nevermind, they'll never know.

Thanks "rabid anti-Hillary media"!

Right..

waka waka wrote on January 9, 2008 1:41 PM:

Also, Clinton's name was way above Obama's on the ballot statewide. Until this year they alternated placements between precincts. As crazy as it sounds, good ballot placement has been shown to boost a candidate's votes by 3%.

And I want some of what those who say Obama's fans are more negative than Clinton's is smoking. I'd say that if anything, it's Edwards' fans who're angry he's not doing better.

As far as the tears, I believe it did have a profound -- and understandable -- impact upon women. But yeah, not a great day for feminism. Can anyone imagine Maggie Thatcher tearing up?

Gregor wrote on January 9, 2008 1:42 PM:

Question to the thread: How much capital has been pledged to the WJC foundation on the /premise/promise that HRC gets the White House?

Do you think that might explain WJC's look of terror, over the past few weeks? How many favors do you think Bill already owes?

mike wrote on January 9, 2008 1:45 PM:

The debate was on regular tv, not cable.

All us jerks have cable and broadband and obsess on this stuff, lots of 'normal' people don't.

Someone should check the relative ratings.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 1:45 PM:

Pulling out all the stops: Hillary’s win last night will be something pundits and political junkies will remember for a long time. To win, however, Team Clinton pulled out all the stops: calling Obama a flip-flopper on Iraq and the Patriot Act, accusing Obama in a mailer of wanting to raise a trillion dollars in Social Security taxes, and playing the 9/11 card. (Question to liberal bloggers: Who is using the GOP talking points now?) Obama said last night, per NBC’s Ben Weltman: “And we will never use 9/11 as a way to scare up votes, because it is not a tactic to win an election. It is a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century.” That line seemed to be a direct response to Clinton warning about Al Qaeda targeting new world leaders like Gordon Brown in London. And then there was Bill -- the bizarre cellphone display, selectively quoting Obama in 2004 on Iraq, the “fairy tale,” saying he couldn’t make Hillary taller or change her gender. And what about the supposed shakeup? The knives were out; folks were cutting each other in background chats with reporters all over New Hampshire and Washington. So now what? Are the knives gone? Does the shakeup continue? Are Maggie Williams and Doug Sosnik enough change? Morale is good, but does the Clinton team leave New Hampshire with trust in each other?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

I think the next 10 days are going to be interesting. Especially when folks really focus on the statements she and her surrogates made over the last five days.

toM wrote on January 9, 2008 1:46 PM:

CalD, what suggestion are you referring to? I'm not an Obama supporter nor an Edwards supporter. At this point I haven't decided who I will vote for, but do know who I will not vote for and among that list is Hillary.

Does anybody else wonder if the various political camps are monitoring the blogs and via comments attempting to use them for their own purposes?

CT Voter wrote on January 9, 2008 1:48 PM:

gregor:

From Hillary's troubling campaign trail comments in NH on herself, LBJ, Obama, and MLK--to Bill Clinton's bladder-control outbursts on Obama the last two weeks--well--my mouth is still hanging half-open in shock. Was that really the President I voted for-- quaking in incoherent anger about Obama? Was Hillary really saying that MLK was just the lay-up guy so that LBJ could get "all the important work" done?

Nailed it. These were troubling, and revealing. Add them to Bill's "I've been against this war from the beginning" comments, and they all suggest way more megalomania than is probably necessary in a presidential candidate.

onceler wrote on January 9, 2008 1:58 PM:

ok, i just watched that "likable?" video from the debate, and i have to ask, do people serious see that as Obama taking a shot at Hillary? how/why? its clearly him trying to be nice and discredit the question in the first place. seems quite obvious...

onceler wrote on January 9, 2008 2:01 PM:

and I agree 100% that I thought both Hillary and Bill's behavior re: Obama these past few days has been disgraceful bordering on racist. that LBJ / MLK shit, wow. that is actually the MOST DISGUSTING thing I've ever heard a presidential candidate say. I don't say that lightly. disgusting.

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 2:06 PM:

Looks like the tantrums are a long way from over. I'll check back later.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 2:28 PM:

Obama gets swiftboated on the issue of choice by Hillary Clinton and she weeps into the camera ...then Audacious One makes a plea for Obama's supporters not to speak out against Hillary and her smear tactics.

That is not what Audacious One said at all. S/he did not ask that Clinton's misinformation campaign go unanswered. S/he simply asked that we not stoop to their level in formulating our rebuttals. One can address these smears and lies without going toxic.

Specifically, I do not think that any of my fellow Obama supporters do Sen Obama any great favors by referring to Sen Clinton as:
Goldwater girl
Mrs Bill
Billary
Republican-lite
the Republican's favorite candidate
unelectable (I know that last one might seem hard to believe, but I think that what we are seeing is that if you tell voters that X cannot be elected, they will elect X just to show you)

Incidentally, I also do not think one does one's cause any great favors by referring to one's interlocutors as:
fools
idiots
dupes
Republicans in disguise

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 2:29 PM:

Meanwhile, I think that the "inevitable" meme is clearly poison to the candidate who gets stuck with it, so by all means feel free to talk up Sen Clinton's inevitability. ;-)

Rick Lazio wrote on January 9, 2008 2:35 PM:

The Obama comment during the debate ("you're likable enough") came off like the cool kid patronizing the nerdy girl. With a MSM press corps that looks more and more like Mean Girls, Obama came off as sneering. And Edwards was his lame, snickering, side-kick in a matching letterman's jacket. HRC parried this sort of thing exceptionally well in her first run for the Senate. When you talk about experienced campaigners, this is what it's about. HRC is going to pivot off of this and start asking how Obama is going to "bring D's and R's together" on specific issues. (Examples: D's want to close gitmo, R's want to double it. D's want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, R's want to make them permanent. How does Obama's "spirit of bipartisanship" fit in there?) We've already seen this with Obama's healthcare plan. D's want to cover everyone, R's want to cover no one. Obama's answer? Cover some? Most? Let's face it, when Obama is talking issues, that's when he's at his worst. Totally disinterested at best, spouting repug talking points at worst.

bob wrote on January 9, 2008 2:43 PM:

This is another blatant Clinton lie:

"It was the first time that the leading candidates actually were asked some very pointed questions about what we stand for, what we’ve done to help other people, what our accomplishments are and what we want to do for the future."

Tim Russert pointed out yesterday that it was false when Bill Clinton said substantially the same thing a few days ago in NH.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:45 PM:

I'm pretty upset about how the Clintons conducted their campaign, and the ridiculous stuff Bill said about Obama's continued opposition to the Iraq War being a fairy tale. I plan to volunteer as much as I can between now and Feb. 5. Her ridiculous direct mail to NH voters in the last few days might have made a difference as well.

False claims about Obama's pro-choice record sent to female voters:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_abortion.php

Rove-style politics of fear:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/ProHillary_mail_Be_very_afraid.html

Hillary basically suggested that if we elect Obama, Al Qaeda will attack us:

DOVER, N.H. – Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow’s primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack – and that she would be the best person to handle it.

She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.

"I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister," she said. "They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html

wglad wrote on January 9, 2008 3:02 PM:

Well, said Mr. Lazio. And, unbelievably, Senator Obama's campaign seems determined to make this race about race. Go figure.

viasyl wrote on January 9, 2008 3:04 PM:

JEZ...WHAT A BUNCH OF POOR LOOSERS !!!

Gregor wrote on January 9, 2008 3:05 PM:

Thanks for the feedback on my posts.

I would just like to say that the Hillary and Bill antics were so numerous, and came in such a flurry in the last 72 hours before the polls in NH, that the media and the blogosphere did not have time--and in addtion--decided to select HRC's tears above all the other newsmaking behaviour from the HRC campaign. However, I think the wheels are still very much turning on this wealth of material, and I expect it to be highlighted in the weeks ahead. Angry Bill is of course all over YouTube. (WTF gives this guy the right to be so freakin' aggrieved and angry, anyway?). Also, if HRC goes ballistic with a new legion of 527's, I fully expect that her rich, choice remarks on LBJ, MLK and herself and Obama could find their way straight to TV. As it stands, all that stuff is going to be on YouTube as well

If the Omama campaign starts getting dirty, believe me I will be among the first to call them on it. Wisely, however, they realize he looks much better taking the high road.

Audacious_One wrote on January 9, 2008 3:47 PM:

Obama gets swiftboated on the issue of choice by Hillary Clinton and she weeps into the camera ...then Audacious One makes a plea for Obama's supporters not to speak out against Hillary and her smear tactics.

Hillary is the one sending out surrogates to call Obama a muslim, a cocaine dealer and a schooled in a radical madrassa, yet Obama supporters are being called to the carpet.

You know how you counter the smears? With facts. Not empty rhetoric and name calling. The latter turns the discussion into a shouting match and neither side moves anywhere. But if you just point out the facts and leave it at that, those you're trying to convince are more amenable to looking at those facts, and maybe changing their mind. If they dont change their mind, at least you're not denigrating your chosen candidate by spitting and swearing in their name.

This is America, and we have freedom of speech. If you Audacious want to not vent about how horrific a candidate Hillary would be as our nominee. Great.

Just don't try to tell the rest of us what to say...it's unconstitutional and downright unAmerican on your part.

That...is the ultimate way to kill a discussion. Pounding your chest and stating it's your right to tear down anybody you dont agree with. This is your opinion of what our political debates should be like?

Obama has requested that all staffers and volunteers treat every person out there with respect (regardless of who they like) and that there will be no negativity in his name. I do not see why his request should not be honored by those who support him even if they are not working for him.

I can't think of a way to word this without sounding all WWJD, but seriously. Do you think he would be proud of the comments being made in his name? If you're not understanding what his message is, maybe you should go read Audacity of Hope. Nothing in his stump speech is new. He wrote it all down quite a while ago.

Michael's Mom wrote on January 9, 2008 3:49 PM:

This was a win for Hillary and all her fans: the degree of relief and joy are well-deserved. But, when the story of the NH primary is told, it will be a story of the Clintons and McCain working together to try to take down the Kid. I wondered about the smirking exchange they shared, and now I get it. Clinton needed desperately to seem as if her campaign was as energetic as Obama's, but no one was coming to her rallies. The whirling Whouley called up his Boston friends (including the radio jocks who yelled "Iron my shirt") and every out-of-state person they could find and filled her rallies. More importantly, when watching C-SPAN, I noticed a large number of the Republicans at Obama rallies were McCain supporters. Hillary and McCain colluded to fill his rallies with people that they thought (knew) could not be persuaded: from McCain they sent Republicans (not independents); from Hillary they sent committed women. It was very smart and completely legal, but it clearly means that they believed hearing him speak was a danger to their ability to sway voters. Bill Clinton left Iowa before the caucuses and made sure that McCain and Hillary got nods from most of the smaller area papers: he needed McCain to draw independents out of the Dem race. They finally dropped the deceptive abortion flyer on NH. In the end, the women came home, even though they don't like her, because she was being attacked, but the fact of keeping real undecideds away by populating his rallies with your own folk was the tactical turn. Bravo! Now, bring that to SC, and let's see how it works out.

PeterB wrote on January 9, 2008 5:06 PM:

Hillary barely held on to win. Remember that she was up nearly 20 points in NH just three weeks ago. I would say that the NH primary is confirmation of the Obama tidal wave of hope that is flooding this nation. YES WE CAN!!!!!!

bink1 wrote on January 9, 2008 5:30 PM:

Wishful thinking on her part--SPIN SPIN-Spin.
It was the FAKE tears- the fake abortion mailer-- the assassination implication--the invective of your false husband and the victum vote.
BullSh----t

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)