Hillary Has An Emotional Moment On Campaign Trail

Comments (154)

colonpowwow wrote on January 7, 2008 1:09 PM:

Mondale's old campaign slogan.

Muskie's tears.

If she shows up at a rally with a combat helmet two sizes too big, I'm officially abandoning ship. LOL

Steve wrote on January 7, 2008 1:09 PM:

In other news, a brand new Survey USA poll out on Kentucky has some improved news for the Republicans.

The numbers are as follows:

46% Giuliani
44% Clinton
10% Undecided

42% Romney
48% Clinton
10% Undecided

53% Huckabee
41% Clinton
6% Undecided

51% McCain
41% Clinton
7% Undecided

47% Giuliani
41% Obama
12% Undecided

43% Romney
44% Obama
13% Undecided

54% Huckabee
35% Obama
11% Undecided

54% McCain
35% Obama
11% Undecided

The poll was conducted Jan. 4-6, 2008. Interesting to see that Hillary still runs better than Obama in this battleground southern state.

brm wrote on January 7, 2008 1:12 PM:

Haha
Bye Bye to the Goldwater Girl
CELEBRATE
The end of the Bush-Clinton era

NCSteve wrote on January 7, 2008 1:13 PM:

I don't fault her for the tears, nor do I contend that they're faked up to show everyone her soft side. She's human and her lifelong dream, which just a couple of weeks ago seemed within reach, is slipping from her grasp. Her national numbers are starting to crater according to the Rasmussen Dailies and her fundraising has to be drying up.

So no, I don't fault her for the tears, but its that ironclad conviction that she knows what's right and she knows what needs to be done and everyone else doesn't and will lead us to ruin that I've found most troubling, and, frankly, obnoxious, about her from, if you'll pardon the expression, Day One.

Jake wrote on January 7, 2008 1:14 PM:

There's no crying in the primaries.

Dan wrote on January 7, 2008 1:15 PM:

Wow. There were six polls released this morning alone and some of them actually have some small hope for Hillary (check the full roundup here). At the same time, her advisers are now openly saying that South Carolina is lost...

Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 1:17 PM:

Sorry about your candidate colonpowwow. That was a real funny post though. Good luck tomorrow.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 1:17 PM:

Maybe one had to be there to appreciate the moment, but somehow this does nothing at all to make me see her in a better light. Of course, I am hardly an undecided voter, so maybe my opinion just does not matter, but I found that closing bit "some of us are ready and some of us are not, some of us know what we’ll do on day one and some of us don’t" simply obnoxious.

whatdoIknow wrote on January 7, 2008 1:17 PM:

It was the pizza!

workaday joe wrote on January 7, 2008 1:18 PM:

to Steve-

There are no battleground southern states. Neither Clinton nor Obama (nor Edwards) would win Kentucky. Missouri? Hmm, maybe. Arkansas? I guess if Huckabee isn't in the race. Any others? Very unlikely, even if Dale Earnhardt endorsed any of the Democrats.

V. Nagarajan wrote on January 7, 2008 1:18 PM:

Ms. Clinton said on NPR that if she didn't believe she was the best person to lead the nation, she wouldn't be competing. Sounded a little grandiose to me - of the 150+ million adults, she is the best?

KSWheels wrote on January 7, 2008 1:18 PM:

SAs Steve's post indicates, if the Democrats fall for the Obama hype machine they deserve to lose. Again. He can't and won't in in the general election.

CMike wrote on January 7, 2008 1:20 PM:

Come on. Sen. Clinton is showing a perfectly acceptable level of emotion here. Et tu TPM?

KSWheels wrote on January 7, 2008 1:20 PM:

"even if Dale Earnhardt endorsed any of the Democrats."

ugh...

john mccutchen wrote on January 7, 2008 1:21 PM:

Greg

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Hatch wrote on January 7, 2008 1:22 PM:

How much do you think they paid the acting coach?

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 7, 2008 1:23 PM:

colonpowwow and brm your misogyny is breathtaking. Do you even read what you write? Spewing out venom and fire? Do you guys who support Obama have any decency?

Shameful and heartless behavior!

bridoc wrote on January 7, 2008 1:23 PM:

I love that she can turn on the tears yet stay completely on her campaign message: "ready on Day One". Yeahh, fake and manipulating anyone? Of course she turns on the water works around a group of women, but would never do that with a non-female audience. Is this by chance? Does she just not care about the future of our country soooo much when addressing non-female-only groups? Yeah, nice show, nice show. She should get nominated for an Oscar for that performance. Of course if she got to the general election, somehow I think that the Republicans would be jumping on that little gem as an example that she is about two seconds from crying and having a breakdown, just during a campaign, let alone when real life or death decisions come to her desk. Yeah, doesn't so much play well. I'd give her a hand for caring so much, if it wasn't obviously so contrived, if I didn't know how politically motivated everything she does is.

And this isn't personal? Any idiot can see how she looks at Edwards and especially Obama, with this fake smile and this pissed look in her eyes that just screams "THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE MINE, I DESERVE THIS, I WAS INEVITABLE, HOW DARE YOU GET IN THE WAY OF MY PLAN!!!" If she really cared so much about the course of this country it wouldn't lead her to tears that Obama is winning, because if it were about the future, instead of a personal quest for power and the history books, she would be assured by strength and character of Obama, the positions he has, his great judgment (see: Iraq, Iran), and especially what he can do for the Democratic party (i.e. energize and win), and what he can do to bring the country together. Edwards obviously cares about the future of this country, he doesn't have to tear up to do it, but he is genuine enough not to try to tear down the best thing the Democratic party has produced in decades. He puts his principles above personal ambition. Sure, he'd LOVE to be president, but he won't do it at all costs. Hillary obviously will.

BobFred wrote on January 7, 2008 1:25 PM:

This just drives home the point that it is all about her.

AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 7, 2008 1:25 PM:

Clinton is getting more and more like Reese Witherspoon in Election. What's next? Tearing down Barack's posters. She's not my gal but she has to suck it up and show some grit and self-awareness.
Nobody is picking on her. This is what most politicians experince at one time or anoter.

CalD wrote on January 7, 2008 1:26 PM:

The only Republican that really worries me if Barack Obama wins the nomination is McCain. I wouldn't give Clinton more than even odds against him and I frankly do not believe Barack Obama could beat him at all.

And right now, it's looking like McCain in NH so if Republicans don't manage to slit his tires in South Carolina again, Democrats had better be hoping as hard as we can for a Clinton turn-around.

Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 1:26 PM:

Long Time Democrat, I have to defend colonpowwow, she/he has been a diehard clinton supporter on this website for over 4 months. She/he has taken a bunch of heat for clinton and dished it back like a great supporter. She is not an obama supporter.

Center Cut wrote on January 7, 2008 1:26 PM:

It is sad when you are losing. But in the primaries, there is no crying, god damn it...

KSWheels wrote on January 7, 2008 1:26 PM:

Long Time Democrat - Seriously? You're playing the "If you don't support Hillary you hate women." card?

Wow...

zonk wrote on January 7, 2008 1:28 PM:

I don't fault her for the tears either.

She seems one step behind some of her supporters -- if she follows them on the last step -- "If it's Obama v McCain, I may have to vote McCain", then she ought to be drummed out of the party.

Of course, I don't expect her to -- but she damn well better bring her incredibly 'entitled' and obnoxious supporters to heel once the race is over.

seanh wrote on January 7, 2008 1:28 PM:

I've been an Obama supporter for a long time now, but I was watching that discussion type Q&A with Clinton live, thanks to a link from the NYTimes. I don't especially dislike Hillary, but I've simply never found Hillary's message persuasive, nor did her debate performance, stump speeches or ads make a terrible convincing case for her candidacy. This morning's Q&A round-table really challenged several (if not all) of my concerns with the Clinton case for the White House.

Maybe that round-table was the first sign of the campaign's new direction, getting beyond the Penn strategy. If Clinton can convey that side of herself beyond NH -- serious, thoughtful, articulate, and extremely knowledgeable -- Obama will have some serious competition on his hands.

Clinton's campaign should really post a full video of the event this morning in NH for all to see. I'm still very much an Obama supporter for very different reasons, but I'm much closer to swallowing or appreciating the case for Hillary's nomination.

jhv wrote on January 7, 2008 1:29 PM:

who is that woman and where has she been? she seems genuine and like she might have something to say.

if only she hadn't thrown in the 'poor me' part, i might have liked her again.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 1:30 PM:

If it's real tears, it's party time in Obamaland, I've never seen such vicious people, she sucks but I'll refrain from enjoying watching her cry. Seems to me 9 out of 10 Obama fans would enjoy snuff films of all the other candidates.

frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 1:31 PM:

It's got to be a little depressing, I'd think, to lose to another candidate who can, because he's the "It" guy, can make people think he walks on water just by starting a chant of "Fired up! Ready to go!"

One wonders which middle soccer coach he might have lifted that fine, inspiring rhetoric from.

Helter wrote on January 7, 2008 1:31 PM:

Probably not the message of strength she wants to be sending out right now. Has someone called her mother to let her know she should come and pick Hillary up? It's been a long campaign and she's tired.

frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 1:33 PM:

I meant, above,

middle school soccer coach.

Sorry Obama, didn't want to create any confusion!

hello_world wrote on January 7, 2008 1:35 PM:

Come on. Sen. Clinton is showing a perfectly acceptable level of emotion here.

So, you think it's perfectly acceptable for a President to cry under pressure and stress and doesn't involve death (of something other than his or her own personal aspirations at least)?

I'm with NCSteve. I won't look down on her for showing emotion, nor will I lower myself by speculating that her tears were staged. But I will most definitely take exception to her sticking in the "some of us are right" and "some of us are ready" bs. If that's the way she feels, that's fine, and her right to say that. But to insert that into an emotional teary-eyed outburst cheapens her, and the entire political process she's competing in. Like Jake said, "There's no crying in the primaries."

Franklin wrote on January 7, 2008 1:35 PM:

Was the table covered with onions? Inquiring minds want to know.

Just as likely it was a personal meltdown mode. Tough campaign. Type A personality. Good smarts. All that phoniness comes washing down. Doesn't hurt that it polled well either when Penn asked.

Keepin' it "real" Clinton style.

brm wrote on January 7, 2008 1:36 PM:

Long Time Democrat

Jason wrote on January 7, 2008 1:40 PM:

That's amazing that she had BOTH the humanity to be moved to tears AND the focus to effortlessly segue into an attack on Obama's readiness to lead on Day One.

There's no possibility that could have been pre-planned.

She is so sickening. Cannot wait til she is done for good.

Center Cut wrote on January 7, 2008 1:42 PM:

Pardon me if I'm a little harsh above, but she will continue to fight for "our kids' future" and all the rest in the United States Senate. It's not like she's never going to be part of the process. It's not as though she's going to become an old spinster sitting at home tomorrow, 2009, and so on.

Every thing in life that doesn't meet expectations ends up being sad or angry.

Dave wrote on January 7, 2008 1:44 PM:

One wonders which middle soccer coach he might have lifted that fine, inspiring rhetoric from.

It's from an old lady in South Carolina.

Arwcwn wrote on January 7, 2008 1:44 PM:

Can someone please tell me why she's at a table of only 15 people, with National Media there, while Obama is packing in 3000 an event?

Oh Puuuullleeeeaaazzzeeee tell me this wasn't Staged, Poll Tested, and Planned

It is Scripted and it is the reason she SHOULD NOT WIN the Nomination, PERIOD

Mike H wrote on January 7, 2008 1:48 PM:

seanh, I have ALWAYS found Clinton to be "serious, thoughtful, articulate, and extremely knowledgeable." Which is why she would, in most ways, be a good president. She does her homework, she knows her stuff.

I find all the above qualities in Obama, but I also find that his wisdom and insight are greater than Clinton's. He keeps his eye on the ball, whether he is passing legislation of justice -- the great law on videotaping police interrogations, for example -- or outlining his clear approach to both Pakistan and going after bin Laden (he was derided as "naive" in August for this, now all the candidates parrot his approach). And he has run his campaign with calm, steady resolve.

Given the panic running through her campaign, Senator Clinton's projecting when she implies that Obama would "spin out of control" -- a pretty low blow, I think, no matter how tearfully stated.

Bill R. wrote on January 7, 2008 1:48 PM:

I have been a fan of Hillary's for many years. I don't have a problem with tears, male or female. I don't like what I see in her comments. They match the same thinking in the debate. It's all about me, I'm the essential and only person who can make it happen. That is not only false, but it just turns people off. The appealing message from Obama,whether you like him or not, is his invitation to join with a movement toward a better day. It works. And its true. Coalitions and movements make things happen.

CT Voter wrote on January 7, 2008 1:48 PM:

I don't care that she cried, or wonder whether it was real, but seriously, there's sexism going both ways here, people. If that had been Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or John Edwards or Barack Obama tearing up like that, it would probably be nonstop coverage (not for McCain, though--the cable talking heads sure seem to have a real crush on him)...but since it's a woman, it's not such big news.

On the one hand, it's hugely ironic that it ISN'T big news. On the other hand, why a double standard?

And whoever you support, you have to feel for all of them. They must be absolutely bone-weary right now.

I'd cry probably just at the thought of having to brush my teeth after all of this.

colonpowwow wrote on January 7, 2008 1:48 PM:

Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 1:17 PM:

"Sorry about your candidate colonpowwow. That was a real funny post though. Good luck tomorrow."

Oh, no need to be sorry. She'll still wake up in the morning with a pretty solid gig. Also, I have no doubt that she'll prove to be an outstanding President after she defeats President McCain in 2012 ;-)

To those who think that there was no difference between the Clinton and Bush presidencies, and that Obama is some kind of anti-capitalist creation who owes his financial support to the millions of contributions from the piggy banks of dewey-eyed children, all I can say is - thanks for relentlessly trashing a good person, a solid Democrat, and a lifetime advocate and supporter of women's rights, children's rights, labor, the environment, and the earliest spokesperson for national healthcare that you can remember. You've exposed a lot more here about yourselves than you've "exposed" re Senator Clinton.

Hope it's sharpened you for the real game coming up. Nice job at trying to alienate fellow progressive Democrats who post here, but I've voted Dem since 1972, and see no need to change now.

Again, I guess that means you've won something. Woo Hoo!

Helter wrote on January 7, 2008 1:50 PM:

I wonder if this leads the news cycle tonight. It's certainly attention getting.

Rhoda wrote on January 7, 2008 1:51 PM:

I've always appreciated Hillary Clinton's deep desire to help and serve and truly believe her to be a strong mainstream democrat. The central problem with her candidacy for me is her vote for the Iraq war and her support for Kyl-Liberman. This demonstrates to me a deeper desire to remain politicaly viable and if that is not the case; a deep misunderstanding about America's forigen policy needs.

I'm sorry for her stress and her near tears and commend her for her passion; but I do not support her forigen policy views. I truly believe most of the country will not vote for her. And I deeply believe we need a new change and a break from the past.

It's sad and speaks to the misconceptions people have of her that this is immediatly regarded as a political ploy.

RickT wrote on January 7, 2008 1:51 PM:

It isn't the tears that bother me -- "it isn't easy" sounds too much like Bush's "it's hard work"

frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 1:53 PM:

It's from an old lady in South Carolina.

Yeah, but that doesn't answer the question of which middle school soccer coach she stole it from.

Because, you see, the last time I heard such a corny, pedestrian, hokey line, it was from a middle school soccer coach. Even when I was in middle school that sort of hackneyed corniness made me absolutely cringe.

Of course, as I said, when you're the "It" guy, none of this matters when you lead a chant like that -- people think they are the words of God and you are walking on water.

But you know when the cringe-inducing corniness really starts to get noticed? When your "It" moment has passed, and people aren't so much liking everything you say just because you say it.

I wonder how many people are going to look back to how they felt transported by Obama's hackneyed rhetoric and feel just a tad embarrassed by their behavior? I wonder how many are going to claim that it was someone else who found that line inspiring, and they, of course, just couldn't get over how corny it sounded?

Shii wrote on January 7, 2008 1:54 PM:

Some of us are right and some of us are wrong, some of us are ready and some of us are not

Wow. Feklar wrote on January 7, 2008 1:55 PM:

Oh Christ on a crutch, what did Bill do now? Screw a Poll worker?

Daniel Nexon wrote on January 7, 2008 1:56 PM:

To all the "Obama is a god, Clinton is the devil" types around here:

1) Are you really so, so bloody naive that you believe that Obama's message and events aren't "staged, poll tested, and planned"?

2) Do you really think that every serious Presidential contender doesn't believe that he or she is the "best person for the job"?

I think there are good arguments for both Obama and Clinton. I'm actually pretty indifferent between the two. But the level of confirmation bias here reeks.

bridoc wrote on January 7, 2008 1:57 PM:

CalD wrote on January 7, 2008 1:26 PM:

The only Republican that really worries me if Barack Obama wins the nomination is McCain. I wouldn't give Clinton more than even odds against him and I frankly do not believe Barack Obama could beat him at all.

And right now, it's looking like McCain in NH so if Republicans don't manage to slit his tires in South Carolina again, Democrats had better be hoping as hard as we can for a Clinton turn-around.

Actually, I think your analysis is completely backwards. If you look at the general election matchup polls, Hillary LOSES to McCain, and Obama wins against him. If McCain is the Republican candidate, the general election is going to be a battle for the middle. Hillary is seen unfavorably by a full 50% of the population (according to all of the polls on the subject), which needless to say isn't a great place to be running from. McCain has some weird ass illogical crossover appeal for some independents and moderate Democrats, so if it is McCain v Hillary, we are SCREWED, I'll put money on it. What we saw in Iowa, and especially what we are seeing in NH (with Obama actually sapping independents from McCain) shows us that Obama has broad appeal, people will cross sides to vote for him, whereas people will come out in droves to defeat her.

So no, Obama is the best chance against all Republicans, especially McCain. Hillary is the worst chance we have against all Republicans, especially McCain. That is analysis backed by all the data. This is why her electability argument is not a smart move on her part. And I'm sorry to say, being caught on video almost breaking down and crying is not going to help her in a general election against mean bastard Republicans. They just got all the fuel they need to paint Democrats as weak if she gets the nomination.

John Crandell wrote on January 7, 2008 1:58 PM:

I can't imagine a more boring Democratic candidacy this summer/fall than that of Clinton as nominee. Yes, older women would be leading the charge, but that would be about it.

Instead, consider an Obama/Edwards ticket. Sheer electricity folks.
Carville/Matalin are history.

We are at a breakpoint. America's forty year Age of Darkness comes to an end.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 1:58 PM:

Just curious, if this was John Edwards crying, how do you think this would play in the media?

amanda wrote on January 7, 2008 1:59 PM:

As much as I wanted to like Sen. Clinton, this latest act takes the cake. After watching the video, it's clear that this was a cynical ploy. Her words were pre-scripted, those "tears" were rehersed. I never thought she'd sink to this level. So sad...

dajafi wrote on January 7, 2008 2:00 PM:

I have been a fan of Hillary's for many years. I don't have a problem with tears, male or female. I don't like what I see in her comments. They match the same thinking in the debate. It's all about me, I'm the essential and only person who can make it happen. That is not only false, but it just turns people off.

Other than the first sentence, I agree with all of this. When I started reading about the tearing up in the NYT blog, I thought, Okay, she's showing emotion, this is good. But then with the "some of this" and "some of us" that, her bitterness, entitlement and self-aggrandizement came right back to the fore.

I find Clinton's politics of distortion, attack and triangulation deplorable and her "leadership" severely lacking on both substance and style grounds. But I readily admit that she's a serious person, she certainly knows her stuff and, in terms of policy substance, probably would be "for" almost everything Obama is for. And her candidacy is as legitimately historic as his is. But she doesn't come off well, and she represents an era and style of politics most Americans--left, right, and center--want to put squarely behind them.

enexile wrote on January 7, 2008 2:00 PM:

Some of the people here, on both sides, really need to chill. That said, if Hillary is capable of generating this much vitriol among Democrats, just imagine how divisive she would be in a general election. This is why, to me, she's just not a viable candidate.

/quasi non sequitur

Eain Murphy wrote on January 7, 2008 2:00 PM:

I am still going to have to support Hillary over Obama. I get the feeling that his big message is that we need change and that we need to put an end to partisanship. I feel that he is going to make to many concessions to the republicans to Keep them happy and on board.
I myself have no problems with partisanship if we are the ones in power. The republicans have given us a shit sandwich to eat since their Contract for America bs. If we have the house, the senate and the white house, screw the republicans and bring the partisanship on full power. Maybe this is the wrong attitude but I am about full fed up with the republicans and I fell that if we are going to put a candidate forward then damn the torpedoes and lets put someone in who will tell the republicans to shove it. What is the point of choosing a candidate who is going to offer the message that we are going to end partisanship when we are in full power? Look at the republicans. Which of their high tier candidates are using that message? NOT A ONE. Politics isn't about making nice. It is about pushing your agenda forward. That being said, I fell that Obama is trying to be Mr. Nice-guy where maybe what we need is someone who's selling point isn't being a placater. We democrats need to generate the spine needed to take this country back, not beg for it back.

Ted Atkinson wrote on January 7, 2008 2:04 PM:

Color me skeptical.

I doubt seriously that Clinton would be this "emotional" if she were steamrolling her way to the nomination as planned.

I note for the record that through her touching moment of personal exposure, her eyes dewy and moist with emotion, she still managed to pull the "some of us will be ready on day one and some haven't thought that through yet" negative meme concerning Obama.

All stops are pulled now, kids, all quivers are at the ready, whether they be sharp attacks or the downey soft fluff of a Teddy Bear's innards.

Talons and tears, knives and rainbows.

Whatever gets her to the nomination, I guess.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 2:07 PM:

I wonder how many people are going to look back to how they felt transported by Obama's hackneyed rhetoric and feel just a tad embarrassed by their behavior?

Fair enough. While we are on the subject of things about which we wonder, I rather wonder about how many of the cynics here will say to themselves in 2012 "why did I dislike this man in 2008? He proved to be exactly what this country needed after the disaster of the Bush years."

Angry Vet (formerly known as "M") wrote on January 7, 2008 2:08 PM:

Fine by me if she is crying. I was in the Army in Iraq for 18 months, and on a couple of occasions, I certainly found myself tearing up.

But not in public. The American people, in a crisis situation (like a Soldier under fire), should not want their leaders tearing up when the going gets tough.

green heron wrote on January 7, 2008 2:09 PM:

I thought allowing Bob Kerry imply Obama was a Muslim (and therefore a terrorist Manchurian candidate was gutter politics, but this is lower. Hillary is rolling around in raw sewage now.

Keith wrote on January 7, 2008 2:09 PM:

In this moment, you are seeing Clinton at her rawest and most honest. She honestly believes that she is the only person that can lead the country, just like she believed in 1994 her plan was the only way forward on healthcare. It's part of the reason why she voted for the 2002 AUMF--she knew how SHE'D handle it and didn't want to set the wrong precedent. I mean look her explanation about the vote (or anything else that goes wrong): it's always about someone else or some other thing. It's never that she got it wrong or did something wrong. These other candidates are just plain wrong; she's right. Why can't you see that.

That's not much different, in my opinion, than Bush. And that's what troubles me the most about her candidacy.

J.Irons wrote on January 7, 2008 2:10 PM:

HillBill is so vain. She thinks she's the only one who gives a shit. lol

Obama/Clark 2008

Chesire111 wrote on January 7, 2008 2:11 PM:

Impressive! Even through a spontaneous tearful outpouring of concern for our children, she's able to insert one of the most ghastly campaign slogans in political history!

Never has "spontaneous" sounded so stale.

bvd wrote on January 7, 2008 2:12 PM:

Colinpowow - BOTH SIDES have been overly nasty on this board over the last few weeks, including you. There has been a tremendous amount of nastiness, condescension, insulting, berating, overt rascism, loony claims and outrage that anyone would dare not support Hillary.

In many of my posts I've said I don't hate Hillary, I voted for her as senator, but I simply do not want the Clintons back again in the WH. I also think she'd be the easiest to beat. But I've always said I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination. Many others have said the same. I detest the gloating on this page too.

But to suggest that the Obama supporters are horrid while the Hillary supporters are nice is ridiculous. Re-read the posts from the last few weeks at TPM to see my point.

I have to say, though - while you and others have repeatedly said she can take the fire but Obama can't - sorry, she's the one in tears. And while I don't personally find that awful or deserving of ridicule, like it or not tears sank Muskie's candidacy in 1972 in NH. And these tears won't help her in running for President.

Finally, let's all agree we have to get the Republicans out and the ONLY way is to support the Democrat, no matter who it is. To hold any candidate accountable for the stupid things their supporters write on message boards would be as irrational as Mutually Assured Destruction.

Erik wrote on January 7, 2008 2:12 PM:

This echoes a feeling I had on Thursday night. Though I'm for Obama, I couldn't help but feel just really sad for Hilary. She had a tough life and has always bottled up her emotions. She tries to give her pain meaning through her (often fake) facade and show of power. Now it is all crumbling around her, which has to throw her into a lot of deep questions about the choices she's made. To me, her crying and uttering her latest talking points is almost like she's trying to convince herself of who she is. Sad. I have compassion for her, but she still is not my president.

zhak wrote on January 7, 2008 2:13 PM:

Poll numbers for Hillary amongst Republicans are terrible -- I doubt one in ten Republican would vote for her if she becomes the Dem nominee. I can't see that it's in the best interests of the country (ie, be "vitally important" etc) to have the Democratic nominee be someone so very hated by the Republicans. After all, the Republicans do not do many things well, but one thing they do better than anybody is HATE.

Is this what we want?

That being said, with Dodd out of the race (& in all truth, he never had a chance, which is a shame, since he was the only candidate actively concerned with restoring the intent of the Constitution, something I feel very very strongly about), I am left with a choice of Hillary, Edwards & Obama. I actually think that both Hillary and Obama have the mentality of post-Eisenhower (but non-Goldwater!)Republicans. The shift to the right has been SO dramatic and appalling that there is no candidate running who comes close to my own views, which, until recent years, I always felt were moderate, perhaps a bit left to moderate. I find this to be extremely depressing. This election should be about stopping the authoritarianism that has been rapidly gaining ground in this country. And, imo, the second most pressing issue should be global warming. The (nonsense word) "islamofascist" threat is way WAY down my list. Yesterday a Huckabee supporter in Windham was wearing an "anti-global warming" sticker in addition to a Huckabee sticker, proving, I guess, that junk science and junk politics go hand in hand. (Like we need proof...) In the post squib scrum, commenters mixed it up over what the "big issues" are. The people of NH are not as stupid as the national press and many folks in other parts of the nation assume. We take the attention we're given once every four years with a very large grain of salt, since we know damn well that none of these people campaigning (nor those covering the campaigns) care one whit about us. (A vital clue can be found in the way everybody leaves after the primary & we tend not to see them again for another four years. *gasp*) But to my horror, decades of increasingly lazy educational standards coupled with an extremely poor fourth estate have conspired to have many of my fellow residents frothing at the mouth over things like "the Iranian threat" and "illegals coming to this country to take our jobs" (what? like fruit picking??).

It's appalling.

eric wrote on January 7, 2008 2:13 PM:

I am baffled by those here that think that Hillary was somehow faking. The story here is that crying like this is a bad thing.

Do yourselves a favor and google Edmund Muskie.

calguy wrote on January 7, 2008 2:15 PM:

OK, yes, of course, Obama is stage tested (Hendrik Hertzberg at the New Yorker noted that his very emotional speech on caucus night was on a teleprompter).

Second, I do not doubt that Hillary was very likely genuine here, and that the strategy choice of putting her in front of these women was to try to pull back some of that vote which Obama corraled in Iowa (probably with the the Oprah endorsement helping spectacularly!). So what I believe is that the event was strategically conceived, but that the tears were not. The point is that Hillary is not a great actress, and it would take a truly great one to convincingly pull off such tears on cue.

This certainly makes Hillary a more sympathetic figure. I feel badly for her. She was soaring for so many months, and now by all appearances she has a campaign crash that will exceed that of Howard Dean. I do believe she wants to do great things for the country, even if I am repelled by her cautiousness and sychophancy to corporate power. I would love to see a woman president, but frankly could more easily envision and support women like Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, or Jennifer Granholm (too bad about that Canadian birthplace!) in that role as opposed to Hillary.

All of this said, I am not sure this incident helps her at all politically. I think tears are not a bad thing, and can find any number of poems about warriors which indicate that a warrior who does not know tears is a tragic figure indeed. However, in the electorate while the tears may help her with women and draw much sympathy, they will remind many that she is a woman and unfortunately question her toughness to deal with the bad guys out there. I personally think that is bogus, but there you have it.

c wrote on January 7, 2008 2:19 PM:

Please.

I think I can speak for most Obama supporters in saying that we like her, even if we could do without Mark Penn. I'm sure this was genuine. Campaigns are tiring and intense things and this moment can't be easy for her.

She has a strong record of public service, her heart is in the right place, and she's a great New York Senator. This is no time for piling on.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 2:19 PM:

So she's now even faking years. These folks are unbelievable. Good riddance!

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 2:20 PM:

Are we really supposed to feel sorry for her? How desperate can they get.

colonpowwow wrote on January 7, 2008 2:21 PM:

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 2:07 PM:

"Fair enough. While we are on the subject of things about which we wonder, I rather wonder about how many of the cynics here will say to themselves in 2012 "why did I dislike this man in 2008? He proved to be exactly what this country needed after the disaster of the Bush years."

As many (if not nearly all) of the Clinton supporters like myself have said time and again - what's not to like about Obama? Heck, I could give you a listing of my preferences for the whole field (2. = Obama 8. = Edwards), and the so-called "Clintonistas" have constantly said they'd support who their fellow Democrats elected.

The Anybody-But, and the relentless, baseless character assassination on Clinton and her supporters here on TPM-EC goes on barely abated (it's abating a wee bit now that they realize they may need us to beat McCain).

No surprise to me if Obama proves to be just what we need. Big surprise to me if he's able to put away a GOP "moderate maverick" like McCain.

I know there are a lot more Democrats in the US than Republicans, so my politics of hope is to see blacks and students finally voting in more representative numbers this time. That'll do it for me.

CalD wrote on January 7, 2008 2:22 PM:

bridoc,

You're certainly as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Just remember that if Barack Obama is the nominee then by next November, he won't be a fresh face or a media darling anymore. But McCain will still have stronger fundamentals.

Matt in Costa Rica wrote on January 7, 2008 2:22 PM:

I guess my thoughts are that if she is really that concerned about our kid's future and the future of the country, she should have showed some goddamn backbone in the Senate by REALLY fighting against the neocon agenda and leading the charge to impeach Bush and Cheney. It really does seem to be just about her, doesn't it? Sad. Time to close shop.

DonnaG wrote on January 7, 2008 2:22 PM:

Sorta gives new meaning to "I'm your girl".

If she had gotten emotional and given a simply answer about the campaign truly being hard, fine..... I would simply appreciate and welcome her human side.

But, to simultaneously lose control while touting her readiness to lead over rivals, well, those two levels of communication really do conflict with each other.

Mahler wrote on January 7, 2008 2:23 PM:

Authentic or not, this is probably the smartest thing Hillary's done in the last two weeks. If she had canned Mark Penn after the "Where's the Bounce" memo, it'd only be the second smartest, but too late for that.

Too late to affect the vote tomorrow? Yeah, probably. She might as well go get a jump start on Nevada.

David wrote on January 7, 2008 2:23 PM:

Gives new meaning to the lyrics:

"It's My Party and I'll cry if I want to"

Erik wrote on January 7, 2008 2:24 PM:

Ok, so I just watched the clip rather than just reading it, and there's no way she was faking. I think it was a very touching moment. I have no doubt that her campaign has encouraged her to "open up" to become more likeable and human. I like Hilary more after this, and I wonder how much different and better her political career could have been if she had just been herself. She does have to respond to the female weakness stereotype, so I understand there why she so often acts rather than speaks or acts rather than lives. But hey, this was no acting. I still question her judgment (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, general misplaced hawkishness) and her motivations (power or true reform?)(beating the republicans or making our political system work more effectively?). Obama 08.

Anon34 wrote on January 7, 2008 2:24 PM:

Steve:

Thanks for the nice spin. Anyone who believes any current Dem will win Kentucky is not a Democrat.

chisholm wrote on January 7, 2008 2:24 PM:

It's amazing to me, how many Democrats show so much contempt for their own. They hate Hillary Clinton and John Kerry more than they hate Bush.

And let's not forget that Gore was ripped a new one by the great majority of Democrats before, during and after 2000. It's only been in the last couple of years that his image has been rehabilitated.

Do rank-and-file Republicans hate their failed/failing national political figures as much as we do?

Chris Brown wrote on January 7, 2008 2:30 PM:

Though appalled by the comments of a few guys (as in men) here beating up on Clinton for displaying a bit of emotion I moved on, thinking what's the point of commenting. But I came back.

For you perspective I have never been a Clinton fan. I caucused for Tsonga in 1992 and have been uniformly critical of Senator Clinton and her candidacy.

However, I think those suggesting Clinton was faking a bit of emotion have zero class.

Senator Clinton is no doubt exhausted; she has had a terrible few days, with the Iowa loss, Mark Penn's lies to her relative to Iowa polls, and the failure of President Clinton to light any fires. The knives are out amongst her campaign and the wheels appear to be coming off her campaign.

Give the Senator a break and try to demonstrate a bit of class.

Liam wrote on January 7, 2008 2:33 PM:

While I am supporting Senator Obama, I do not see anything wrong with Senator Clinton welling up. I expect it is more from fatigue, than anything pre-planned. These are human beings being put through terrible amounts of stress and sleep deprivation. I am amazed at their capacity to keep on going.

Fatigue makes cowards of us all. Cut Senator Clinton some slack. She has been put through the ringer lately, and I am sure that she is getting barraged with campaign change advise from inside her circle.

So, she shed a few tears. No big deal.

Let us respect all our candidates, they are all far superior to anyone in the Republican lineup.

Erik wrote on January 7, 2008 2:34 PM:

Chisolm,

I think that has been a proud history of democrats, not the contempt, but the fact that the party is not rank and file.

I am hoping that the democrats can become the party not just of issues a-c (pro-choice, universal health care, homosexual union, education) but of transparency and the purity of the democratic process. i think this is part of what obama is talking about with creating a new majority.

We can disagree on issues in this country, but let's agree that votes should do the talking in washington rather than money, that the constitution should be protected (unlike bush and the gop), that goverment should be transparent and accesible to citizens. let these become the core values of the party versus becoming like the GOP in its rank and file, power concered nature.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 2:35 PM:

And the Academy Award goes to....Hillary Clinton.

They are without shame.

frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 2:35 PM:

I rather wonder about how many of the cynics here will say to themselves in 2012 "why did I dislike this man in 2008? He proved to be exactly what this country needed after the disaster of the Bush years."

And I wonder how many Democrats in 2012 will be saying to themselves, "Why did I get so enthusiastic over a guy who turned into another Jimmy Carter after elected?"

Erik wrote on January 7, 2008 2:35 PM:

Well written chris and i totally agree.

brewmn wrote on January 7, 2008 2:37 PM:

As a commenter noted above, we'll see how committed to "change" she is if, as the highest profile Senator in Washington, she'll work as hard as she claims she has for the past 35 years to implement an Obama or Edwards agenda. Either of them men will be attempting a program far to the left of George Bush, and far to the left of her huband's accomplishments.

I have a feeling she will turn out to be the voice of the "sensible center," along with her buddy, Joe Lieberman, and hamstring true progressive reform at every opportunity.

cazart wrote on January 7, 2008 2:38 PM:

You guys really think she's faking? I don't at all. It took everything she had not to sniffle during Saturday's debate. How do I know? Because she's never been that good of an actress. That's why she gets under so many peoples' skins.

She's tired and cranky. And not looking very presidential. As many have pointed out, there is no crying in the primaries.

This is real trouble for her.

colonpowwow wrote on January 7, 2008 2:40 PM:

bvd wrote on January 7, 2008 2:12 PM:

"Colinpowow - BOTH SIDES have been overly nasty on this board over the last few weeks, including you."

If you can find one thing that I said ever that could be construed as any kind of personal swipe at Senator Obama, that is, questioning his honesty or character (the definition of "nasty," I'd say), I'll shut up.

If I question his national experience or why he hasn't chaired a subcommittee meeting, or fulfilled his pledge to work in the Senate for the people of Illinois, and that his political experience and legislative accomplishments in the Senate are dwarfed by Clintons' - those are legitimate questions - unpleasant perhaps, but they are not "nasty."

Calling Hillary corrupt and in the pocket of corporations (almost a mantra for the Obama and Edwards supporters here), without presemtomg one supporting fact (corruption is a felony, you know), is the prevailing nastiness here - even today as they pose to dance on her grave (a bit prematurely, I'd say - but I chalk it up to their inexperience ;-)

dgar wrote on January 7, 2008 2:42 PM:

Some things to be hopeful for:

She might cry as the bodybags are taken off the planes.
She might cry when she sees the damage done to our soldiers bodies and psyches.
She might cry when an entire US city is essentially destroyed.
She might cry when she sees the poverty of our rural counties and inner cities.
She might cry when she understands...
She might cry when she understands..
She might cry when she understands.
She might cry.
She might.
One can only hope.
And
From hope comes strength.

I am not a Hillary fan, but at least she is injecting some humanity into the race.

As someone else said, in ten years we may look back on this and look askew at one another, knowing what we will know, knowing what we do know and when we knew it, and we knew it at the time.

All that said, I'm for any Democrat.
But more important I'm for 62 seats in the Senate. And I am hopeful.

Franklin wrote on January 7, 2008 2:44 PM:

I think this question triggering the Clinton response probably was a plant. I recall a Salon.com story yesterday which mentioned how Clinton responded to the exact same question (it came from a little girl) -- and how genuine the moment seemed.

Perhaps the Clinton campaign says -- ah, ha! -- so they replicate the scene, get the cameras in place, and Hilary gets caught in performance mode being "authentic". (Maybe the first instance was political stage play too).

I guess the Clinton response is better than her tearing up in public over the question: "How does it feel to be losing so badly in the polls?" but not by much.

The Muskie parallels are interesting -- although I'm not sure exactly how this one plays out. Muskie was ahead at the time and still won, Clinton has been tanking for the past few days.

On balance though, I don't think this kind of thing will win move too many votes. It might help to solidify the support that is already behind her, but on balance I think people are just sick of her pandering, lack of vision, and lack of credibility. Not the best messenger.

Helter wrote on January 7, 2008 2:44 PM:

It takes a big set of balls to declare yourself ready to lead America as you're about to start crying over a gap in the polls. Can't stand the heat? Get out of the primary and return to the more sedate life offered by the senate.

Grace M wrote on January 7, 2008 2:47 PM:

Guess she's not as tough as she purports to be. What was that saying....never let them see you sweat?

David wrote on January 7, 2008 2:49 PM:

I wonder what Penn's polls said.

Skeptical wrote on January 7, 2008 2:53 PM:

When I watched the video it seemed genuine, but after reading the Politico account of the scene and how the question was just about who does her hair, it just seems fake to me. They know that this clip will be shown on the evening news and will be on YouTube. This is a last gasp attempt to humanize herself and drum up sympathy among enough women voters to keep Obama's margin down.

Pat Kelly wrote on January 7, 2008 2:54 PM:

Scripted? Yeah, because we all know how well presidential candidates who cry in NH do. (For those under 40, google "Muskie crying".)

Fer Gawd's sake, she's up 18-20 hrs a day, busting her buns to get the hardest job in America. And it has to feel like it's slipping away to this guy she must truly feel is less qualified. Of course she's genuinely emotionally affected.

But watch the video. She's still able to stay on point and talk coherently. Let's not pile on like the GOP do.

colonpowwow wrote on January 7, 2008 2:54 PM:

Read the last few posts and I rest my case re which "side" of the Democrats in this race play the biggest "nasty" card. Not to mention classless card.

Unbecoming to the sainted elect.

Etaoin wrote on January 7, 2008 3:00 PM:

Ms. Clinton said on NPR that if she didn't believe she was the best person to lead the nation, she wouldn't be competing. Sounded a little grandiose to me - of the 150+ million adults, she is the best?
Good grief, what do you think every MALE candidate thinks of himself? Of course they believe they are the best candidate? Crikey--find something else, something legitimate, to complain about.

Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 3:02 PM:

colonpowwow, I was going to do a lengthy post, but it would be a waste of time. I disagree with your characterizations of postings on this site, clinton supporter posts were the worst and my guess is until october part of the talking points were attack, attack, attack. Also, your race card posts for a while were pretty dispicable. Talk about classless. I guess we'll see what happens tomorrow.

zonk wrote on January 7, 2008 3:03 PM:

In this moment, you are seeing Clinton at her rawest and most honest. She honestly believes that she is the only person that can lead the country, just like she believed in 1994 her plan was the only way forward on healthcare. It's part of the reason why she voted for the 2002 AUMF--she knew how SHE'D handle it and didn't want to set the wrong precedent. I mean look her explanation about the vote (or anything else that goes wrong): it's always about someone else or some other thing. It's never that she got it wrong or did something wrong. These other candidates are just plain wrong; she's right. Why can't you see that.

I think that nails it. I have no doubt Hillary Clinton is monumentally capable, intelligent, and strong -- but I get no sense, none - that she'd ever be willing to change her mind, to freely admit a mistake. I get that from Obama - I get a sense that he has core principles, just like Clinton - but that he understands that "my way or the highway" politics just don't serve this nation.

Craig wrote on January 7, 2008 3:04 PM:

How convenient to "crack up" in your campaign slogan, ready from day one? Tearing up over your low poll numbers - where are the tears over the loss of thousands of lives lost, in the US and Iraq????

El Cid wrote on January 7, 2008 3:05 PM:

I might not support many of HRC's political moves & stances, but there is no way in hell I will criticize her in the least for this. So she felt some emotion and maybe teared up a bit. I do that sometimes just from watching movies. Big deal.

Sum Bodhi wrote on January 7, 2008 3:06 PM:

There seems to be this meme that Obama is "conciliatory" and will not take on the Repugs and their moneyed supporters. I would frame this meme differently. Rather than conciliatory, Obama is "disarming". He has a way of getting people to agree with him or be willing to modify their positions by pointing out the full consequences of their proposals and making them feel that they can take credit for the wisdom he led them to. I was a Hillary supporter and don't dislike her, but her (and Edwards) more combative approach, while intuitively appealing, really is ineffective because it just becomes a battle of resources and we know who has more of those. What Obama offers is a different approach, and I, for one, am willing to "roll the dice".

Willem van Oranje wrote on January 7, 2008 3:08 PM:

Anyone who thinks Obama has a better chance of winning the WH because Hillary is much more hated than Obama is, needs to get his or her head examined.
Come November, the Repubs will have the exact same amount of hate for any Demomcratic nominee, no matter who it is. The last 15 years, they have been able to focus that hate on the Clintons, they'll just have to refocus it if she doesn't win the nomination. Trust me, the swiftboaters might have to redo their research but any Democrat will get the full treatment Kerry got.
I'm still not sure who will be more able to counter such attacks. Obama will not be able to carry this momentum for 10 more months and it's been too often for me that these kinds of momentums became a disappointment when it actually counted.

Pigboy wrote on January 7, 2008 3:11 PM:

Self-indulgent, if not staged. She's convinced that she's the only who can "keep us from falling backwards"? We've already fallen backwards and are lying flat on our asses. Bush and the Republicans saw to that, and in some measure, it was because of the incompetence and lack of intestinal fortitude by her and her cohorts. Remember Iraq War authorization? At least Edwards has admitted he was wrong in voting for it. Gawd, I'm for Obama, Edwards or anyone but the Clintons.

pdiddy wrote on January 7, 2008 3:13 PM:

My personal survey of people's reactions to the video shows that women reacted very positively to it and men were mixed in their reaction. Women felt that it showed that she really cares about what she's doing and feels badly about it slipping away. No matter which candidate they favor, it made them feel more positive about Clinton. Of the minority of men who made negative (in some cases snide) comments, none were going to vote for her anyway.

And I agree with Josh about the Muskie analogy - Clinton is permitted to show emotion that a man couldn't and, hey it's 2008, not 1972!

Marshall wrote on January 7, 2008 3:15 PM:

So in one day, Bill says that he can't make Hillary any younger, she cries on cue and we're supposed to believe all of this? Do they really believe that America is going to feel sorry for them? They could be more demented that anyone ever gave them credit for (including that vast right wing conspiracy). Get over yourself! America has had enough of both of you!

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 3:17 PM:

Yeah..let's put it all together. Look at Bill's comments today and the timing of them, and look at Hillary's Academy award winning performance designed to change the story form campaign implosion, running out of money, and about to lose NH by double digits. Now, compare that to Clinton stunts of the past. Not bad...but not going to work. God riddance!

colonpowwow wrote on January 7, 2008 3:22 PM:

Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 3:02 PM:

Race card?!? WTF are you talking about? Do you mean when I asked DTM (and you were still on the thread) - whether he thought America was sophisticated enough yet to elect a black man President in 2008?

That's "playing the race card" to you? Well, then every person on this board and every journalist since 2006 has played the race card, I guess.

You've been bashing Hillary Clinton (remember "Mrs. Bill"? - and denigrated everything she's ever done in her life. You've got a lotta nerve, boy.

tbhull wrote on January 7, 2008 3:22 PM:

Planned and feigned emotion imo.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 3:28 PM:

this is probably the smartest thing Hillary's done in the last two weeks.

I notice that Taylor Marsh is running with this as her new headline, so you might well be right.

tbhull wrote on January 7, 2008 3:29 PM:

The drudgery that is Hillary's life has leaked out of her campaign's tube. She offers no hope. On top of selling the status quo, doom, defeat and dashing other's hope, Hillary is rigid, frigid and recalcitrant. Hillary is simply not skilled politically, like her husband. She can not handle a setback and recover because she lacks the skills and flexibility necessary to handle such a situation. She is a robot in that sense. Because of all of this she is not presidential material and the public has recently sensed as much. No matter how hard they try Hillary and her handlers cannot place these flaws and failed messages back into the toothpaste tube.

You know it is bad when Bob Shrum starts to pick apart Hillary's hopeless candidacy and nails the problem with the failed "experience" message Hillary refuses to back away from (much in the same way she cannot admit her error on the Iraq vote).

Quoting Shrum:

"The pursuit of the presidency is not a résumé contest. Otherwise a one-term congressman named Lincoln never would have beaten Stephen Douglas, "the little giant" of American politics; Kennedy never would have prevailed against Nixon, and the young Bill Clinton never would have ousted the first George Bush from the White House."

She is one of those folks who was always at the top of the class and her hubris would never allow her to admit that she was wrong. That is a very unappealing trait that she shares with our current idiot in chief, except GW was at the bottom of the class.

Tag teaming with Bill will not work like it did in the 90s, mainly because Hllary is nowhere near the front man Bill was. Hell, she is not even average.

Danger Will Robinson, the buzzards are circling awaiting the opportunity to pick the flesh off the rotting carrion of a candidate whose chances literally dwindle by the hour, whether this is good, bad and/or ugly.

chisholm wrote on January 7, 2008 3:30 PM:

Willem--I concur. My earlier point was, ultimately, that all the people bashing Clinton/crowing about Obama and Edwards will, if either becomes the nominee and then loses, hate them intensely too. The Swiftboat/RNC talking points about these men--whatever they turn out to be--will then be coopted by Democrats, and two more good, decent men will be added to the list of permanently damaged and loathed Democratic leaders. It's such a sick process.

Lavocat wrote on January 7, 2008 3:32 PM:

OMG!!! ROTFLMAO!!! What a JOKE! I have yet to meet a SINGLE person who thinks this wasn't anything but your typical, cooly calculated, Clintonian stunt.

Give this fool her milk and cookies now and send her home to Mommy!

That ANY adult NOT IN A COMA could buy this drivel shocks the conscience.

And, hey, ya just gotta love the Clinton perspective that it's All About Me, 24/7!

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 3:32 PM:

Obama is the real deal. Hillary is the phoniest politician since W.

polimolly wrote on January 7, 2008 3:37 PM:

I've noted that much of this forum, and indeed much political debate is chauvinistic -- it privileges masculine forms of communication over others. I say this not as an Obama supporter or Clinton non-supporter, but as a woman:

I thought her show of emotion was very genuine. I also see nothing negative about such a display. She's human and she feels very strongly about why she's running. I found her speech to be moving and powerful. It does not diminish her toughness in my eyes. To me, it said that she is willing to fight, that this fight is a very personal one for her, that this fight has less to do with ego and more to do with genuine empathy and passion.

tbhull wrote on January 7, 2008 3:37 PM:

BobFred wrote on January 7, 2008 1:25 PM:

This just drives home the point that it is all about her.

You are entirely correct. Comprts with the fact that Hillary currently focuses too much on herself. Notice her speeches are littered with "I" and "me" and hardly ever include "us" and "we". This differs substantially from Barrack's speeches where one will almost exclusively find the collective "we" and "us" as opposed to the individual. Perhaps he cannot say as much about himself, nonetheless, these subtle language choices make a difference especially when one has likeability problems.

observer wrote on January 7, 2008 3:46 PM:

Looking at the media coverage and the majority of the comments it is clear that everyone is sucked in by the Obama hype...empty rhetoric and sounding brass and tinkling cymbals...this is not a competition for the best sermon...do you believe that he will bring about the new buzz "change"...there are real problems to be addressed...jobs, crime, Iraq, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, social security, education, economy, environment,......time to focus on the real issues.....

MrMcG wrote on January 7, 2008 3:47 PM:

Biggest non-story today (that's saying something). You call that a crying game? Get real. She was subdued, hardly teary. Maybe it was calculated, maybe it wasn't, but bfd.

Btw, Edwards 2008.

kozmik wrote on January 7, 2008 3:48 PM:

No wonder she's crying, her poll numbers are dropping like a rock, and her record of being an economic conservative with a little token social liberalism thrown in, has finally caught up with her. Must be painful.

There she was thinking it was the safe game and she'd always get away with it.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 3:52 PM:

polimolly wrote on January 7, 2008 3:37 PM:

"I've noted that much of this forum, and indeed much political debate is chauvinistic -- it privileges masculine forms of communication over others."

Oh baloney. Larry Craig teared up when busted too. So what?

Hillary is still a phony who's running away from the Clinton record at the same time she's trying to campaign on experience. It's catching up with her. That's why she's sad.

tbhull wrote on January 7, 2008 4:07 PM:

observer wrote on January 7, 2008 3:46 PM:

Two dimensional politics is so 90s. Criticizing the feigned sincerity is not buying into Obama's hype. It is simply pointing out Hillary personifies duplicity, on top of Hillary's political cowardice, the latter of which is her Iraq vote and the parsing to try to get away from the same. It is the albatross around her neck that lets everyone know on a daily basis of her cowardice and lack of judgment. She cannot shake this no matter how hard she tries with after the fact spin. No matter how hard she tries and how bad her supporters want, her words cannot undo her actions. Words are cheap.

She weeps because of it in private.

Bring on the bedpans and clean up the room at the retirement center in DeQueen as the Clintons are comin' home.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:08 PM:

Faked or not, tears at this point bode badly for someone who claims ready from Day One to be the leader of the free world. Throwing your own pity party just because ONE primary did not go your own way? Puhhleeze, give me a break!! How will you react when something REALLY calamitous (other than to yourself, that is)occurs?

Her arrogant, self-absorbed sense of entitlement just chaps my a$$. Her intellect actually works against her, I believe. She has the gall to believe that she knows everything while others around her know nothing. We need someone who truly believes in reaching consensus in a government like ours, not someone who wants to be Supreme Lord Dictator of the Beltway.

She's a lot more like Dubya than she'd ever admit.

Charles wrote on January 7, 2008 4:09 PM:

I am not supporting Clinton at this time and I do not want her to win the nomination. That said, this may have been her best moment, where she for once decided to be herself. I doubt that it helps her politically.

Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 4:09 PM:

Colonpowwow, I guess I do have alot of nerve and you repeated the mantra about race for weeks, it wasn't one exchange. I am sorry that you interpreted my questions about her "experience" and attempt to debate the 35 years of alleged experience as "bashing" her record. She was the one denigrating everyone else's experience and she still is. Now, she's throwing out 9/11 and a terrorist attack to try to scare people to vote for her. Pathetic. Typical bs.

I still don't see the problem with mrs. bill, but I stopped after you called me on it. I called you on the race bs repeatedly and you continued. I never did anything like that with your candidate. I merely tried to find out about her experience and I was repeatedly attacked for doing so.

I guess I have alot of nerve for asking a question.

eric wrote on January 7, 2008 4:14 PM:

To everyone in the Obama fan club who hates Hillary and thinks she was "faking":

As I indicated above, the Conventional Wisdom is that crying is a bad thing.

I know that many of you are apparently too young or have not otherwise heard the story of Edmund Muskie, so I thought I would share:

In 1972, right before the New Hampshire Primary, Presidential candidate Ed Muskie was reported to have cried when confronting some unfair reporting related to a Nixon dirty trick. It made him look weak and his campaign quickly crumbled.

You see, nobody in their right mind would want to be seen crying right before the New Hampshire Primary, just like Ed Muskie.

To suggest she was faking for some reason is totally off-base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:16 PM:

Hillary was crying for...?

Crying for a tragedy befalling others? Like all the jobs lost through NAFTA perhaps?

Crying for the Clinton deregulation of energy markets which facilitated ENRON and cost thousand of people thier life savings?

Crying for the Iraq war which has cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives?

Yeah, those are all things which I've personally teared up about.

But I believe Hillary is crying for herself. Because her poll numbers are plummeting, and becasue the Clinton + DLC strangle hold on the Democratic party, which has muzzled all real progressives and run the party to the right, is finally slipping it's grip.

It's a sad day, for Hillary. A great day for the middle class though.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:19 PM:

All the previous comments only reveal what kind of people they are!!!!! NOBODY is perfect, even you people making such
unkind comments toward Hillary Clinton are not perfect. So be mature enough to
stop making such comments.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:19 PM:

All the previous comments only reveal what kind of people they are!!!!! NOBODY is perfect, even you people making such
unkind comments toward Hillary Clinton are not perfect. So be mature enough to
stop making such comments.

kozmik wrote on January 7, 2008 4:23 PM:

Eric,

Hillary is crying for herself, for her past record catching up with her, and for the Clinton's DLC crumbling into dust.

It's her King Lear moment. Weeping for herself and what foolishness she's done to America as she finally slips from the throne.

Tragic only in a poetic sense. In a practical sense, thank goodness her and the DLC are finally being stopped from screwing the middle class for decades!

sakura wrote on January 7, 2008 4:30 PM:

The previous comments are all inhumane!!!! Nobody is perfect including all of us, why so be critical of Hillary Clinton? That only shows what kind of people you are!!!!! This is not a popularity contest; so stay focus on the issues and vote for the best. In real life we all make decisions/problem resolutions; so with presidency which entails responsibility and experience like in any profession!

kozmik wrote on January 7, 2008 4:32 PM:

Unkind? Nobody is perfect? Are you kidding?

The clinotns built the DLC. The DLC is all about running to the right economically, with some social liberal tokenism. the DLC is literally to the right of many Republicans economically. The DLC's greatest legislative acheivements were passing NAFTA, and deregulating markets, telecoms, and so on. The DLC saw that Reagonomics were in vogue, and got on the bandwagon.

Nobody is perfect? The entire Clinton "New Democrat" ideology stinks and has eroded progressive values for decades.

How many people lost tgier jobs, how many families fell into poverty becasue of NAFTA? How many people lost their savings in ENRON due to Clinton deregulation. How about all the US soldiers and Irais killed becasue she and the DLC triangulated on national defense and rolled over for the Republicans.

Get real. This weepy soap opera BS is exactly what's so fake about Hillary. How about a tear for all the millions of people the Clintons have screwed?

tbhull wrote on January 7, 2008 4:45 PM:

I guess she cries knowing she supported the unnecessary war in Iraq that results in kids coming home in boxes?

Liam Milwaukee, Wi wrote on January 7, 2008 5:08 PM:

I have no problem with her eyes welling up. It has been a stressful couple of weeks,, and she is probably exhausted. Who wouldn't be.

Here is where it hurts the Hillary narrative. She has campaigned on the fact that she is the toughest one to take on the Republicans because she has fought the Right wing for years, and bested them. That is her claim. This episode makes it look like she really is not the tough cookie that the Republicans could never have an impact on, if she is already showing signs of distress so early in her own party's candidate selection process.

That is where this is really going to hurt her. It makes her look like that she is not the fierce marathon fighter of Republicans that she has been portraying herself to be. If she is seen as going all wobbly so early in the campaign, then can she go the distance against the fierce onslaught that the Republicans will launch against her?

SPENCER wrote on January 7, 2008 5:08 PM:

what a non-issue! I'm not for Hillary, but the media will go after her like a pit bull in a butcher's shop.

Mitt Romney cried on Meet the Press, and the media ignored that, like they should have for HRC.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4_Gfn3-CEM

Phoebe wrote on January 7, 2008 5:16 PM:

Take down that grossly inaccurate headline: Edwards Tell Hillary not to be a Crybaby.

He said no such thing. He genuinely, sincerely cares about helping other people. Hillary manufactured that teary moment, it was just as fake as her "laugh".

You can endorse any candidate you want - but at least make your headlines ACCURATE, please!

freaktown wrote on January 7, 2008 6:17 PM:

Hillary cries in front of a bunch of women?

I'm waiting for her to do that in front of a bunch of men...

Doesn't that kinda torpedo the argument that she's the "tough" one in this campaign? I mean, if you can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen Hillary.

You dont see edwards or obama shedding tears because its tough. But hillary does...in front of women.

I'm still not convinced this wasn't a political stunt.

Erik wrote on January 7, 2008 6:44 PM:

Let's let "Crygate" pass for what it was. Campaigns are tough. Hilary is having a big dream crumble. I think we should have compassion and move on. It is sad to see what this has stirred up amongst men and women. We still hold so much anger towards each other. Edwards should have been quiet.

shoes4industry wrote on January 7, 2008 7:05 PM:

Stick a fork in her...she's done.

FLlawstudent wrote on January 7, 2008 7:11 PM:

Today IRAN threatens an American Naval Ship - There is NO Crying in Baseball- Mrs. Clinton.

Jmay wrote on January 7, 2008 9:47 PM:

If you believe this wasn't scripted, you must believe that professional wrestling is real too.

Look, calculating emotion is one of the things politicians do,. It's part of their toolbox. They all do it, and it's just a question of how well they do it.

What I find particularly funny is that Hillary is running on experience. This is a woman who was elected to the U.S. Senate when she'd never held elected office before, based purely on her identity. Her election was a love letter from NYers to Bill after 8 largely successful years. Hillary leapfrogged thousands of people who were more qualified -- certainly more qualified for New York politics in particular -- because voters calculated that in Washington, her identity would trump her experience when it came to getting things done.

Presidential politics is never about experience. It's about identity. Some people stumble into it -- they are the right person at the right time. Others have a talent for cultivating a certain identity. This is a lesson that Al Gore learned too late -- and Hillary has yet to learn.

Lastly -- characterizing this episode as "tearing up" in the first place is a stretch. I don't see any tears.

This is much ado about nothing.

sharon wrote on January 7, 2008 9:54 PM:

As an African American woman, I have held the utmost respect for Bill Clinton's administration despite the huge lack of moral judgment he displayed in the Monica Lewinsky debacle. I believe that Bill was a sincere politician who came to Washington to make a change in the lives of middle class and poor Americans. Hilary stood beside him throughout his administration and everyone always knew that she was biding her time for the spotlight when Bill's administration ended. That was fine with me because she has the right to pursue a career of public service on her own merit. I will support any Democrat for the job because the Republican administration has continuously shown that they support Wall Street and the wealthy Americans. My problem with Hilary is that she lacks the ability to inspire people to something greater than what we currently see in Washington. I think Americans are TIRED of the gridlock and are willing to try something different to push forward the Democrat agenda. That requires someone who is willing to "win over" some Repbulican and Independents to get that done. This is one of the reasons behind the media frenzy because here is someone that can appeal to people across the aisle and maybe get something done. Barack should be held up to the same scrutiny as Clinton. Race or sex is not an issue for me. I would love to see the first African American as president, but more importantly he has the be COMPETENT to lead this nation. I feel that Barack can do this. Yes, he is a still a little green, but he has an unshakable character that causes people to want to trust him and follow him. I am disappointed in Hilary because in the primary each candidate should state their reasons why they should be prez, but NEVER tear down another candidate in your party. Criticize Bush and his policy, not each other. Hilary has been in Wasington too long that the only thing she knows how to do is fight the enemy and win at all cost. This is evident in how she's running her campaign and tearing down Obama at every opportunity. It makes her look bitter and divisive. Hilary is an outstanding politician, but she belongs in the Senate because she obviously enjoys fighting for the policies that she believes in. If her agenda is to serve the American people, why does it have to be the presidency? Holding a Senate seat in New York is a very impressive office. She feels that she is entitled to the role of presidency but she comes across as arrogant and egocentric. Enough with the fighting and let's get something positive done before it's too late. Americans are responding in record numbers because they have awaken to the threat of global warming, social security being depleted, possible recession, weakening dollar, terrorist gaining nuclear weapons. We want to regain our stronghold and become the great nation that we are. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, even it offends me because we live in a great nation where we can voice our opinions and have a meaningful dialogue with each other. Let's stand together Democrats so we can finally take our nation back from the conservative Republicans who want to continue to push these Reagonomic policies down our throats and say we have to accept it because THEY own Wall Street, therefore the nation. The reason why Democrats have lost previous election is because of infighting within our own party. Let's move forward to save this nation. For everyone on this website, please vote Democrat so that we may have a chance to recapture what made this country great. I don't care if it's Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. I think they all have their strengths and weakness but they all support the Democratic agenda.

Center Cut wrote on January 7, 2008 10:19 PM:

Professional wrestling is scripted?!?

I'll vote for ANYONE who exposes this myth!

Jinx wrote on January 7, 2008 10:48 PM:

That is totally fake. If she was tearing up she would have wiped her eyes, or said 'I'm sorry.' at the end of when she "cried".
Plus her voice would have broken way more than that.
And, her face never went ugly. When the tears are coming from inside, your face switches to that ugly crying face.
Crying can be seen as a sign of weakness.
Clinton's plot: sympathetic people.
She is losing the women's vote to Obama.
If she cries like that, she is just trying to win back the women's votes.

Sorry Hillary, but crying in politics went out of style a long long time ago.

Way before I was born.

Paul wrote on January 8, 2008 12:02 AM:

As an Obama supporter, I worry that the tears - and the endless play they got on TV, especially CNN - will help Clinton tomorrow. Anyone else think so? Or is it too far gone? I, too, was struck by how self-absorbed her comments were - and how she managed to repeat her campaign mantra in the midst of it all -"some people are ready from day one and some don't know what they'd do." Are New Hampshire voters smarter than to change their votes because they feel sorry for Hillary?

Hillary's feelings about Obama remind me a bit of Ken STarr's feelings about Bill Clinton. Starr worked his butt off and was convinced Bill Clinton was evil incarnate, and just couldn't stand the fact that people liked the president. The joyless straight A student resenting the popular kid for whom it all came easily.

Jinx wrote on January 8, 2008 12:13 AM:

Paul said: self-absorbed, that is so right.

me me me me me.

NOT Obama.

I think that if Clinton's advisors didn't see Obama coming, they aren't going to be able to do anything to stop him going further.

And does Clinton really think that all of this is going to help her?

Taking shots at Obama?

Crying?

Self-esteem, Hillary!

Davidson wrote on January 8, 2008 12:55 AM:

Jesus, I'm no Hillary supporter but you guys are out of a control. Did you even see the damn video?

Hillary on the "attack:" She's supposed to try and convince people to vote for her--it's called campaigning.

It's all about "her:" OMG! She said "me" and "I!" What presidential candidate doesn't talk about and try to sell themselves? Again, campaigning.

Compare her stump speech to Obama and Edwards and you'll find it was unbelievably mild. If she dismissed Edwards as a "trial lawyer," you would've killed her. If she was that Obama was "too nice," you'd killer her, too. She only said why she thought she was a better candidate. If she doesn't show why she's different and that it's good, how the hell can she campaign for office?

Ack, she cried: get over it. Anyone who's worked on campaigns knows how damn exhausting it is. She's just tired--that's it.

You people are truly bigoted fools. Seriously. I've encountered racism as a young man of color and this is truly something.

Davidson wrote on January 8, 2008 12:59 AM:

Liam Milwaukee, Wi,

Even president Bush who bills himself as one tough hombre has cried. What politician hasn't?

Jesus, people: she's just tired and welled up. That's all. All this talk about her just being exhausted and it showing?

Paul wrote on January 8, 2008 4:50 AM:

What is ridiculous is how much media attention her tears have gotten. I watched CNN for 20 minutes tonight and they played her tears three times. THis is such extraordinarily shallow reporting. There was nothing about issues. There was nothing even about the horse race. Just the tears. It seems to me that CNN was trying to promote Clinton.

Jeff wrote on January 8, 2008 7:37 AM:

"The previous comments are all inhumane!!!! Nobody is perfect including all of us, why so be critical of Hillary Clinton? That only shows what kind of people you are!!!!! This is not a popularity contest; so stay focus on the issues and vote for the best. In real life we all make decisions/problem resolutions; so with presidency which entails responsibility and experience like in any profession!"

LEAVE HILLARY ALONE!! SHE'S A HUMAN BEING! HER AUNT IS SICK AND SHE'S GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE!!! :'(

When your supporters are turning into the "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE" guy, you're done. Sorry Billary, your days of triangulation and screwing up the country are done. At least you have 5 more years to vote for Kyl-Lieberman type bills.

cal1942 wrote on January 8, 2008 2:04 PM:

"Nobody is picking on her. This is what most politicians experince at one time or anoter."

My God 'AlwaysTipTheWaitress' how totally blind or just plain vile are you and so many others commenting here?

This woman has been subjected to more baseless, phony, unfair, cheap shot abuse and over a longer period of time by the "legitimate" press than any public figure in the last 30 plus years. Virtually none of their crap's had any substance. Its difficult to find an article about her that doesn't contain some mainstream media form of obligatory trash.

From the right-wing media she's been falsely accused of every sort of perfidy and was even suybjected with a cowardly, disgusting assault on her young daughter's looks.

Yet she's endured with dignity and grace.

She has more guts than any thousand of you little weenies combined.

Her cardinal sin is that she is a strong, highly intelligent woman of notable ability and ambition.

And don't get all wierd about ambition. Grow up, everyone, at every level, running for public office is ambitious. We ought to be grateful that ANYONE of substance is willing to run for office in today's political climate. Certainly many of you are contributing or at least reinforcing this toxic climate.

Disagree with her on policy, but lay off the cheap crap. You all sound like low life Republicans.

Mel wrote on January 9, 2008 3:23 AM:

I don't think that the crying was so wrong. It seemed genuine and even if the question was semi planned, wouldn't anyone cry about the subject she said and the wrongs that need to be fixed? I read this other article on DailyCents.com that talks about this more: http://blogs.dailycents.com/?p=790

chilepepper99 wrote on January 9, 2008 11:19 AM:

Those tears helped her win.

Expect more - lots more.

toM wrote on January 9, 2008 2:51 PM:

Call942, when will you be nominating Hillary for sainthood? Will that be after you nominate Bill?

Jeez, what a shill! Anybody else wonder if there are plants here?

Post a comment

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