Terrible move. The MSM is going to crucify him and Obama over this.

So the Obama campaign has now officially adopted the tactic of "Democratic women voters (as shown by New Hampshire women) are so stupid and transparent that they are swayed mostly by emotion and sympathy and are easily led by the nose by one of their own kind."

Good luck with that one. LOL

Yep, Keith. I wish they would get off the stupid tears already for pete's sake. MOVE ON.

I think this is a dangerous game he's playing here...

So it appears that Jackson's point is that Hillary hasn't proven able to show the same level of emotion about the problems facing our country that she did in response to a question about her looks.

I disagree. Look at what he cites in specific:

But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina

Not in response to voters -- not in response to Katrina, not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina.

In the quoted text, he mentions South Carolina and it's African-American voting bloc specifically, and invokes Katrina 3 times. And, in case you were unaware, Katrina was kinda sorta a semi-important issue in the African-American community.

This was an open attempt to drive away what little support she has left in the African-American community.

However, he runs the risk of associating Obama with the type of feminine backlash that may have materialized in New Hampshire and certainly did famously (or infamously, depending on your vantage point) materialize in her race against Rick Lazio.

I'm not sure that's the wisest move.

BTW Greg,

The ABC News polling director shot down your theory about late deciders breaking to Hillary causing this discrepancy:

Some folks are suggesting that "late deciders" made the difference - a common explanation for poor estimates. But the exit poll doesn't support the notion. Remove voters who decided on Tuesday and the New Hampshire exit poll result is Clinton +2 – exactly her actual margin. (Among those who decided "just today" it was Clinton +3.) Next theory.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html

This is brilliant!

I think Keith misunderstands the MSM. They will play up the "tears that melted the Granite State" like the Dean Scream, like Brittany, and, following Jackson's invitation, begin analyzing those tears.

What was she crying about? No public tears about Bill's dalliances with other women. No public tears about Katrina or Iraq. She cried about her hair!

At least she has that in common with Edwards.

John Edwards basically ash-canned his candidacy (or whatever slim hopes he still held) by mocking Hillary's choke-up event.

So if the Obama-backers think it's a good strategy to continue attacking Hillary for simply acting like a human being, well ... consider yourselves warned: It'll backfire.

A.J.

It probably wasn't the best move to talk about it, but who knows. I know I don't believe they were real, because I know how the Clintons are famous for such super-tight control of everything PR, she is too much of a political juggernaut to "accidentally" let something like that slip, and yes, especially given the circumstances she never cried at in the past, and the fact that it was the day before a vote that looked hopeless and she needed (and got) a miracle to pull away from. She is no idiot, and I think people should honestly think about what her "soft side" means, not in terms of is she weak, or if women are strong enough, but rather in terms of what will she do to win, and was this a contrived (and brilliant) political maneuver?

So my point: it shouldn't be taboo to talk about because there are real reasons to think that it was an act, but it probably isn't good to actually go there.

We'll see..

Tom, thanks for the ABC link. I wasn't so much interested in the late deciders explaining the wrongness of the polls. I was more interested in the fact that it may have helped her win.

Obama's camp will join the legions pushing this Clinton-averse democrat to become a Hillary supporter if they continue this stuff. She doesn't deserve such abuse, and the fact that they're willing to engage in such tactics says a lot more about Obama than it says about Hillary. Go after her for the war vote in 2002, for supporting Bush on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, for being in bed with lobbyists, etc., but not for getting caught being human.

Is this the political version of Kayne West's: George Bush doesn't like black people?

Come on. It's ridiculous to say "she cried about her hair" or "her appearance." Why go in such a petty direction?

This is s stupid, stupid move. Just let The Tears go and move on... talking about them is not going to help Obama's campaign in the least.

Nope, doddfan, Hillary made her personality ("I care!") a message. She's gonna have to square her "I feel your pain" redux message with her DLC policies.

We don't need 8 more years of another Compassionate Conservative.

I think the issue here is that after 35 years she finally found her voice. Well if that's the case, what the hell has she been saying for the last 35 years, or the last 11 months? Before it wasn't her voice and now it is?

The reason Senator Clinton won over Obama was his two bush-like Obama moments that belied his message as a uniter, one was the your likeable enough with the smirk and the booing of Senator Clinton at his rally, peevish and dismissive you may not like it but she is the favored candidate by Democrats and Independent women who are also mothers and sisters and spouses and co workers and a respected group within this country, a major mistake that pricked the fantasy. jr may wnat to talk to that old worthless boomer pop for some insight.

doddfan:

hillary isnt human. she's a political machine.

those tears weren't real. they were staged to garner support. it was a stunt and it worked.

i have no sympathy for the machine.

Her tears were used for a political purpose. Why would talkign about the motivations of someone who has never shown that kind of emotion before, but then does, the day before a make or break primary, elicit such a response from you?

You actually think Clinton was sincere?!

This just made me furious. He needs to just shut-up. I found her very real in that moment and could completely understand her emotion. The thing is - I do think that Hilary is passionate about getting elected because she believes that she can do the best job as president - and there is nothing wrong with that! BUT - I think that Obama is passionate about being president because of what he can motivate and inspire us to do. That is why he is my choice. That difference comes out all the time in words and speeches, and interview. This was uncalled for and idiotic from Jesse Jackson Jr.

It seems to be a less-than-sincere argument on the part of the Congressman. Surely the repeated and silly references to Katrina are aimed at black voters, as noted earlier. But the premise of the critique is stupid. However strongly one might feel about Katrina, one expects to hear about it in a campaign, and it is one of several enormous Bush-era outrages. Anyone who spoke of it with tears in his or her eyes would be rightly suspected of cheap theatrics. Senator Clinton, fatigued and discouraged, might well have teared up spontaneously in response to an admiring personal question. If she was in fact deliberately feigning emotion, that would be cheap theatrics, but completely irrelevant to Katrina, Iraq or other major issues.

Greg,

Tears? Again? Did you go back and watch that video, like I asked?

You may be right Kathleen. That was really, really pathetic.

Off topic, but good news. Obama got the culinary workers union endorsement. See below, also a good article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/primary_rdp;_ylt=AvXmjarS.vFbs_.HZ0zAcB2s0NUE

Bad move by Obama. The Hillary support was a vote against the media, not a vote against Obama. But it sure can turn into that if he is not careful.

I am a female voter, Obama supporter & Obama contributer. I would have voted for Hillary yesterday to stick it to Chris Matthews and the other jerks in the media. (And not because of the tears which I do think were a little phony.)
There is just so much Chris Matthews like sexism any one can take.

My bet would be that Obama will go win the SC & Nevada primaries and be the nominee, but he better avoid this low road.

I know - maybe this will satisfy all you who question the sincerity of HRC's tears, and mollify Jesse Jr.'s concerns regarding Katrina:

Hillary should go on a "Tears Tour." A "Campaign Trail of Tears." The "Straight-Tears Express."

She should cry publicly about Katrina, her philandering husband, the vast right-wing conspiracy, that big meanie Chris Matthews, the 2005 tsunami, the foreclosure mess, etc. And she should perform a crying jag about each of those issues and others specifically (i.e. one big crying jag won't do it). And then we can be done with this idiotic discussion.

There, will that satisfy you bozos?

Beyond the tears, how about Clinton's comment that she had "found her voice" in New Hampshire. Huh? This is a veteran of 35 years of campaigns, telling us she'll be ready from day one to lead this nation, and she's just now finding her voice -- in the middle of her last campaign.

Oh gawd. Everytime there's a loser, it's sour grapes time. Sheesh.

This one seems so egregious because he's doing EXACTLY what Conventional Blog Wisdom says won Clinton NH in the first place! lol!

Please remember that right before the New Hampshire primary in 1992, Bill was in trouble, because of the Gennifer Flowers thing, and Bill and Hillary went on 60 Minutes with Hillary doing her "stand by her man" act. That stopped the bleeding and Bill became the comeback kid.
Fast forward to 2008: Hillary is not doing well, she just lost to Obama among Iowa women, so she turns on the waterworks a little to get sympathy. It works, partly because Edwards continues to pick on her.
It was an act, folks.

George and freaktown:

I share your reservations about Hillary, and on policy I'm much closer to Edwards (and I sure liked Dodd.) But you're being too cynical here. Consider the context, and look at that video again. Is it believable that she lost it, quite momentarily, on the day--according to most predictions--her political career was going to go down in flames? Hillary is indeed a political animal, and she's been banking on this run for the presidency for a long time. She saw it slipping away, and in an unguarded moment a weird but personal question brought it to the surface. There's nothing to explain there. It was obviously real.

It seems like something relatively innocuous will be what gets out of hand, at least over the next few days. Which sort of surprises me.

Another thing - I watched that video, and Hillary was clearly verklempt, but, uh, "tears"? "Crying"? Where?

Colonpowwow:

I think the better analogy is the MLK/LBJ flap for the Clinton's, but I get your drift.

Who in the hell let JJJ on tv to say these asinine things????

Now I'm seriously doubting the judgment of the Obama campaign.

I already don't trust Clinton as far as I can throw her (no, that's not a sexist comment on her weight), and now this from Obama.

For right now - a pox on both their houses.

So does he get Shaheened? Maybe he was looking for a way out....

Conventional Wisdom of lefty blogs: Hillary Clinton is a cold-hearted, emotionless machine. We know this because she never shows any emotion.

Hillary Clinton shows emotion. This proves she is a cold-hearted emotionless machine.

dogwhistle to keep the AA women with Obama?

Does Obama really want to risk alienating White voters and increasing the race gap by sending out a proxy that ends up sounding like Kanye West?

I'm sorry, but the question was NOT only about her appearance! Listen to the question! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-W3IXRTHU

Oh Please...............enough silliness. As a woman, sometimes we cry, it is a function of our body, give me a break. And quite frankly to us a lot healthier than knocking someone's block off. Low blow by Obama.

What's funny is that there was no outrage about her MLK/LBJ comments. That's saying a lot about race issues.

I thought that was an equally dumb moment by HRC. At least in this case, Obama didn't make such an asnine statement. Jackson is going to have to go. This isn't as bad as Shaheen, but it's in the same league.

Tom wrote on January 9, 2008 1:51 PM:

That's just idiotic on so many levels (not to pick on this one comment as there are many others along the same lines, this is just the first one). She did not get emotional in response to a question about her hair. She got emotional when, in responding to a question about how she holds up under the daily pressure, she started talking about how much this election means to the country. If you think otherwise, you haven't seen the video, or your are so blinded by your support for somebody else that you can't see reality. The Jesse Jackson comment was more than idiotic, it was moronic. She wasn't crying about her appearance, and nobody has any idea whether she cried in response to Katrina or anything else. It isn't something that politicians normally do in public and they would normally refrain from doing it at all costs (did Jesse Jackson? I don't remember seeing it). Hillary's choking up -- and it wasn't crying -- was either genuine or a truly Oscar-worthy performance, and I have seen nothing to make me believe that she can act that well. The only way you can conclude otherwise is to see things only through the prism of your own agenda.

I haven't decided whether to support Obama or Hillary - I like them both. But this entire "tears" thing in the press, here, and elsewhere, pisses me off to no end.

Mitch

I know why I am supporting Obama, but comments like Jackson's are unwise and out of context. How does Jackson know that Hillary's initial reaction *wasn't* to shed tears at the Katrina tragedy. I'm sure she did do so in private as many Americans did. I'm also sure that if she had shed tears in public, people like Jackson would have questioned her then too.

Obama would be smart to turn attention to other more important issues.

Hey, Keith, check your facts!

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 2:12 PM:
Here's the original question:

"As a woman, I know it’s hard to get out of the house and get ready," said Marianne Pernold, a local freelance photographer. "Who does your hair?"

Noooo, the original question WAS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-W3IXRTHU

A really, reaaly bad move politically! This is a loser for them among women! Now, Obama is going to get asked by reporters everywhere if he agrees with Jesse Jackson Jr. It steps on their union endorsement story. I wish these surrogates would just shut up!

It also raises the question of what Obama did about Katrina.

Two things have struck me about this primary campaign so far, both in the media coverage and the behavior of the campaigns toward each other.

Having grown up in the 60s and 70s, I am:

1. Extremely proud and gratified that there has been not so must as a hint really, of any sort of racial stereotyping.

2. Extremely disappointed that we are apparently no longer even bashful about raising sexist stereotypes.

That was quick. Sen. Obama had his moment and now it's gone.

This isn't going to play well. 'Oh, she's so calculating. Oh, my, she's so insincere. She cries on cue, she doesn't cry when she should. She's so emotional. No, wait, she's so calculating." Ugh.

Way to lose an election Obama!! There goes the 'white vote'.

WHOA! This knocks Obama WAY BACK in my mind. This line that Hillary's tears were about her appearance is utter BS. Her eyes welled up as she was talking about her concern for the condition of the country and the need to bring it back.

This line that the tears were some "girl thing" about her appearance is a lie, and though I have been for Obama, this is a cheap, low blow and it takes away a lot of what I thought was different about Obama

Maybe he's not different after all. Maybe deep down he's a cheap, gutter political hack.

"King dreamt the dream but LBJ did the job."

Actually, JR, her point is very valid. It's the problem I have with the extreme left -- those who think that critizing is the same as doing. It's not. LBJ also did what JFK couldn't do. Political power, more than words, is what actually counts. Remember, LBJ said "We shall overcome" before signing the '64 Civil Rights bill. It was the pen and not the words which made life better for black Americans.

RE: Voter Fraud in New Hampshire

It looks like voter fraud may have been responsible for the Clinton win in NH. The Obama camp has been approached by a number of parties that are asking him to request a recount of the votes.

There is a statistically significant discrepancy between exit polls, actual votes counted by hand in the various voting districts, and those tabulated by Diebold tabulator machines. The exit polls and hand counted votes indicate Obama should have won NH by at least 2% to 5%, but the votes tabulated by the Diebold machines (the ones fingered in the 2004 election fraud) had the result flipped to favor Clinton. In addition, several pre-election polls were right on the money for the results of ALL the other candidates in BOTH the GOP and democratic race – except the Obama/Clinton match-up and Ron Paul.

Also, NONE of the Ron Paul votes were counted. As of right now, NH is still reporting that Ron Paul got NO votes, which is not true. He was polling at 5% to 10% before votes were cast.

The Centre for Research on Globalization:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7753

Boston Now:
http://www.bostonnow.com/blogs/boston911truthorg/2008/01/09/major-allegations-of-vote-fraud-in-new-hampshire

The Ben Mosely Blog:
http://benmoseley.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-nh-primary-statistics-show-election.html

Product Reviews
http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/01/09/new-hampshire-vote-fraud-confirmed-ron-paul-votes-not-counted/

Malta Star:
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msFullArt.asp?an=17896

I'm a longtime observer of the politics (and racial politics, almost exactly the same thing) here in Chicago. I just wanted to add my own word of alarm at the likes of Jesse Jackson Jr. speaking as he did (and as he generally does). "Terrible move. The MSM is going to crucify him and Obama over this," is what Keith tellingly wrote here. ... If incendiary and ambitious African-American politicos step forward to toss their rather lame, cynical rhetoric in telegenic bites for the MSM -- well, that could be bad for Obama and the nation. ... Neither Jesse Jackson Jr. nor his dad (lionized, stupidly by too many journalists nationally, years ago -- much to many Chicagoan's amazement) represent "change" in any positive sense. One could say they embody more of the same awful "old." Both grew from and thrive in the corruption, contracts, cronyism, machine-ism of a Daley-ruled Chicago. ... But my point is, I hope that potentially injurious allies such as Jr. (and I can imagine much worse said by more prominent African-American leaders) can show wise restraint and/or be reined in for Obama's sake. ... I can imagine how talk radio and TV would blare remarks that can't help for lift racial reflexes (and ratings) in the nation at large.

Hillary's emotional moment was deeply moving and I do not believe it was faked. For a moment I really felt sorry for her and if I hadn't been able to remember all the shameless triangulation she's been involved in since being elected Senator I might have even been motivated to vote for her. Her persistent warmongering in the early days of the Iraq war and many lesser issues such as her sponsoring the amendment to make flag-burning a crime convinced me long ago that she didn't deserve my vote.

Jackson's commentary on Hillary's emotional moment is a little over the top and certainly won't do anything to help Obama. I hope that voters in future primaries will forget about Hillary's moment and think more about what she and Obama have done and what they are likely to do in the future. We shouldn't be electing presidents on the basis of likeability or ability to emote.

I want to know what they are going to do when they're in the hot seat, not whether they'd be good company at a picnic. Clinton is no match for Obama's likeability, but much more importantly her much trumpeted "record" is littered with distateful pandering.

although I will say that bringing Katrina into it is dumb

Lets also realize that this wasn't Obama saying this. He will have a chance to respond to this, just like Hillary took care of the coke dealer thing and lived to tell about it. Unlike Edwards, this didn't come out of the candidate's mouth.

Blue Puppy:

MLK and JFK's death had more to do with the passage of the Civil Rights Act than LBJ. LBJ wasn't exactly a friend of African-Americans or their cause. He was an opportunist of the highest order.

The Jacksons know only one kind of politics and that is the politics of race. Obama has been so successful in part because his appeal is not race based. I say this as a person who admires both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton and will be excited to support either (if the New York primary was being held today I would probably vote for Obama). It's not that Obama's race or Clinton's gender are irrelevant factors. Race and gender are significant components of who they are, but they are not their sole component or even the dominant one. Senator Obama should limit the forums that either Jesse or Jesse Jr. appear as spokespeople for him as they are prone to making comments like those above which reflect badly only on Senator Obama. I would feel the same way if a prominent feminist made critical comments about Obama claiming he was insensitive to gender based salary disparities. When two candidates such as Clinton and Obama have overlapping support (voting for one does not mean you reject the other) and have comparable positions on most major issues it is difficult for each to finesse the question of why they should be supported over the other without exaggerating distinctions between them or going negative.

who were the people that yelled out "iron my shirts" at HRC campaign appearances?

HRC plants (to build up "poor Hillary" story line) or real-deal hyper-aggro repug misogynists??

I haven't seen any reporting on who these people were. we know HRC used plants earlier in campaign. and the mittster conducted anti-mormon push-polling (most likely)

Please don't bring up bogus vote fraud arguments, Obama needs not get sidetracked here, he needs to make the changes necessary to win this, needless recounts and alienating women voters, playing dirty politics as your message of hope are not those changes.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

your reaction please

colonpowwow wrote
Only I think the campaign is very close to stepping on the third rail re this. If it's not blatant, it's perilously close to denigrating both her and her women supporters re a legitimate moment born mostly of tiredness no doubt.

To late I believe the bubble burst you cannot on one hand claim as your mantel to be the great uniter the respecter of differences and then denigrate and dismiss with a dismissive smirk a large contingency of your own party not the same groups that Rove and Bush attempted to marginalize and silience. And I didnt perceive his dismissal as an act it appeared to me to be sincere and JJr just nailed it further as Osama has no use for people I value I too have no use for him. This is the turning point unless there is more to Obama the wave went flat and I must tell you it should. What I am also really really befuddled by is the new group to disparage as the Boomers who supposedly have no say in election or the future which is 4 years because they are two old and crabby. I think Dems may be over estimating our desperation to see a non republican elected this cuts is too fresh respect is as powerful as division I think I hope anyway.

It doesn't matter if they were crocodile tears. Just move on. It's time to attack her on substance.

Just like...unfortunately...several surrogates for Clinton had overstepped their bounds, so apparently has Jesse. Not a good move, but shouldn't be overblown either. Barak should say I don't feel that way, but I can't speak for Jesse Jackson Jr. either...let's get on past this.

ava wrote on January 9, 2008 2:36 PM:

RE: Voter Fraud in New Hampshire

"It looks like voter fraud may have been responsible for the Clinton win in NH.
There is a statistically significant discrepancy between exit polls, actual votes counted by hand in the various voting districts, and those tabulated by Diebold tabulator machines. The exit polls and hand counted votes indicate Obama should have won NH by at least 2% to 5%..."

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY DEAD WRONG!!!!!!

A weighted average of the female and male preferences between Clinton and Obama on the exit poll predicted a 39.6% to 36.8% Clinton victory. THE EXIT POLLS WERE DEAD ON!!!!!

I did the math myself last night. I suggest that you do the math (or have someone else do it if you can't) instead of advancing sour grapes (AND COMPLETELY WRONG!!) conspiracy theories. There may have been statistically huge discrepancies between the exit polls and actual results in 2004 but there weren't any discrepancies this time.

Obama should fire Jackson now. I mean, who is going to create a new tone in politics and Washington talking like this? It reduces Obama's entire rhetoric for change to facade and schtik.

Woman Who Made Clinton Cry Voted for Obama

The New Hampshire Woman Who Sparked Clinton's Emotional Moment Voted for Obama

By KATE SNOW and JENNIFER PARKER

Jan. 9, 2008 —

The woman whose empathetic question  "how do you do it?"  sparked uncharacteristic emotion Monday from Sen. Hillary Clinton ended up voting for Sen. Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary.

Marianne Pernold Young, 64, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, N.H., told ABC News that while she was moved by Clinton's emotional moment, she was turned off by how quickly the New York senator regained her "political posture."

Watch Clinton's emotional moment by clicking HERE.

"I went to see Hillary. I was undecided and I was moved by her response to me," Pernold Young said in a telephone interview with ABC News. "We saw 10 seconds of Hillary, the caring woman."

"But then when she turned away from me, I noticed that she stiffened up and took on that political posture again," she said. "And the woman that I noticed for 10 seconds was gone."

'How Do You Do It?'
Monday, Pernold Young went to Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth, N.H., where Clinton was taking questions from a group of about 16 undecided, mostly female voters.

Standing in the back, she asked Clinton a question that appeared to take the senator by surprise.

"My question is very personal, how do you do it?" Pernold Young asked, mentioning that Clinton's hair and appearance always looking perfectly coifed. "How do you, how do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?"

At first, Clinton responded jokingly, first talking about her hair: "You know, I think, well luckily, on special days I do have help. If you see me every day and if you look on some of the Web sites and listen to some of the commentators they always find me on the day I didn't have help. It's not easy."

But then, Clinton began getting emotional: "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country just don't want to see us fall backwards."

Her voice breaking and tears in her eyes, she went on, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political. It's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it."

"Some people think elections are a game, lots of who's up or who's down, [but] it's about our country , it's about our kids' futures, and it's really about all of us together," Clinton said.

"You know, some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds, and we do it, each one of us because we care about our country but some of us are right and some of us are wrong, some of us are ready and some of us are not, some of us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't thought that through enough," she said in a veiled reference to Obama, her Democratic rival.

Immediately after the event, Pernold Young told ABC News she felt a connection with Clinton.

"She allowed herself to feel," Pernold Young said at the time. " I was surprised and I said, 'wow there's someone there.'"

"All my girlfriends say, 'how does she do it?' How does she manage, how does she look so great all the time, I'd like to know who her hairdresser is," she said. "I just like to know how she puts it all together and is still plausible, believable and in control."

'I Was in Awe'
But in the end, she said it was Obama's message of hope and change that won her vote.

"I went to see Obama on Friday and he moved me to tears, I was in awe," she said in a telephone interview with ABC News. "I'm 64 years old and nobody does that to me."

Pernold Young said even though Clinton didn't win her vote, she still respects Clinton as a woman.

"I think she's a hard worker," she said, "Like so many of us women she's an overachiever."

She also said that she is "worried" about Clinton.

"As a hardworking woman, how does she have down time, how does she get away from it all?" she said. "Especially when her mind is probably racing, and your mind is always with you."

Pernold Young said she's also worried about Obama, acknowledging he, too, is a working senator, a parent and a spouse. But she said she's more worried that the Illinois senator's political momentum will stall.

"He's a new fresh face and I'm just hoping he will keep up the momentum, that he will stay the course and success and bring fresh air to the White House," she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4109322

I now have a much different opinion of the Obama campaign. I suspect that others feel the same way after watching the dreck spew forth from this jackass. his campaign is supposed to be above this crap. Nope. Same @#&!, different dude.
Expect a backlash.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 1:48 PM: Terrible move. The MSM is going to crucify him and Obama over this.

Agreed. This is not smart politics. Hillary won because for once in her life she showed real passion. It was spontaneous. Both her fiery and heart-felt response to Edwards during the debate, and the 'tears' humanized her in a way that no commercial could have. It was priceless and that is why she won. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that on the question of experience Obama does not even come close to her. She needed to stop being an automaton and the spontaneity of those two moments just added "humanity" to her experience. A powerful combination that, if maintained, could easily lift her past Obama and the eventual GOP nominee. This is a winning issue for Hillary.

And the whole pontificating about the female vote going Hillary's way is mindless for the same reason that it would be if one ignored Obama's potential advantage with African-Americans in SC: Women would feel kinship for a woman candidate, blacks for a black candidate, Latinos for a Latino candidate...well, you get the picture.

lol
The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree, Obama had better issue a quick apology and nip this one in the bud. He so doesn't need this.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 9, 2008 2:46 PM:

"she never stopped calculating, she never got off message, she was in control the entire time.

And, uh, that's a bad thing? That she's tough as nails and will fight the good fight?

Oh, no, she's ambitious! calculating! In control! God forbid!"

Well, Imelda, count me in as a ditto head to your view. That's exactly the kind of person I'll cheer as my candidate - the candidate who wants it more and has fire in the belly.

You know, I'm a man and I've always been very reluctant to admit the sexist thing. But, my denial has been shaken by Clinton's candidacy. Maybe a man exhibiting the same characteristics would be denounced by many, too, but I can't help thinking that her gender leads many into finding her ambition as particularly unpleasant.

Anonymous at 2:53

I was just going to post that. The original question was, in fact, about appearance, and Senator Clinton, the politician, took it one step further.

Let it be, Obama campaign. There isn't a point in keeping this incident before the public eye.

What loki wrote above...This was an unwise move questioning her tears cos it looks petty and looks even pettier after losing NH. The MSM has already given this emotive display of Hillary's (real or unreal, it does not matter at this point) a favorable review (I believe it was real, but like, whatever), and anything now appears as very sour grapes. Jesse Jackson Jr should be savvy enough not to have commented on that, and now hopefully Obama will be savvy enough to say: "That's not how I feel. Campaigning for President is very grueling. We all feel it."

BWWWAAAAA!!! HAAAAA!!! HAAAAA!

And the freepers are eating their own over at their site as well!

Hm, I don't want to sound like a "conspiracy nut" or a poor loser, but upon looking at the voting data, specifically the 7% drop for Obama in places with Diebold machines vs paper ballots, I'm actually starting to get kind of concerned. These machines are notoriously easy to tamper with, Democratic activists have been after them ever since 2004. If you want a feel for how common voter fraud is in our history, read "Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition - 1742-2004" by Tracy Campbell. After reading that I'm a lot less quick to dismiss these red flags as just a huge upset, especially with the anomalous data and history with these machines. Also understanding that Hillary is the establishment candidate, it would fit historically with incidents of voter fraud (to say nothing about the racial history).

Anyway, I'm going to research it more, because it does seem odd and I truly believe that winning at all costs is not what our party (or any of our candidates) should be about. I encourage everyone to at least take a look at what is being said about NH and the weird voting data. Don't do it as a person with a candidate to support, just do it for the sake of knowledge, and because if something did go wrong, we have an obligation, no matter the benefactor, of exposing it and making sure it doesn't happen again.

Jade- that's a beautiful message of hope. Can you share a link where Hillary says it takes a white man to do the job please? You'll find it above in your message of unification and expanding beyond bitter partisan politics.

Foxx wrote on January 9, 2008 2:57 PM:

What cannot be allowed to stand about these comments is that she was emotional about her appearance. That's a blatant lie, truly slanderous and dirty.

Yeah, and ironically, she actually looked pretty good during that tender moment. I'd say she had a particularly good hair, makeup, and clothes day.

Obama needs to shut this guy up or even publicly fire him. Didn't they learn their lesson yesterday? If they are that stupid or, what I suspect, they don't truly understand women, they aren't fit to govern anyway. Just ignore the tears stuff and stick to your strengths. Don't play on your opponent's turf.

I hope Oprah is ripping Obama a new one today. Or reconsidering her endorsement.

Gail Zawacki wrote on January 9, 2008 2:58 PM:

I think the "tears" were calculated, manufactured.

Please prove this ridiculous point. This seems to me like what psychologists call "projection" and it seems to come from people who probably wouldn't have any qualms about shedding "crocodile tears" to get their way. Take a look in the mirror and you'll know the sort of person I am talking about. "Projection" cannot pass of fact or astute political analysis.

I have looked at that video over and over again looking for signs that she was faking it and saw none. She was spontaneously overcome with emotion and, for the first time in this race, Hillary "found her voice" and was able to articulate a rationale for her candidacy for POTUS that resonated: She deeply cares. What a concept!

Wow, great news for Obama! He can finally get rid of a moron.

Thanks for the link gregg on the morons chanting "iron my shirt." What a bunch of freaking outrageous garbage. I wish the gd right-wing corporate media would have reported on this to lessen the impact. Outrageous. It pissed me off when I heard it and it pisses me off even more that it was a stupid gd stunt for a freaking radio show. GD.

"MLK and JFK's death had more to do with the passage of the Civil Rights Act than LBJ. LBJ wasn't exactly a friend of African-Americans or their cause. He was an opportunist of the highest order."

C'mon. LBJ passed the 1957, 1964 & 1965 Civil Rights Acts because he was committed to civil rights. By the way, MLK was killed in 68, so your chronogoly is wrong. Certainly LBJ was an opportunist--aren't all politicians?--but I don't think passing civil rights did great things for Democrats electorally, only morally. Hillary's point is that doing is more important than talk, which of course is true. LBJ may have called blacks "nigras," he passed the first and only civil rights bills since the Civil War. What's more important? What actually changes lives for the better?

Fuck him. She worked the hell out of that state, she did dozens of town meetings in Q&A form for hours at a time. She was incredible in the debates. and she had to fend off stupid attacks like this one. Trying to pit black people against her? that's disgusting.

Ugh, this is frustrating.

I do think it's sick that Hillary won based on a transparent pander to the fickle and gullible "you go girl" vote. That the tears were contrived was especially apparent when you consider that she dove straight into her attack talking points against Barack Obama in the next couple sentences. Nobody genuinely gets choked up about who's "ready to lead on day one," especially not someone with Hillary's emotional self-control. She was acting.

I can speak that truth as just some random anonymous person on the Internet. I think Olbermann did a good job with it, too, but others in the media following his lead went overboard and were tactless. But I think it's a HORRIBLE idea for anyone actually associated with the Obama campaign to be saying this stuff. I guarantee Jesse Jr has already been on the receiving end of an angry phone call from Barack. It's just completely contrary to Obama's tone and message. Pointing out the truth here just isn't worth the backlash.

grover_rover wrote on January 9, 2008 3:07 PM:

"Hm, I don't want to sound like a "conspiracy nut" or a poor loser, but upon looking at the voting data..."

Then, don't be. See my post above where I provide quantitative evidence that the exit polls could not have been more accurate. If there was ballot box stuffing, then there was an miraculously precise exit poll stuffing, too.

Look, the polls leading up to the primary didn't tell the following stories:

1) There was an Obama bounce coming out of Iowa but the strength of it was overestimated because part of it was temporary. Hillary regained much of her gender advantage and her advantage with older voters. A number of pollsters have admitted the gap was closing significantly on the last day of polling.

2) NH voters weren't ready to ratify the Iowa and media coronation of Obama

Right now this is a dead heat. Clinton has structural advantages but Obama still has that "in their heart of hearts" advantage.

Bluepuppy, you obviously know nothing about LBJ. You should read up on him and get enlightened. He really is a fascinating character in american political history. He was no saint, an unbelievable political opportunist, and he was extremely, extremely cut-throat. Also, he didn't "pass" it he signed it into law. And, at the time he was signing it into law he said that he was signing the death warrant of the democratic party in the south, which wound up being true. He couldn't stop the wave concerning the civil rights movement, so he thought that he would try to ride it. Doesn't sound like a hero to me. Sorry.

In 1992, I went door to door in New Hampshire for Bill Clinton and voted for the CLINTON/GORE Ticket in 1992 and 1996. I SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA in 2008. While America and the mainstream media choose to focus on the historic opportunity to elect the first female or black president, I do neither. I support OBAMA because character, integrity and honor still matter. I once believed the Clintonian rule which was to judge not the character of the man but the character of his/her policy. In either case the CLINTONS FAIL. SHAPE SHIFTERS ARE THE CLINTONS weaving a deception and false sense of sincerity and masking their true identity or the ends that they serve. The less informed buy the false sincerity, feminism and altruism while the sole motivation of the Clintons is access to power for their own self enrichment. The Clinton Legacy is a fiction. The Democratic Party currently serves as an instrumentality which inures to their benefit. While running to become the first Female President, Clinton campaign operatives have gone above and beyond NIXON & ROVE, infecting the electorate with an under current of racism and engaging in "Fale Flag Feminism" to rally women who might otherwise make a more enlightened choice. The Clintons are HOPE KILLERS & POWER HUNGRY MONSTERS. Americans must engage themselves like they never have before and choose HOPE over FEAR.

Right, I agree with JR that what Hillary said in context of her near tears was not so wise (the MLK, JFK, and the crack that "some are right and some are wrong"), and that is perhaps what Jesse Jackson Jr. was irked by when responding to the episode...But still, to make the insinuation that her feelings were either orchestrated or poorly chosen (in response to question about "how she does it every morning, how do you do your hair?") basically is a low blow that is entirely inconsistent with a positive campaign Obama has run. It's one thing to criticize someone's policies, but after losing a race to criticize their demonstration of emotions? A woman's demonstration of emotions? What are the odds that JJJ/Barack look good with these comments? High risk/low reward. Leave it alone.

This is very bad. Obama has to react immediately and strongly to this crap.

this is awesome...please please please keep attacking Hillary about this. It worked out SO well in NH for Edwards!

Amen, Chris L. I'm not sure the've gone above the ROvian tactics yet, but those mailers were downright sleazy. When does the push-polling start? Probably in SC, just like Bush did to McCain in '00.

h_I-I-I_llary is so wrapped up in why we need her as president it is pathetic. It's not about HER, or JE or BO. JE and BO understand that. She still thinks we need her.

I'm sick and tired of politicians who think the people need them. I want a politician who knows that he/she need the people of this country. I see that in Sen. Obama and frm Sen. Edwards. Hell, I even see it in Mike Huckabee.

OK, that does it. J3 is an embarassment, agreed. But after reading the little field day all of you Hillarybots are having over this, I'm done. No Hillary vote for me in the general. I'll sit it out.

Good job, jerks.

Hey, Christopher London,

Sounds like you should be voting in the Green (or maybe even the socialist) party. Politics is a dirty business and the dirtiest campaigner on the Democratic side may still appear comparatively benign when viewing the GOP side.

Also, I live in the real world of Western democracy where policy is shaped by Shape Shifters most of the time. I'm OK with the best result possible in the environment of what is politically possible.

Sounds to me like you would like to live in the utopian world instead. Good luck with that one. Usually, those who refuse to be shape shifters turn out to be bad news instead of good news.

@lombard

The poll differences aren't what I have a major problem with, you'd see that if you actually looked at the data I'm talking about. Sure, both the pre-election polls and especially the exit-polls seem odd, and would back up an argument that something is odd here, but I'm primarily talking about the data that shows Hillary jumps 5% and Obama drops 2% in places that use the Diebold machines vs places with more verifiable counting methods. THAT is what I'm concerned about. Like I said, when I get a chance later tonight I'm going to look into it more and see what is there. I suggest you poll your head out of your ass, and actually look at the data as well. Being willfully remaining ignorant is not something Democrats should do, under any circumstances. So it is worth checking out. That's all I'm saying.

Tacky, tacky and rather whiny. Keep in mind that this is the most difficult race Sen. Obama has run and how he runs will tell us a great deal about him.

I think they were planned and scripted tears. She cried out some key points. Very big play on the American people.

I think women see right through Hillary. Im a women and I know I do. Those were carefully scripted tears. Its plain to see if your willing to look past her plastic pretty packaging.

this is not the right message for obama.

I agree somewhat. whats unsettling about the Clinton Tears is that:

1.) She was crying solely because she was losing. And then she slipped right out of self-pity into her petty talking points.

2.) It has gotten so much media attention in the perverse way that things become Things.

But c'mon? She didn't cry for Katrina? This is dumb.

Grover_rover, you wrote:

"Sure, both the pre-election polls and especially the exit-polls seem odd, and would back up an argument that something is odd here"

No. I repeat. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OFF ABOUT THE EXIT POLLS. THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE ACCURATE!!!!!
If you don't believe me, do the math. If we had exit polls like this (released, by the way, right after the polls closed) there would never, ever be any seriously entertained questions of electoral fraud.

"Hillary jumps 5% and Obama drops 2% in places that use the Diebold machines vs places with more verifiable counting methods."

And that shows absolutely nothing. And, you are giving a very misleading statement here. To my knowledge, there were no regional polls released of various locations in NH so how can anyone know whether anyone went up or down in a particular location?

If you look at the exit polls, there were some geographical differences. Clinton's preferences were bigger overall in larger towns and Southern NH and Obama preferences were higher in Northern NH and more rural areas. Perhaps those regions of the states were slightly correlated with use or non-use of voting machines.

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 2:32 PM:

"Two things have struck me about this primary campaign so far, both in the media coverage and the behavior of the campaigns toward each other.

Having grown up in the 60s and 70s, I am:

1. Extremely proud and gratified that there has been not so must as a hint really, of any sort of racial stereotyping.

2. Extremely disappointed that we are apparently no longer even bashful about raising sexist stereotypes."

Amen to everything you said. It was the jaw-droppingly sexist nature of the Hillary-hate on some of the lefty blogs.

I almost can't even believe it.

No, Tom [January 9, 2008 1:51 PM], this (spin about Sen. Clinton's so-called tears) is not a legitimate question, it is contrived sexist, misogynistic BS. Sen. Clinton was NOT asked about her hair; the question was how she manages to keep up such the grueling pace of a primary/presidential campaign. And, Tom, how do you know that Sen. Clinton "doesn't get emotional about Katrina or Iraq or any of the serious issues facing us?" Have you seen/heard/read all of her public comments on the "serious issues"?

No, Anonymous [January 9, 2008 1:49 PM], had "Edwards or Obama...got misty-eyed over the same question" there would not have been this hew and cry in the media. In fact, they have both been "misty-eyed" on a number of occasions and on a number of issues/topics (as have Congr. Boehner - who's displayed a couple of actual crying jags - and even Pres. Bush) and no one in the MSM has commented negatively (if at all). And, Anonymous, as for your comment that "the double-standard cuts both ways," I'm not sure that you quite understand the concept of a double standard.

I don't think I've read in any of the comments here about JJJ's subtle stripping of Clinton of her title. He repeatedly calls her "Mrs. Clinton" instead of Senator Clinton.

Nothing like taking a woman down a few pegs by taking away her political accomplishments at the same time telling everyone that she cries about her appearance (which is not accurate). I thought(hoped) Obama was above this. Seems he's taking lessons from Edwards on how to irritate voters who don't appreciate displays of misogyny.

This is getting almost unreal...

What is next...invoking MLK to endorse Obama...

What are we in for a black uprising in this country...

seems to me that these kind of comments do nothing more than inflame the racial divide instead of trying to heal it...

Jr...your father would be ashamed of you saying things like this!

campaign cash:100 millions
charisma:0
delegates won:24
fake tears to win NH:priceless

hilary cried in outrage because there was something she inconceivable to her mind: "how can ANYBODY beat a CLINTON?"
meaning if it's a clinton it = automatic win. then she calculatedly stated that shes "Does Have Feelings" +that's because sh's "so all about the other, so interested in others." yet all her smiles to her audience are FAKE!!!!! her real tears are about losing+her real smiles are about winning. her smiles are about "IIIIIIII will win, IIIIIIII won" +her tears are all about "poor me? is it even possible that i can lose?!! whereas obama's audience loves him cuz HE LOVES THEM F I R S T (=genuine) p.s. theyre still neck+neck +hliarys already prematurely gloating. obama has the poetry and the prose, the hope+the goods to back it, he's not only more diplomatic, worldly+articulate but way more specific on all the issues, and she only barely beat him 1st to 2nd, not 1st to 3rd. its gonna be a hella tight race but when the shit comes down, barack can+will debate circles around her+bill put together!

When I first started posting here a few months ago in response to the astounding (to me at the time - I'm used to it now) sexist nature of the mindless Hillary hate demonstrated by many posters here, I made up the word "Hillogynists" to describe them.

I dropped it because many people with legitimate issues with her (IMO), were offended that they believed I was lumping them in with these sexist droolers.

Maybe it's time to resurrect the term again. The Hillogynists (see JJJ and "analysts" of Hillary's win last night tying it into her snookering women voters in with fake tears) sure are making themselves apparent once again for some reason.

He couldn't have helped Clinton more if he tried.

Uniter, not a divider! Sounds familiar?

Reaching out to others to solve common peoples problems! Solve others' problems?

Simple test...why don't we talk to one of our republican friends and see if we can convice them on a critical issue that matters to us/common-people.

Let's do that. So that we can decide if we want to believe in fairy tale...

This is really really stupid for 3 things
1. JJ Jr. playing race card
2. Obama did zippo for Katrina
3. Bill Clinton & Geroge Bush Senior raised 150 million for Katrina

RE: New Hampshire Primary Voter Fraud

Hillary LOST the paper ballot count but WON the optical scan ballot count. Obama WON the paper ballot count but LOST the optical scan ballot count. The machine tabulated votes were flipped to favor Clinton. See for yourself.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_corv_080109_new_hampshire_electi.htm

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

Voter fraud.

anonymous, that 150 mil that Bill and his best buddy Poppt Bush raised, was all eaten up by big corporations, not by the suffering people, so NO SALE

Okay so the Hillary bashing HELPED her in NH, so the strategy for the Obama folks (I'm including the fans) is more bashing? Politics of change, beautiful. Who's phony?

You know LS, I have always been offended by people calling her just hillary, it demeans the presidency and I think it is demeaning to her. So, if calling her hillary is sexist, then I guess all her campaign materials and her staffers chanting hillary last night are sexist as well, just like that campaign button "Miss Bill, Vote Hill." That's sexist as well, right?

I can't wait until the primaries are over. According to clinton supporters, everyone opposed to her is either uninformed, a hater, a sexist, a left-wing loonie, a commie, a pinko, unamerican, treasonous, etc. It is so like the king and is really pathetic. Next thing you know she will probably start playing the fear card to scare voters into voting for her, oh, that's right she already did that.

White America is ready for a black president. But not 4 years of a black president.

There will be some serious "we're over the race issue" fatigue soon and it will probably start in South Carolina. As the major African-American leaders start to come forward and try to claim a piece of the agenda (like whites do), it will freak white people out.

Ava

As a democrat if Hillary can fix the voting machines I am all for it. Its about time democrats learn how to win elections. Talking issues and being on right side of issues apparently has not worked for democrats at least for the last 2 elections. And if you cannot win elections you cannot make any difference.

Greg DeLassus

"I am an Obama supporter, so nothing would please me more than to think that my guy won NH."

He did win. In the delgate count he got 12 to Clinton's 11.

I like Obama. I am excited by his candidacy.

But Jesse Jackson Jr is an ass.

And if this man is indicative of the kind strategy he intends to pursue, as a woman and a voter, I will be re-thinking my support for Obama.

We need real change. Not sorta change.

Hopefully Michelle can set Obama straight on this issue.

Michael,

You know I think its a thin line on the "Hillary" issue. Yes, she uses the name, in part to differentiate herself from Bill, who also ran for President. I think she also uses it because she's been told over and over that people see her as a machine and she is trying to make herself more approachable. Obama may or may not like and respect her and that may or may not inform how he uses it.

However, JJJ's stripping her of her title, when its quite clear which Clinton he is talking about (Senator, not President), and simply refering to her as "Mrs. Clinton" is in another category completely.

Okay so the Hillary bashing HELPED her in NH, so the strategy for the Obama folks (I'm including the fans) is more bashing?

Indeed, it is hard to understand the logic of it. It seems to me that Obama supporters like myself should be trying to get folks to forget this moment as quickly as possible; not bring it up at every opportunity.

Obama moved to a black neighborhood in Chicago, joined a black church he had never heard of before, and signed on with an influential black preacher just before running for office.

He is from Hawaii, he went to Columbia and Harvard--hardly bastions of the everyday black man's experience in America.

Now, this strikes me as entirely calculated, ambitious, and scheming--a well laid plan to get into politics on the backs of black voters with whom he shares litle in common in the way of socio-economic and racial experience.

But somehow, because he is black, he is not called on it. It's as if we all assume that his black skin means he has some uber-social experience that cannot be questioned, regardles sof his actual history.

And when he waxes platitudinous about hope and unity, he is somehow judged to be deeply sincere and authentic--in spite of his complete lack of substance. We would never acuse him of just playing a polical card to manipulate emotions into votes.

But Hillary, on the other hand is excoriated as an ambitious,calculated, crododile-tear crying, scheming bitch.

What sexist, misogynist hypocrisy.

Hi, I'm Clinton Bush VI and I'm here to ask for your vote on behalf of all women who face these kind of terrible obstacles and sexism. It's just been really really hard making all these radical changes for the past 25 years, like switching back and forth between Bush's and Clinton's every so often. It's just so personal for me, and so hard wrapping up all the wonderfull presents I bring to the little people. Ah...the burden of being the most talented politician of my generation.

We need to switch back to some Clintons again now, which will be enormous, earthshaking, inspiring change, the likes of which we haven't seen in like 7 years or so.

My my my. All you politically savvy skeptics of everything but Clintonian sincerity. This from the people who brought you the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and the famous "not holding hands" picture. Pathetic. Hillary "My, What Big Teeth You Have, Grandma" Clinton was able to calculate that an illegal war of aggression was in her political interests enough to vote for it, but she's not calculating enough to put on a bullshit crying jag, pre-spun, to save her ass in New Hampshire. Har dee har har.

I guess you all must be monks and never saw a woman use tears as a tactic. But then, non-reality based thinking is not the sole realm of the right wing.

The problem with the critique of the now famous Tears is that all any opposing pol can do is try to cast doubt on their authenticity. No candidate (other than Mrs. Clinton) knows the real story.

For what its worth, I think the emotion was real, not faked, and Hillary was probably kicking herself for a moment's weakness. It turned out well for her, but come on, no one is that smart and/or prescient.

Mostly, I think the comments are much more callow than the Clintons in this particular case.

I agree with other Obama supporters' comments: I don't like this at all. I thought the comments were cheap and mean-spirited. I mean, what a load of CRAP! Just the kind of crap I'd hoped the Obama campaign would avoid doing.

Barack's great and I have a lot of confidence in him. He's inspired me to contribute money and time to a campaign for the first time in my voting life, which spans two decades! I hope Barack can find some way, perhaps by making some kind of public comment, to ameliorate the ill will generated by these foolish comments.

--Obama Supporter in Texas

Mr. Jackson’s comments were not misogynistic. Senator Clinton “became emotional” after being asked a softball question by a lay person.

I am as annoyed by Senator Clinton’s pause, waiving of the microphone in her hand, and then quivering voice as I am by Sen. Edward’s repeated reference to the young woman who died after she failed to receive an organ transplant because her insurance argued that the transplant was experimental. Neither maneuver clarifies the candidates’ respective policy platforms.

The comments from the Clinton camp indicated that they believed - albeit incorrectly - in the accuracy of the polls, and that Sen. Clinton was significantly trailing Sen. Obama. As. Sen. Clinton only became “emotional” after it appeared that her so called frontrunner status had evaporated, one may validly ask whether the tears were more related to the idea that her dream of becoming POTUS was slipping away.

Finally Hurricane Katrina was indiscriminate in its destruction. I don’t recall too many politicians publicly crying over that episode of human suffering, and it was worth their tears.

Wow. Tear analysis.

This IS a new kind of politics.

Hallelujah zozosmom, his schtick works until he's exposed for what he is too.

1. Speculating that the tears were faked is tin foil hat territory: if she were that consummate an actress you would never have thought her calculating in the first place.

2. The only morally respectable reason for running is if you believe that you can do more for the country than the other people with a chance to get elected.

3. Making false claims about events in a video tape will get a campaign a reputation for lying.

4. That all she cares about is her hair meme is a real loser for obvious reasons including simple logic.

During Clinton's emotional moment, she said that she just cares about our country so much that she doesn't want us to "slip backward." If she cares more about her country than her own appearance, why didn't she run against Bush in 2004? Wasn't 31 years of experience enough to challenge someone who all Democrats agreed needed to be beat? Think of all of the people who's lives have been made worse because her health care plan failed? How many people have died in Iraq because she failed to ask tough questions when it mattered? How many people continue to be affected by Bush's disastrous second term? If she was so worried about the downturn of our nation, why didn't she run before? Why didn't the Clintons show political courage when it mattered most? Why did they adopt rhetorical strategies straight out of the Bush/Rove playbook such as implying Obama is a flip-flopper and that she is "action" and not "talk?" Why are the Clintons attacking the one person who is bringing a record number of republicans, independents, and new democrats into the process?

So any move so far by the Obama campaign to distance themselves from Jackson's remarks? In fairness, we should be as willing to at least consider the possibility that this was just a case of an Obama campaign surrogate going off the reservation and crossing the line as we were with Billy Shaheen.

But if not, then I guess perhaps they've lost that mastery of, as John Heilemann put it the other day, "the delicate trick of going negative without seeming nasty."

Hillary is an emotionless vulcan? I don't like her politics, nor her husbands, but she is by all reports a very pleasant and kind person.

people do not have the control of the choked up cracking of their voice. In movies, the actresses and actors go right to tears because voice cracking is near impossible.

she never shed a single tear as compared to Bush, or his dad, or any number of republicans.

What i found irritating was this consistent refusal to refer to her as senator clinton by Obama during the debate. I found it condescending and egotistical. If he is Senator Obama, then she is Senator Clinton. Personally, I am a richardson supporter. Unless someone appeals to the south or the mountain states we can just write this election off. And JJjr. needs to keep his big fat mouth shut.

robin:

this wasn't coming from the "Obama Camp".

It came from an Obama supporter.

There's a bit of a difference. Like when Shaheen called obama a drug dealer, it wasn't coming from the Clinton "camp" (yea, right) but from one supporter who just went over the line.

He is right. I mean there are other things that we should be emotional about. Lets put this crying moment under the rug.

Her threat of a woman breaking into tears is playing the gender card. I lost all respect for Clinton on this one as she followed it up with sound bites from Edwards ("this is personal")and references to this not being a political game. She announced it herself, "I'm to win". Let's hope the winner will not be of the Bush-Clinton Bush-Clinton variety.

Truly this is so amazing to me I have to comment again.

Even if the, what, 10 seconds? of choking up had some impact, what on earth is the point of dwelling on it? Does Obama really want to alienate the most reliable voting block the Dems have over a 2% loss in a small state?

When and how people tear up is almost the most personal thing there is. Is Jackson really suggesting he should be the arbiter of when it happens?

I understand the point he is trying to make, but he better try it from another angle, and quick.

What i found irritating was this consistent refusal to refer to her as senator clinton by Obama during the debate.

I make it a point to refer to her as "Sen Clinton" (heck, I make it a point to refer to the hopeless incompetant in the White House as "Pres Bush"). One salutes the uniform, not the wearer, and all that sort of thing. That said, Sen Clinton brands all of her campaign paraphanalia with the name "Hillary," not "Sen Clinton" or even "Clinton." As such, one can hardly blame those who refer to her as such. Is it really disrespect to use the name by which she herself encourages us to call her?

"Uh, Freaktown, JJJr. IS THE OBAMA CAMP. He's not just a supporter, he's the campaign co-chair."

The same thing was true of Shaeheen.

all i'm saying is that if you think what he said was sanctioned by OBama you're wrong.

My my my. All you politically savvy skeptics of everything but Clintonian sincerity.

I think that you can be skeptical of Clinton's tactics and still be horrified by Mr. Jackson's comments here.

Mr. Jackson’s comments were not misogynistic. Senator Clinton “became emotional” after being asked a softball question by a lay person.

And if Jackson had said that, it wouldn't be misogynistic. That's not what he said. He instead brought in some kind of angle which makes it sound like he was trying to say she was crying about "questions about her appearance", and for some bizarre reason tossed in a reference to Katrina. In other words if you actually look at what he was saying he didn't call into question what the emotion meant-- he seemed to have granted the emotion was real, and then implied that emotion only came up over frivolous, womanly things. That kind of trivializing response wouldn't call people to question why we're only seeing this emotion now; instead it will just inflame people who saw the emotion as genuine and thus will see Jackson as trying to belittle it.

This is, I think, exactly what pissed off so many people about the punditry's pileon in the first place-- that people were not taking Clinton's emotion seriously, and this pissed off a fair number of people who were themselves tired of not being taken seriously. The Obama campaign needs to be working to defuse that anger, or at least direct it to some target other than Obama. Instead we have Mr. Jackson likely inflaming it by participating in the same behavior that caused all that anger in the first place, and putting a big bullseye on Mr. Obama in the process.

In other, totally unrelated news, Insider Advantage has Sen Obama closing the gap in FL. The last Insider Advantage poll in that state had Clinton-53% vs Obama-19%. Today's poll has Clinton-40% vs Obama-32%. Sen Clinton is still in the lead down there, but the gap is narrowing. Good work, Obama supporters in FL!