Obama Campaign Co-Chair Questions Hillary's Tears

Comments (399)

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 1:48 PM:

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

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 1:49 PM:

At the same time, if Edwards or Obama had got misty-eyed over the same question, methinks the media would have questioned their mettle to handle the presidency. The double-standard cuts both ways.

colonpowwow wrote on January 9, 2008 1:50 PM:

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

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

I think this is a legitimate question. She got emotional in response to a question about her hair. And yet she doesn't get emotional about Katrina or Iraq or any of the serious issues facing us?

Michael A wrote on January 9, 2008 1:51 PM:

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

freaktown wrote on January 9, 2008 1:53 PM:

this is a reverse double standard. if obama or edwards had cried they would have been finished.

But Clinton can cry, and whenever anyone critices her for it, they're sexist or something...

That was a cheap political stunt.

And it worked.

I hope voters in other states are smarter than to let fake tears win their votes.

NOw as far as jackson, I think its smart to let it go. I think he's right on the merits of his argument, but those "women" voters will just think he's being a sexist pig or something.

Michael wrote on January 9, 2008 1:54 PM:

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.

blackstar wrote on January 9, 2008 1:54 PM:

is anyone debating, given the exit polling etc. coming out of last night, that The Tears did NOT play a significant role on the outcome?

certainly within the Clinton campaign they're not.

Tom wrote on January 9, 2008 1:54 PM:

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

toM wrote on January 9, 2008 1:55 PM:

You know I don't remember any tears when Bill lied about or admitted to having sexual relations with Monica.

They're obviously contrived. Why not call them for what they are? The machinations of a cynical politician.

Maybe all the other candidates should start crying too!

George wrote on January 9, 2008 1:55 PM:

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.

lampwick wrote on January 9, 2008 1:56 PM:

Oy veh. Obama is screwed.

AJB wrote on January 9, 2008 1:56 PM:

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.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 1:56 PM:

colonpowwow:

That's a terrible interpretation of what he's saying, but given the Clinton campaign's willingness to misconstrue facts to fit their purpose I know this will be the dominate response from the campaign and her supporters.

It was an emotional and moving moment. Hell, when I saw it, coupled with Edwards' asinine response, I knew it was going to benefit her. I wasn't sure how much, but I knew it would resonate with women voters. That's not a knock on women; that's just recognizing that they are far more comfortable with their feelings and that, in most cases, they have to keep them bottled up to succeed in the male-dominated world.

What I think the Obama campaign is pivoting to, however, is Clinton's integrity. Her and her surrogates comments over the past five days provide fertile ground.

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

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..

DRinOH wrote on January 9, 2008 1:59 PM:

Memo to Jesse Jackson Jr:

SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Can we fire this tool now? That's about the third time he's set the campaign back with an idiotic comment.

Greg wrote on January 9, 2008 2:00 PM:

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.

nogo war wrote on January 9, 2008 2:00 PM:

The big mistake was the Obama campaign bringing up Katrina.

read this first sentence..
http://obama.senate.gov/statement/050906-statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_hurricane_katrina_relief_efforts/

remember, Edwards could have announced from SC or NC it would have been the politcal thing to do here IS WHERE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sBpBouaDXk

doddfan wrote on January 9, 2008 2:00 PM:

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.

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

Oh, this was NOT a good move. For what it's worth, you can probably fake tears but the manner of speaking? You can't fake that. That was genuine because her normal regulated, flat midwestern speech pattern got blown away by a torrent of words pouring straight from her soul. Her grammar went straight to hell. When you are overwhelmed with emotion, that tends to happen. Maybe the fatigue actually helped her lower her guard. Anyway, this was just not a particularly wise thing for JJJr. to say. I have a lot of respect for him and Obama. Please don't make me think ill of them.

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

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

K-Tron wrote on January 9, 2008 2:02 PM:

My God am I ashamed of people right now! Who else didn't cry about Katrina? I was deeply, profoundly upset but I didn't cry. I did cry when my Grandpa died six months later. I guess I can never be a politician... I'm not sensitive in the right areas.

FlipYrWhig wrote on January 9, 2008 2:02 PM:

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

CT Voter wrote on January 9, 2008 2:03 PM:

This is a stupid. Let's not analyze Clinton, unplugged, any more. It's playing into their campaign theme.

BTW, the NY Times this morning (print ediction) had a quote from the person who asked her the question, and this woman said "I asked her how she does it. And who does her hair"

Is this correct? Is there any video of the entire questioned asked of Clinton?

SLKRR wrote on January 9, 2008 2:03 PM:

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.

RaymondA wrote on January 9, 2008 2:03 PM:

I'm a loyal Obama supporter, but sheesh, this is really stupid. The headline suggests that the accusation was that the tears were fake, which is misleading. But still... There is no percentage in any campaign official talking about this! The tricky thing is, I'm sure Obama wants to distance himself from these remarks, but how?

George wrote on January 9, 2008 2:03 PM:

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.

NYMARJ wrote on January 9, 2008 2:04 PM:

Since the question in the coffee shop was not about appearance in the first place - obviously Jackson's mention of a woman's appearance and tears in the same sentence is meant to diminish Hillary - no two ways about it. Reminds me of the structure of Axelrod saying Hillary was in some way responsible for the assassination of Bhutto.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:04 PM:

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?

brm wrote on January 9, 2008 2:04 PM:

Clinton's always tear up for the cameras
Well Bill
I will never vote for that women

Pepp wrote on January 9, 2008 2:04 PM:

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.

freaktown wrote on January 9, 2008 2:05 PM:

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?!

Liam wrote on January 9, 2008 2:05 PM:

Maybe Jesse Jackson wants to set Obama's campaign back. The Jacksons are use to being the only political power brokers for African Americans, and have become very wealthy doing so. I doubt if they relish losing that position to Senator Obama. This looks like someone trying to sabotage the campaign while pretending to be supporting it.

jsp wrote on January 9, 2008 2:05 PM:

I agree with other comments - The Clintons may be calculating, devious, talking incessantly about experience when most of it was as spouse of Bill, etc., but the Obama camp will have to MUCH more careful, subtle, smart and measured about making such insinuations. JJJr had better watch out.

rg wrote on January 9, 2008 2:05 PM:

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.

Bob wrote on January 9, 2008 2:05 PM:

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.

Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 9, 2008 2:05 PM:

Anyone thinking the Clinton campaign arranged for the "iron my shirt" guys? Hate to be paranoid, but after the piling on at the debate and about The Tears, that would be the final pushed button for Hillary's women voters.

freaktown wrote on January 9, 2008 2:07 PM:

doddfan:

but like i said, the smart thing is to let it go becasue of people like you who actually fall for this stuff.

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 2:08 PM:

Greg,

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

kjoe wrote on January 9, 2008 2:09 PM:

I thought she showed real emotion when she emphasized how important the issues were. I think Jackson got it wrong. But it should be no big deal. Edwards is the one who really blundered on this thing---Obama did not.

Michael A wrote on January 9, 2008 2:09 PM:

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

Gary wrote on January 9, 2008 2:10 PM:

I think Jr. should crawl back under his rock!

Teresa wrote on January 9, 2008 2:10 PM:

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.

colonpowwow wrote on January 9, 2008 2:11 PM:

Keith:

I may be spinning it with hyperbole, but that's exactly how it will and should be played. I didn't think anything was wrong with Muskie shedding a tear or two way back when either.

This will prove to be the Obama campaign's embarrassment on the level of "Obama in Kindergarten" was for Hillary's (Penn's) stupid campaign statement.

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.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 9, 2008 2:11 PM:

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?

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?"

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

Just a note, she was so emotional that she didn't fail to get a dig in on Obama:

"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 are going to do on day one, and some of us haven’t thought that through enough," she said.

Still given the Clintons' willingness to misconstrue plain meaning statements to their benefit, expect an immediate pivot on this one.

Brook wrote on January 9, 2008 2:12 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:12 PM:

So, basically, race IS an issue in this campaign - as long as the racial innuendo comes from the black candidate and his flunkies. Nice double standard. I wonder what Oprah and Dr. Phil would say?

sherifffruitfly wrote on January 9, 2008 2:12 PM:

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!

Teresa wrote on January 9, 2008 2:13 PM:

Also, that NYTimes story on Hillary's experience talked about how she was so upset by seeing the victims of torture in Somalia that she threw up. I don't think Obama's people want to go down this road.

Robert Seeds wrote on January 9, 2008 2:13 PM:

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.

Janet wrote on January 9, 2008 2:13 PM:

In the interest of full disclosure, I have supported Edwards and Obama, in that order. I do not support Hillary in the primary.

The question that provoked the tears of frustration was not about her hair. It was about how she kept upbeat and going forward in light of the attacks.

For pete's sake, even Obama's spokesperson can't stay away from making events out of thin air.

As for tears, I think it was frustration... frustration at seeing a lead disappear, the money disappear, while the same old clinton-hating media patterns go on full force. I don't know many women who haven't wept in frustration over work matters - some of us have even done so when the door was open.

doddfan wrote on January 9, 2008 2:13 PM:

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.

Randy G wrote on January 9, 2008 2:14 PM:

I'm not a Hillary supporter.... but JJ, Jr. sounds like a dimwitted hack just spinning nonsense. I certainly hope Obama, himself, didn't approve of this.

Josh Berthume wrote on January 9, 2008 2:14 PM:

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.

RonK, Seattle wrote on January 9, 2008 2:15 PM:

THAT's what Obama need s now -- more self-inflicted damage!

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 9, 2008 2:15 PM:

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

JR wrote on January 9, 2008 2:15 PM:

I've no doubt that the tears were real - the woman was exhausted and frustrated. Still, what's grand is that the sight of her welling up is causing everyone to ignore what she actually said. Hillary Clinton was concerned that the country would go closer to hell in a handbasket if she isn't elected. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/01/08/1199554606493.html Later that day, she pretty much said King dreamt the dream but LBJ did the job. http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/clintons-candid-assessment/

Why is no one discussing these comments???

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:16 PM:

Colonpowwow:

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

mencken wrote on January 9, 2008 2:16 PM:

gee, I dunno: maybe clinton teared up b/c she was exhausted from the moronic litany of the press's pummeling, or exhausted from the campaign, or exhausted from being called a soulless machine. nothing cynical, no machinations, just a moment of emotion.

which as others have pointed out, is what clinton is always decried for never showing.

who knows or cared why she misted up? people show feelings. that's news?

I'm no clinton fan, but I think this makes obama look like a prick.

J.Irons wrote on January 9, 2008 2:17 PM:

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.

KFB wrote on January 9, 2008 2:18 PM:

If making Jesse Jackson Jr co-chair of his campaign is a preview of how he would govern if elected, then I wish Edwards had cried a river to get those votes that Hillary got by choking up a little.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 2:19 PM:

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

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 2:19 PM:

OK, looks like they're going with mean-spirited then.

Just want to reiterate something I said on an older thread because it very much speaks to this point.

I watched that video clip of Clinton several times and:

a) there were no "Tears"

b) the thing that convinced me that scene was going to help Senator Clinton's cause, not hurt her, was not the fact that she misted up for a moment there, it was that a moment later the strength was back in her.

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

"Self-pity" could never have move that many votes that way. Grace under pressure could and did.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 9, 2008 2:19 PM:

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.

lombard wrote on January 9, 2008 2:21 PM:

Well, I didn't see Obama crying during Hurricane Katrina, either. In fact, didn't see that many Louisiana polls doing it.

But, Jesse Jr. is right about one thing"

"...in the days leading up to NH we saw something very clever..."

Yes, you did. And cleverness is a bad thing?

jes wrote on January 9, 2008 2:22 PM:

dogwhistle to keep the AA women with Obama?

CT Voter wrote on January 9, 2008 2:23 PM:

JR

I'm with you. The content of her comments was more disturbing than the style. "We can't go back"...to what? Sort of contradicts the "remember how fab the 90s were?" theme that has surrounded this campaign.

"This very personal to me"--borrowing much from Edwards, Hillary?

Finally, "I have so many opportunities for America". Huh? America might have many opportunities for many people, but a person has many opportunities for America?

That being said, this comment by JJ is the dumbest thing the Obama campaign could do. Just. Leave. It. Alone.

unpoetaloco wrote on January 9, 2008 2:23 PM:

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?

Bill in Chicago wrote on January 9, 2008 2:24 PM:

Like others, I agree that this is really stupid. I mean, who is his other "Co-Chair", Al Sharpton? Louis Farrakhan?

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And yes, Imelda, I also find myself asking what the hell people are talking about when they talk about "Hillary's tears". We've all seen the video. How many tears do you see rolling down her cheeks? None!

I think we've all been talking about imaginary WMD and other assorted bullshit for so long, its starting to become reflexive.

And another thing, I love how all of these liberal blogs are raking the MSM over the coals for being so snide and catty toward Hillary, and then they turn around and do the exact same thing. Monkey see, monkey do, I guess.

pny wrote on January 9, 2008 2:26 PM:

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

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:26 PM:

Advisers, advisers, advisers, they told Hillary to attack after Iowa and now Obama to attack after NH. They're all playing the same game. Good grief. Neither's actions are appealling in this respect.

L S wrote on January 9, 2008 2:27 PM:

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.

twirling fartknocker wrote on January 9, 2008 2:27 PM:

did anyone ever report on the actual people who were hollering out, "iron my shirts," at HRC rallies?

I have my conspiratorial suspicions that they were plants used by HRC & Co to really work that "poor Hillary" angle her campaign decided to use after the Iowa loss. Sort of like Mitt and his anti-mormon push polls. Sort of like HRC's ealier plant for a global warming question.

I wouldn't put it past HRC or most other well-heeled political machines

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:28 PM:

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.

dorman4 wrote on January 9, 2008 2:29 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:29 PM:

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

lampwick wrote on January 9, 2008 2:30 PM:

Obama is dead to me if he doesn't do something about Jr. The way to beat the Clintons is by being classy, decent, and uplifting; paranoid misogyny didn't work for the Republicans back in the 90's, and there's no place for it now - especially coming from a supposed Democrat. Shame on Jr.

polimolly wrote on January 9, 2008 2:30 PM:

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.

BluePuppy wrote on January 9, 2008 2:30 PM:

Shameful...the implosion begins. And JJ jr.? Hiss father (God love him) has very little credibility with most Americans. It comes off as mean, and it points to one of her best, most of genuine moments.

pny wrote on January 9, 2008 2:30 PM:

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

bridoc wrote on January 9, 2008 2:31 PM:

I should reiterate why I think that the tears were an act. I don't only think this because of the famous Clinton political machine control factor. When I first watched the video, saw her get emotional and all that I was like "okay, don't care" but then in the same breath she moved seamlessly into her campaign attack message against Obama, still using the emotional voice. That is when the "something isn't right here" lights started flashing in my head. I would have maybe been inclined to believe that she was sincerely having a weak and candid moment if she hadn't used it to attack Obama, but after seeing that seamless segue into an attack on Obama, the whole thing struck me as contrived and manipulative. Most people might not view it this way, many in large part because while the media repeated played the part where she got choked up, they barely ever let it play long enough to show her cynically using the whole sensitive Hillary thing as an attack. This is what people need to understand when thinking about this. It wasn't her finding herself or a moment of humanity, she never stopped calculating, she never got off message, she was in control the entire time.

Democrat wrote on January 9, 2008 2:31 PM:

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.

doublecola wrote on January 9, 2008 2:31 PM:

Listen, if the Hillary campaign is using
her "human moment" as a campaign tool, then they shouldn't be surprised when questions arise concerning the authenticity of that moment.

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.

scott wrote on January 9, 2008 2:33 PM:

No, she was asked how she got up and got moving each morning you fools. She was verklemp because she reflected on why she gets up each morning in this difficult race. The questioner even voted for Obama afterwards.

The questioner was not a plant. The question asked a question she was not prepped for. She was asked how do you do it everyday. The question not only voted obama, but praised and showed her respect for Hillary in her statements during post NH interviews just this morning. So anyone else want to believe obama is above the nastiness of politics? They are all politicians you fools.

glennpdx wrote on January 9, 2008 2:33 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:33 PM:

It was an Academy Award-winning performance

Briana wrote on January 9, 2008 2:34 PM:

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

grover_rover wrote on January 9, 2008 2:34 PM:

doublecola: really you make a decent point, since Hillary is exploiting the moment, it's authenticity should be fair game.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:35 PM:

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.

ohai wrote on January 9, 2008 2:35 PM:

Three good candidates. I had no preference. But Obama and Edwards just lost me on the tears issue. Pretty dumb.

BluePuppy wrote on January 9, 2008 2:35 PM:

"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.

Hit The Bid wrote on January 9, 2008 2:36 PM:

Thanks for weighing in Troll Bill in Chicago.

Oh and nice racism there...Monkey hungh? You don't even try to hide it do you?

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. 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

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:37 PM:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/09/clinton-tearing-up-coul_n_80643.html

ChuckChgo wrote on January 9, 2008 2:37 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:37 PM:

scott wrote on January 9, 2008 2:33 PM: They are all politicians you fools.

HALLELUJAH!!!!

Alan in California wrote on January 9, 2008 2:37 PM:

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.

Tomcat wrote on January 9, 2008 2:38 PM:

Jackson, Jr. should appologize to everyone woman voter. I would be offended with the suggestion that Hillary's tears (authentic or not) would sway the intelligence of the voting public....comments like that are a suggestion of pettiness and desparation. Its really insulting!!

grover_rover wrote on January 9, 2008 2:38 PM:

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.

mills wrote on January 9, 2008 2:38 PM:

The fact that this is even still being discussed just shows how her every move is microanalyzed, while those of the other candidates, including Obama, are not.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 2:39 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:40 PM:

Great, so now everyone wants to nominate a person who will: 1) send all independent voters running to the succor of McCain's arms and 2) is the best GOTV machine the GOP has.

Don't believe me? Just go read Captain's Quarters today. He pretty much lays it all out there.

Thanks for nothing.

Dorman4 wrote on January 9, 2008 2:40 PM:

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.

Mike M. wrote on January 9, 2008 2:40 PM:

Very dumb. A step away from, "In South Carolina we're really going to give her something to cry about."

twirling fartknocker wrote on January 9, 2008 2:42 PM:

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)

cbreeze wrote on January 9, 2008 2:42 PM:

What a disappointment! Now I'm even more depressed than I was last night!

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:42 PM:

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.

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

For God's sake, get JJ Junior out of here. What the hell are Obama's people thinking? Who's next? the old man himself, or Sharpton? This party has a death wish ... I've seen it for 40 years.

Mary in S.C. wrote on January 9, 2008 2:44 PM:

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

your reaction please

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:44 PM:

Campaign co-chairs exist for the sole purpose of injecting things like this that the campaign wants people to think about and wants the media talking about. The campaign can can stay silent if the blowback is minimal, can disavow if its moderate or fire the co-chair if the blowback turns into backlash. (Which can definitely happen when the co-chair takes it upon him or herself to exceed mission parameters.)

Hillary's campaign has made very effective use of this tried, true and damn near venerable tactic at key moments in the campaign. Like, say, when Gerry Ferraro said that of course all those mean ol' men were ganging up on Hillary at the debate. I also seem to recall her New Hampshire campaign chair being sent out to take one for the team with a loose cannon remark that got him "fired."

Regardless of whether they choose to stay silent, disavow the comment or can Jackson, the message that remains from this after the bad taste wears off is "Hillary won New Hampshire on a female pity party." The point is to preempt any thought of making this a regular part of her campaign, make women in other states think twice about whether this is really a good reason to be voting for someone and, especially, I think, to try to disrupt any emerging "I knew they wouldn't let him win" narrative among black voters.

But, c'mon, folks, whether her momentary verkleptitude was faked or real, she unquestionably milked it for all it was worth politically and she still is. Jackson didn't "turn it into an issue." She did that herself.

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

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.

Michael A wrote on January 9, 2008 2:46 PM:

Bluepuppy, that's pathetic and untrue. LBJ had no choice, he sure didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart. There was a movement for civil rights and King was leading the charge. Politicians were forced to act and they did, but King was a driving force for the people.

The depths that the clintons and the members of their personality cult will go to for a clinton restoration is really despicable.

Lonny wrote on January 9, 2008 2:46 PM:

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

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!

loki wrote on January 9, 2008 2:46 PM:

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.

Katherine wrote on January 9, 2008 2:50 PM:

Classless & stupid. If this is representative of the campaign, they'll lose, & deserve to. There are more female voters than African-American voters. And this sort of thing directly undercuts the whole logic of Obama's campaign.

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

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.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 2:52 PM:

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.

Neither, really. They are radio shock jocks who were doing this as a stunt to boost their show's ratings.

Keith Smith wrote on January 9, 2008 2:52 PM:

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.

NH Dem wrote on January 9, 2008 2:53 PM:

Bill Clinton teared up all the time, but it was always about the troubles and sorrows of other people.

The one time Hillary Clinton's eyes fill with tears, it's when she's talking about how hard things have been for her.

To me, that's not showing admirable humanity. That's misallocating compassion.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:53 PM:

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

erok wrote on January 9, 2008 2:55 PM:

Freaktown demonstrates the number one problem with becoming too wrapped up in politics. It makes it easy to dehumanize someone. The fact is, believe it or not, Hillary Clinton IS a human being. She may be cold, calculating, and politically ruthless, she may even be a bitch. But deep down she's no different from you or me. If you take a minute to genuinely try to put yourself in her place, I think her getting choked up at that time and with that question is very understandable. She's been at this for months now, getting absolutely trashed at every turn. The Republicans hate her, the media hates her, hell, half of her own party hates her. She's watching her candidacy fall apart, all while trying desperately to stay on message, and out of the blue someone asks her how she manages to get up in the morning. I'm a man and I think I'd fall apart at that moment too.
The best thing for her opponents to do now is shut up about it.

spacemodulator wrote on January 9, 2008 2:56 PM:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I think the "tears" were calculated, manufactured. Even though it opened her to criticism for being "weak", she gambled - correctly - that bad publicity is better than no publicity, and that softening her image was more important since she's already established that she is strong. I can't believe that she has never flinched emotionally in public in all these years of attacks and then suddenly she gets weepy. She did so in response to a question about her hair because she was just waiting for an opportunity to make the little speach she launched into.

Politics is phony. I don't like her positions and I don't really care that much that she faked tears. Really stupid for an Obama spokesman to point it out though. They should leave it to the bloggers.

bye bye Johnny wrote on January 9, 2008 2:58 PM:

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.

branor wrote on January 9, 2008 3:00 PM:

Wow. Obama's national campaign co-chair has just driven my regard for Obama down through the floor.

Jackson's attack is a transparent, cheap lie. He claims that Clinton's tears-moment was her crying about her appearance. That is utter BS.

If you watch the tape of Hillary's moment of emotion on Sunday, you'll see that her emotion comes through as she talks about the opportunities this country has given her, and her concern that opportunities may slip away for many Americans if we don't get back the country back on track.

Jackson lies and says she was crying about her appearance, misogynistically trying to turn it into some demeaning "girl crisis".

This is dishonest gutter politics of the lowest sort, and Jackson knocks Obama back nearly to square one in my mind. His campaign advisor spouts here a cheap lie about Clinton, and plays the race card against some fabricated gender card.

This puts an asterisk on everything I have liked about Obama so far, because now everything good, inspiring thing about him seems potentially phony.

lombard wrote on January 9, 2008 3:00 PM:

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.

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

Now we know how Obama's campaign REALLY feels about women. What an ass. He lost my vote. Playing this sexist card is not going to help him. It's like Hillary calling Obama a "playa" who doesn't care about laid off white people.

And I don't recall Obama showing any emotion about anything. The guy is an automaton of fine oration--but no emotion, no passion. He's the Ronald Reagan of the Democratic party.

CT Voter wrote on January 9, 2008 3:03 PM:

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.

jade7243 wrote on January 9, 2008 3:04 PM:

I side with those who think the tears were a cheap political stunt, after all, Bill is notorious for biting his lip and blinking away none existent tears, while he feels our pain.

As for Jesse Jackson, Jr.s' comment, I think what will springboard here is the larger issue of the Clintons' remarks about MLK, JFK and LBJ (shorthand: it's takes a white man to do the job a black man starts) and Bill's calling the Senator "kid" (tantamount to "boy" in that code word sense) and the "fairy tale" moment.

The biggest fairy tale I know goes...

Once upon a time... I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky...

and it ends with a big payoff to Paula Jones by a disbarred lawyer.

walkman666 wrote on January 9, 2008 3:04 PM:

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."

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

lombard you got many of the attributes you admire in G W Bush. In many ways Hillary reminds me of him.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 9, 2008 3:05 PM:

BWWWAAAAA!!! HAAAAA!!! HAAAAA!

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

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

Obama needs to fire JJJ immediately. This is going to bring him down tremendously. For anyone who thinks this is helpful, there are 10 people who'll be repelled by it.

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, 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.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 3:08 PM:

Obama needs to fire this guy, to have any reputation at all left.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 3:08 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 3:10 PM:

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.

az5762 wrote on January 9, 2008 3:10 PM:

I appreciate that people don't like HRC or even loathe her or whatever. But honestly, must she undergo a physical exam to clearly show she is human? WTF do you people want? You attack her humanity, which is really pathetic and reflects badly on the collective you. If Edwards didnt have 50 GAZILLION dollars in the bank from being a trial lawyer he wouldnt be here. And Obama's "There's a movement" thing . . .after 1 caucus? Arrogance. The movement is a stampede to the close of W's administration and not necessarily into Obama's arms. Thank you.

ML wrote on January 9, 2008 3:10 PM:

JJJr is a moron. Yep, misty eyed is emotional and not an issue in anyones mind but Obama's camp - sad so sad. At least Edwards defended HRC when asked what it meant - he said she is a strong person and it meant NOTHING - folks wake up and see this as it is - a sexist stupid comment. Obama should fire JJJr right now and control this before it gets out of hand.

ineedalife wrote on January 9, 2008 3:11 PM:

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.

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 9, 2008 3:12 PM:

To Blue Puppy:

LBJ was crucial to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Housing Rights Act were all passed while MLK Jr. was still living.

Johnson saw himself in finishing both the New Deal and the legislative proposals of JFK. If not for the Vietnam War, admittedly a big if, Johnson would be seen as the most progressive and important President after FDR.

dcshungu wrote on January 9, 2008 3:12 PM:

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!

aimey mays wrote on January 9, 2008 3:13 PM:

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

bridoc wrote on January 9, 2008 3:13 PM:

Seriously people, shut the hell up with the "I hate Obama now" "Now we know how Obama feels about women" blah blah blah shit.

OBAMA HASN'T SAID ANYTHING!!!

JJJr might be an ass, he very well could lose his job because of it, just like Hillary's NH person after the coke dealer crap, but this is in no way authorized by Obama, or an indication of his feelings on the subject. Quit being stupid, seriously. If you want to bitch about someone, bitch about Edwards because HE actually made the comments himself, so you know that is how he felt.

Jesus Christ...you people make me sicker than JJJr does.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 3:14 PM:

Still Laughing!!!!!

Michael A wrote on January 9, 2008 3:15 PM:

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.

Thomas McDonald wrote on January 9, 2008 3:16 PM:

He is making a legitimate point, if not articulating it very well. One can easily imagine that the raw emotion welling up was based on the devastation of her dramatic loss of the aura of inevitability resulting from Iowa. In that sense Jackson is right - they were too much tears of a damaged ego.

BluePuppy wrote on January 9, 2008 3:16 PM:

"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?

mcc wrote on January 9, 2008 3:17 PM:

Way to do exactly what the Clinton campaign needs you to do right now, Mr. Jackson.

He might have had a point about Clinton's emotional moments being a clearly broadcasted and clearly calculated move, but he blew it utterly by mentioning the "question about her appearance" thing. What? Nobody cares what the question was, the point was the response she gave, which clearly was very general.

The Obama campaign has worked very hard to create an atmosphere over the last six weeks where any hint of negativity toward a candidate is guaranteed to backfire. Obama coasted on the apparent desperateness of the Clinton campaign's attacks on them. Well, now Clinton is coasting on the desperateness of the media's attacks on her. Given this, the Obama campaign should be well aware that if they go negative, even the hint of doing so, they'll look desperate too. I think it's fair to call into question Clinton's "finding my voice" moments, but allow anything to slip by which could be construed as negative-- like this belittling "appearance" BS-- and you lose.

Anne wrote on January 9, 2008 3:19 PM:

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.

notobamaanymore wrote on January 9, 2008 3:20 PM:

Ok, that does it. This is going to backfire with whites as well as with woman.

If he plays the race card, he will lose. Ant his camp just put down a whole hand. Race over sexism. A full house.

Good luck with that. He lost my vote.

JRN wrote on January 9, 2008 3:21 PM:

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.

twirling fartknocker wrote on January 9, 2008 3:21 PM:

thanx, Greg DeLassus

although that report is less fun than my conspiratorial suspicions

lombard wrote on January 9, 2008 3:21 PM:

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.

jose wrote on January 9, 2008 3:23 PM:

"Until the color of a man's skin, is of no more significance, than the color of his eyes." - Bob Marley

Michael A wrote on January 9, 2008 3:24 PM:

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.

jade7243 wrote on January 9, 2008 3:25 PM:

Remember, LBJ said "We shall overcome" before signing the '64 Civil Rights bill.

No, bluepuppy, Those words did not originate with LBJ, but in an old "Negro spiritual". DR. KING used those words, words that have such resonance to black people, that throwing off bonds of slavery and Jim Crow, segregation, is like ascension to the "afterlife. Dr. King the minister and his flock knew exactly where they came and what they symbolized.

LBJ just borrowed them. At least he had the decency to give credit where credit was due -- to Dr. King stirring, inspiring, hopeful, motivating speech.

Like Clintons, you need some help with history.

Christopher London wrote on January 9, 2008 3:25 PM:

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.

LS wrote on January 9, 2008 3:27 PM:

This was said by a co-chair, a national co chair, not a state person, a national co-chair. This was inexcusable and showed another form of arrogance by the Obama Campaign, and certainly is out of step with the message of hope and bringing positive change to Washington. Pretty low blow when one has to resort to this level of pettiness.

walkman666 wrote on January 9, 2008 3:27 PM:

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.

Greg wrote on January 9, 2008 3:28 PM:

Could this be the "change" that Obama wants to bring to the country? Wow! I sense a kinder and gentler nation already.

Thanks Mr. Obama

Good luck with the rest of your campaign. I am now motivated to work against you at every turn possible.

Jason_M wrote on January 9, 2008 3:29 PM:

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

dcshungu wrote on January 9, 2008 3:30 PM:

Thomas McDonald wrote on January 9, 2008 3:16 PM:

He is making a legitimate point, if not articulating it very well. One can easily imagine that the raw emotion welling up was based on the devastation of her dramatic loss of the aura of inevitability resulting from Iowa. In that sense Jackson is right - they were too much tears of a damaged ego.

I must have missed the point, so I must ask you: So what if she was devastated for losing badly in IA? It is a human emotion, especially after working as hard as they all worked to do well in the state. We see it all the time in competitive sports. Have you ever watched the Olympics and seen a world-class athlete get all misty-eyed after coming up short? It was a similar emotion, and the NH voters understood it. It showed them Hillary Clinton, the human being, and not the MSM's caricature.

katie wrote on January 9, 2008 3:30 PM:

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

B4UBYE wrote on January 9, 2008 3:31 PM:

Whatever you may feel about the Clintons, it is a gross distortion that Senator Clinton teared up about "her appearance" and those of you who have now added it was about her hair are choosing to shoot off your electronic mouths without knowing or worse, ignoring, the facts. And you call yourselves Obama supporters? The Jackson's are astute race card players. Don't pick up that hand!

jose wrote on January 9, 2008 3:32 PM:

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.

JZ wrote on January 9, 2008 3:33 PM:

Douchebag move of the day. Fortunately for Obama, it'll probably get washed away in all the other chatter. But come on, how lame. Didn't cry for Katrina? Did Obama? Did Jesse Jr.? In public? What a clumsy, dickish thing to say. Not on par with the questions of whether Obama dealt drugs, but stupid nonetheless.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 3:33 PM:

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.

Fay wrote on January 9, 2008 3:33 PM:

Maybe he does have a point to question it?
Check out this headline and the article.

Bill Clinton: Tears won Hillary New Hampshire

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/09/wuspols909.xml

lombard wrote on January 9, 2008 3:35 PM:

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.

LeeFromVA wrote on January 9, 2008 3:37 PM:

Oh hell yeah they were fake. She got a little bit of mileage with "that hurt my feelings" said in a baby voice, and when she realized it worked, the next day she "cried." Did anyone see any real tears though? Then she claims it's personal. Duh, it's always about you, isn't it Hillary? Wake up people, she's using the gender card. Even when she was knee deep in Monica, we never saw her get emotional at all. Come on, EVERYTHING she does is calculated. Did you see all the young people behind her at her victory speech? She reacts to everything. Was she talking about Change when she was "Inevitible?" How much of her victory speech was stolen from Edwards and Obama. If it works for them, it must work for her. Can't you people see what she's doing? Talk about rolling the dice, are we going to end up with the Hawkish Hillary? or the Weepy Hillary? Or maybe our "gal" that fights Republicans? She's reinvented herself so many times, no one has a clue as to who she is. At lease with Obama what you see is what you get.

grover_rover wrote on January 9, 2008 3:37 PM:

@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.

ava wrote on January 9, 2008 3:39 PM:

RE: New Hampshire Voter Fraud

Obama won the hand counted votes, but lost the machine tabulated votes. Clinton lost the hand counted votes but won the machine tabulated votes. The machine tabulated votes were flipped to favor Clinton.

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

mkolb wrote on January 9, 2008 3:39 PM:

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.

Pepp wrote on January 9, 2008 3:40 PM:

Seems some battle lines are being crystallized here but I am missing the winning strategy the math the code. How does attempting to marginalize Women help Obama I dont get it, they have children, husbands, brothers and sister they are activist in the party in the communities they are the true swingers, do they think there will be no reaction I missing it so someone tell me please, whats is it red meat so that he can pull disenfranchised young professionals angry mad at their moms, a lack of opportunities, are there really enough in this country to make 51 percent and what do they assume these orphans will turn on their parents those that paid their way, turn on their spouses sons on the mothers?. Im sorry I don’t believe that is a winning strategy or will work never mind what I think of it.

uhm No on hillary! wrote on January 9, 2008 3:41 PM:

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

Gregor wrote on January 9, 2008 3:44 PM:

I have some advice for My guy (Obama).

Stay out the Jacksons.

amber wrote on January 9, 2008 3:44 PM:

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.

Jon in California wrote on January 9, 2008 3:44 PM:

Mr. McDonald (3:16 PM) hit the nail on the head. "The Tears" were genuine alright, and had nothing to with her appearance... they were the tears of someone who felt as if her crown - HER crown, after all HER hard work staying with Bill and dealing with all these crummy peasants -- was being stolen by some upstart. Well, not to worry.
The Tears did their job, and Hope took a nosedive on January 8. At least America had 5 days to enjoy the feeling. Now it's likely back to holding our nose and voting for the lesser of two bad choices - authoritarian warmongering Hillary, or an even worse turd on the R side. Sigh.

FDR wrote on January 9, 2008 3:46 PM:

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.

bupalos wrote on January 9, 2008 3:48 PM:

Very very stupid. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb. Yes, Hillary wants to play the victim. Yes, that's how she won NH. And so apparently you are going to let her, by walking into this kind of stuff? Obviously it's going to read as "man questions woman's tears."

DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB.

When you get a surprizing, negative shock, you need to take a deep breath and let it sit for a few days. You are guaranteed to make bad decisions reacting right away. This one is a total loser. Where is the upside?

One wonders if Jackson Jr. is really on board here. I'd be benching him for this one. Super Dumb.

lombard wrote on January 9, 2008 3:50 PM:

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.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 3:52 PM:

Greg wrote on January 9, 2008 3:28 PM:

Could this be the "change" that Obama wants to bring to the country? Wow! I sense a kinder and gentler nation already.

Thanks Mr. Obama

Good luck with the rest of your campaign. I am now motivated to work against you at every turn possible.

Dear "Greg",

As you can see, my name is Greg. In order to avoid confusion with Greg Sargent (the guy who writes this blog), I call myself "Greg DeLassus" to make clear that I am me and not Mr Sargent. On the assumption that it was not Greg Sargent who wrote the above, I would simply ask that you use something more than just "Greg," as he usually goes by the monicker "Greg" and it makes it difficult to follow the conversation if others of us also use that monicker.

On the other hand, if it was Greg Sargent who wrote that post, I apologize for the gratuitous finger-wagging, but have to ask - are you serious?

colonpowwow wrote on January 9, 2008 3:53 PM:

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.

sherifffruitfly wrote on January 9, 2008 3:53 PM:

Harsh-but-true reality check: No one, but NO ONE will sympathize with a man crying about being beaten by a woman. Y'all had best just move on, Obama & Co.

Jo wrote on January 9, 2008 3:53 PM:

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.

Legalize wrote on January 9, 2008 3:54 PM:

Evidently not only is Hillary an evil beast sent here to destroy us, but also an accomplished method actor who can shed tears on cue!

And OMG she couldn't POSSIBLY slip into a moment of emotionalism and then recover to get back on track and level attacks at her opponent! I mean, that's IMPOSSIBLE!

Chist, this discussion is vapid.

LifeLongDem wrote on January 9, 2008 3:55 PM:

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.

Gaiilonfong wrote on January 9, 2008 3:59 PM:

What you are failing to see, is what I predicted when that megalomaniac BigDog, called Obama a fairytale, according to my African-American friends they saw that as a below the surface "codeword".
I am telling you, you can knock Jesse J, but with the WOMAN who asked the question coming forward and saying she didn't believe it wasn't believable and the anger over BigDog's comments, you are going to see a BIG backlash, my friends have been telling me it is already being talked about...I say Clinton is TOAST over this, oh and anyone who saw Donna Brazil's reaction to bigdog on CNN will see what I mean and razille IS a Clinton partisan, well at least she was!

TimeforachangeNOW wrote on January 9, 2008 4:00 PM:

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!

anghiari wrote on January 9, 2008 4:01 PM:

While, Jesse Jr. wasn't particularly articulate in raising this issue, I have raised it myself. This past Friday, Paul Begala went on the Charlie Rose Show (I was watching-so I know this is true) and he did something I initially thought odd and then I got it loud and Clear. Begala congratulated Obama on winning or looking as though he had won NH--the point of that statement was too create some dismay in NH voters who don't want anyone to presume about their vote. Second, Begala advised Hillary to show NH voters her vulnerability and to show her "soft" side. That was Friday evening. On Saturday at the debate, Hillary smiled, did a cute poor me retort and told the guys they had hurt her feelings and did a piece of show biz coyness. On Monday, she cried...on cue. They are saying the signs asking Hillary to Iron my shirt, was the practical joke of a radio station, but then they say the signs were printed on the side of the poster board that could be seen by the audience rather than by Hillary who was standing at Podium. If the signs were really there to heckle Hillary shouldn't the sign's print been pointed toward Hillary? Except and of course not if you wanted the camera to be able to shoot the signs for the 11:00 pm news.

I speculate on the rumor about the signs, but I saw Charlie's show and I saw Begala set the agenda for Clinton and I saw her carry it out in the following days.

joseph pierre wrote on January 9, 2008 4:02 PM:

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

oranckay wrote on January 9, 2008 4:02 PM:

It looks like Oprah supports Obama but the Oprah Book Club supports Clinton.

dave wrote on January 9, 2008 4:03 PM:

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!

Nat Turner wrote on January 9, 2008 4:03 PM:

All the old macho boys commenting as though they've never shed tears in their lives about anything. Pathetic are your musings.

colonpowwow wrote on January 9, 2008 4:03 PM:

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.

LS wrote on January 9, 2008 4:03 PM:

Lifelongdem - nice point, missed that.
This campaign is certainly bringing up more and more of the sexism that is still hanging around. I have noticed that Obama does something similar by referring to her as Hillary, rather than Senator Clinton, a subtle way to erode at credibility and respect.

Steve wrote on January 9, 2008 4:04 PM:

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

grover_rover wrote on January 9, 2008 4:04 PM:

@lombard

You are missing the point. Look at you, you are so unwilling to even take a honest look at the data. I'm not saying I've verified everything and that I'm crying foul, that would be stupid without having first researched it. I'm not a dumbass like that. However you seem quite dedicated to refusing to even consider the possibility that something went wrong, purposefully or accidentally. That is the difference and that is the point, I'm actually interested in RESEARCHING the issue to find out for myself, whereas you instantly go out on the attack and obviously don't want to look at the data that is out there. There is no use debating this with you because you obviously don't care to know the truth. You might be right, you might be wrong, who knows, I don't, yet, but at least I care to check.

And really, people get over this jumping on the Obama hate bandwagon stuff, he didn't say it. This whole thing is ridiculous.

silver wrote on January 9, 2008 4:05 PM:

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...

morris1030 wrote on January 9, 2008 4:05 PM:

Jesse Jackson is an abomination. He is an angry smear meister and considering that Obama absented himself from Jena 6, and has contended that Katrina was a matter of "incompetence" is just garbage.

Obama has not associated himself with racially based issues, except as when rhetoric permits.

Blacks have said that Obama is not "black" enough. Now he hopes to connect with all the Clinton supporters in the Black community.

Jesse is the new "hit" man.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 4:05 PM:

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

freaktown wrote on January 9, 2008 4:06 PM:

forthose of you saying this will doom Obama, you're wrong.

I know some of you thank all black people look, act, and think the same, but you're wrong.

Jesse Jackson Jr is not Barack Obama.

JJ jr is entitled to his opinion. In no way does he say, Senator Obama feels this way, and in no way does this reflect a new line of attack. JJ Jr. is doing what the jacksons do, voice their opinion (however unpopular it may be).

You're making a huge deal out of something that won't matter in the long term politically.

Obama is about hope. Hillary is about gaining power for power's sake.

Voters will recognize the difference.

And no amount of fake tears will be enough to overcome that.

ava wrote on January 9, 2008 4:06 PM:

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.

IFN wrote on January 9, 2008 4:08 PM:

Fire him. Now!

Gaiilonfong wrote on January 9, 2008 4:08 PM:

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

Mike Bakunin wrote on January 9, 2008 4:09 PM:

Jesse "Cynicism" Jackson.
Sounds like the Obama folks are crying all over the place.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 4:10 PM:

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?

colonpowwow wrote on January 9, 2008 4:11 PM:

LS:

As a Hillary supporter, I agree that sexism is deemed acceptable here in a way that racism would never be (nor should be) tolerated for a second.

That said, Senator Clinton uses "Hillary" on her website and campaign posters, etc., so I don't think Obama is guilty of any kind of subtle putdown by using the name she herself prefers on the campaign trail. Aside from campaign posturing, they obviously know and like each other, and I think it's a genuine liking and respect.

Michael A wrote on January 9, 2008 4:12 PM:

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.

freaktown wrote on January 9, 2008 4:13 PM:

erok:
"The Republicans hate her, the media hates her, hell, half of her own party hates her."

so heres a question, if all republicans hate her, if the media hates her, if half her party hates her, if half the country say they absolutly under no circumstances will vote for her, WHY IS SHE IN THIS?! GET THE HINT AND GET OUT.

And you overlook the fact that she has ggiven every one of those groups numerous reasons to feel that way about her. She should get no sympathy for having to lay in a bed she made

They don't not like her because shes a woman. They dont like her because, as i said, she's a freaking machince who doesn't care about whats right or wrong for her country, but only cares about what will make her more politically viable. To paraphrase Edwards, Hillary has a history of not doing the right thing, but of doing the POLITICAL thing. She acts out of political self interest (as do most politicians) which is why having another career politician in the White House won't effect the CHANGE this country so desperatly needs.

OPUS wrote on January 9, 2008 4:13 PM:

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.

IFN wrote on January 9, 2008 4:14 PM:

The whole point is to retain dignity while Hillary goes negative. The moment the Obama campaign goes negative, they lose the high ground.

These are really dumb remarks. Hillary won by a couple points. So what? She's still in trouble, especially when Edwards drops out.

Fire Jackson now!

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 4:17 PM:

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 wrote on January 9, 2008 4:17 PM:

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

You know, dear Ava, I am an Obama supporter, so nothing would please me more than to think that my guy won NH. That said, I am not sure that "opednews.com" and "ronrox.com" really count as reliable sources for this sort of claim. Meanwhile, "optical scan" ballots are paper ballots, so I am not sure what those sites can mean in distinguishing between the two and claiming that Obama won one and Clinton the other.

freaktown wrote on January 9, 2008 4:19 PM:

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.

notforobamanow wrote on January 9, 2008 4:19 PM:

Somewhere, sitting behind a keyboard, with a large scotch sitting in a crystal tumbler, sits bush's brain, smiling that chesire cat smile.

He has just won the election for the republicans.

Woman-v-black. Obama won't survive it in a general election, hillary won't have the votes of the obama supporters if she makes it. Divided the dem's fall.

Rove wins. Does everyone feel better now?

sunrunner wrote on January 9, 2008 4:19 PM:

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.

jimbo wrote on January 9, 2008 4:21 PM:

What an unbelievable amount of hype over a barely discernable amount of tears.

LifeLongDem wrote on January 9, 2008 4:21 PM:

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.

Jor wrote on January 9, 2008 4:22 PM:

I also think the clinton tears were fake. On HuffPost, they are saying the woman who asked the question that caused hillary to choke up thought she was faking as well.

However, this is just a loser to talk about. Hillary is a-emotional, like a vulcan. While she can pull it off once, there is no way this "emotional hillary" will survive the next month. Let it self destruct on its own, and just keep your mouth shut. It's very hard to accuse someone emotions of being fake -- thats a very big slap, thats not seemly thing to do. Even though we all sorta think its true.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 4:23 PM:

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.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 4:28 PM:

Meanwhile, I notice that the mayor of Atlanta has endorsed Obama. Good news, that, especially for the Feb 5 GA primary.

zozosmom wrote on January 9, 2008 4:28 PM:

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.

Pepp wrote on January 9, 2008 4:29 PM:

colonpowwow wrote on January 9, 2008 3:53 PM:
CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 2:32 PM:
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.

Yes and not a peep of outrage not a challenge either, not on the left blogs who piled on, not from the DNC, not from the Party establishment exception John farmer I guess, not from Edwards, Obama or Richardson, imagine if the foot had been on Obama who is black, Richardson Hispanic, Edwards southern white male shoes and the outrage that would have erupted not sure again what this means but I feel it felt it all week and it makes me wonder if Dems are up to looking at the nation and winning the White House also feels like an elitist male hierarchy entitlement movement. Very confused on this bashing of women and boomers but a party wedge is emerging dosent feel good and fortunately it was none to subtle so NH voters reacted and engaged. Hoping the Party isnt thinking their base are sheepeoples seen but not to be heard thats a big mistake.

Clinton Bush VI wrote on January 9, 2008 4:29 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 4:30 PM:

grover_rover wrote on January 9, 2008 4:04 PM:

@lombard

You are missing the point. Look at you, you are so unwilling to even take a honest look at the data...... I'm actually interested in RESEARCHING the issue to find out for myself, whereas you instantly go out on the attack and obviously don't want to look at the data that is out there. There is no use debating this with you because you obviously don't care to know the truth."

No, you are missing the point. I don't know what your background is but I am a Ph.D. with significant training in statistics. If the exit polls show no discrepancy, there is no reason to investigate the data further because the actual results (at least in aggregate) reflect the way people said they voted when interviewed. There is problem here that matters in the slightest.

And, again, I repeat, there were no regional polls available to my knowledge so there is no way to determine local anomalies. However, even if there were, there would be little reason to investigate because the vote in aggregate matters and that matched the exit polls with as much precision as you are likely to see in any election.

I am not the hard headed one. You are the untrained one who doesn't realize that there is no issue of voter fraud here (or at least none that had even the slightest material result in the final outcome).

doodahman wrote on January 9, 2008 4:31 PM:

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.

Shii wrote on January 9, 2008 4:35 PM:

doodahman, this is the kind of language that divides people. Obama has constantly been solidly against such bickering. If he doesn't fire this co-chair dude then something is deeply wrong with his campaign.

nrglaw wrote on January 9, 2008 4:36 PM:

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.

Clinton Bush VI wrote on January 9, 2008 4:36 PM:

I've been all about change for 35 years. Look at what we did with WalMart when I was on the board...we changed everything! Our product sourcing, our profit margin, everything! We made bigger parking lots. This was all change!!

Laura wrote on January 9, 2008 4:37 PM:

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

zozosmom wrote on January 9, 2008 4:38 PM:

>

And Obama was calculating enough to vote for war funding every time, and to say that his and Bush's positions on the war are identical, but his Mr. Change "I am the anti-war candidate" -- "I am the messiah" blather is inspirational, authentic and magical.

Registered Independent wrote on January 9, 2008 4:38 PM:

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.

Clinton Bush VI wrote on January 9, 2008 4:40 PM:

How about invading Iraq? That's been a HUGE change we've worked on and made a real difference. There were no soldiers there to protect us just a few short years ago, but I worked across the isle and changed all that. We were facing a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud, and now we're surging to victory! Now that's change you can be ready for!!

Day 1!!

Dawn wrote on January 9, 2008 4:40 PM:

Wow. Tear analysis.

This IS a new kind of politics.

whatever wrote on January 9, 2008 4:41 PM:

One other thing. To the person who claims republicans hate HRC, let me clue you in - they hate all dems and will eviscerate obama.

63% of the voters in NH didn't vote for obama either. That doesn't mean they hate him. But once the repugs get through with him, 63% of the country may not vote for him either.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 4:41 PM:

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

Jane wrote on January 9, 2008 4:42 PM:

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.

Dawn wrote on January 9, 2008 4:42 PM:

When Obama can transform his own supporters maybe I'll believe in the hope that he can transform the Senate Republicans.

Foreigner wrote on January 9, 2008 4:43 PM:

It is acceptable to see a women in tear and unaceptable for a man

Jim wrote on January 9, 2008 4:45 PM:

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?

Clinton Bush VI wrote on January 9, 2008 4:46 PM:

Barack Obama doesn't understand the first thing about political neccessity. It sounds fine to oppose the Iraq war, but does he not realize this means the republicans will try to paint you as weak?? You have to vote for this kind of thing or you will be crucified. This is the kind of important change that he cannot bring about. Only the DLC understands the need for this kind of change.

CalD wrote on January 9, 2008 4:46 PM:

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."

Robin wrote on January 9, 2008 4:47 PM:

This type of comment annoys the hell out of me, more so because it comes from Obama's camp. Not only are they saying a fellow democrat is a liar, they are saying that she can at will, deliver an Oscar's performance doing it. I don't buy it.

The fact is that people who are normally used to being in control break down emotionally when confronted with a problem they can't fix alone.

Katrina was fixable. Clinton knew that. She didn't need to cry she needed to yell and swear then and make phone calls. What she couldn't fix were her poll numbers I think to her is close to what a fireman think when they loses a house with 3(X '00 Million) people in it.

You get choked up when that happens.

luther T. wrote on January 9, 2008 4:48 PM:

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.

Clinton Bush VI wrote on January 9, 2008 4:50 PM:

Common guys, just one more time. I swear, this will be the last. Except I mean 2012 too of course. And Jeb deserves his shot too...this is America after all. But then that's it. Chelsea won't want run. I promise. Now if people beg her to run --because let's face it, who besides a Clinton or Bush is going to win?-- now that's different. If they beg her. But then that's absolutely it.

freaktown wrote on January 9, 2008 4:52 PM:

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.

Bush-the-Next wrote on January 9, 2008 4:52 PM:

Hi, I'm an Obama supporter.

I want to elect a candidate with less experience than GW Bush.

I want JJR to be secretary of Defense.

I want Al Sharpton to be on the Supreme Court.

I won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.

This will end up in an arrogant, incompetent administration, but it is all in the name of change.

I want all of this because I think it's cool, and he is hot.

Obamamania. Diggit.

James wrote on January 9, 2008 4:53 PM:

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

zozosmom wrote on January 9, 2008 4:54 PM:

Re: Luther T

Their insistance on not referring to her as Senator Clinton is calculated and demeaning, I agree.
In that one debate when they ganged up on her, they all called her "SHE" and "HER."

Only Richardson and Biden referred to her as Senator. This contributed to the sense that the boys were bashing her as a woman. After all, there was only one she on the podium.

Caquestions wrote on January 9, 2008 4:56 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 4:56 PM:

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

Dawn wrote on January 9, 2008 4:56 PM:

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.

Jim wrote on January 9, 2008 4:56 PM:

The DLC is bankrupt. The Democrats went with Gore and Kerry, both DLC Democrats, and lost to Bush (or didn't take office). DLC Democrats such as Clinton take more corporate and lobbyist money than anyone else in the party, and their speeches usually bore people to tears. The DLC strategy is uninspiring and without a vision for the future of our country; it lives in the past. I guarantee you: If we go with the DLC strategy again, a Republican will end up winning the general election. It will be close of course, just like it has been. Of course the DLC supporters would say that it is only that close because of that strategy, and advocate a continued focus on a DLC strategy. It is not working, GET IT??? The DLC strategy is good at securing the DNC nomination, it is utterly incompetent at bringing independents and moderate Democrats into the fold. We need to try a progressive approach for once, or the DLC needs to reconnect with what American people actually care about.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 4:58 PM:

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?

LS wrote on January 9, 2008 4:58 PM:

colonpowwow and Michael

I didn't say it was sexist I said it was disrespectul and I feel strongly that no matter the PR, in dialogue with her, she deserves from him or any fellow candidate to be referred to as Senator Clinton, as she earned the title. No more no less. Unless, she has specifically said to him and other candidates which she may have, call me Hillary.

I did however, say that this election is bringing out some of the sexism in this country, and I think reading blogs makes that one pretty easy. The fact that we are even spending this much time on "tears" slam dunks that one.

freaktown wrote on January 9, 2008 4:58 PM:

"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.

Steve wrote on January 9, 2008 4:59 PM:

Bwahahahahahha..... here's your politics of hope, you poor deluded Obama adolesents!! Oh no, where's the dream of all that kumbaya independent goodness that was going to save the world and usher in the American Renaisance?

Does this mean we aren't going to have that big party where we all hold hands with the Republicans?! Gosh, I'll sell my party favors. Oh....too bad...so sad.

mcc wrote on January 9, 2008 5:00 PM:

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.

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

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

I guess I didn't because she is familiar to all of us (and encourages that familiarity of use of her first name) in a way that almost no one else is. She has been known as "Hillary" to those who like her in the way that Bush has been referred to as "W."

"Hillary" is really much more endearing and larger than life than Senator Clinton.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 5:07 PM:

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!

mel wrote on January 9, 2008 5:13 PM:

So it's not fair to mention Obama's level of experience which is a factual public record but it's OK to question Sen Clinton's tears which as far as I know have not been subjected to any forensic examination that proves they were less than legitimate. Let's get back to the candidates and their supporters discussing issues and not the other candidates and let the electorate decide.

synykyl wrote on January 9, 2008 5:14 PM:

Wow. For a group claiming to offer inspirational new generation leadership, Obama and his team sure seem to be a bunch of old-fashioned jerks.

Nascar wrote on January 9, 2008 5:15 PM:

There is a conflict through the analysis of the presidential candidates tears? It is obvious that even from miles away all have felt the widespread effect of hurricane Katrina indirectly and emotional. Is it then fair to correlate these two factors?

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 5:15 PM:

Quoting Greg D. "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!"

Florida lost its right to seat delegates when it moved its primary.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 5:17 PM:

Amen synkyl!

mel wrote on January 9, 2008 5:17 PM:

As an afterthought I remember Dick Butkus crying at his Hall of Fame introduction. I'd like to see one of you posting from your home weenies track him down and call him a wuss.

BluePuppy wrote on January 9, 2008 5:17 PM:

"Bluepuppy, you obviously know nothing about LBJ."

Michael, please. LBJ, as senate majority leader, PASSED the 57 Civil Rights bill and as president he forced the southern senators to accept and not to filibuster the 64 & 65 Civil Rights bills. I know you think you're smarter than everyone else, but your facts are actually wrong. Of course he was cut throat. Or effective. Or a doer, as Hillary says. The point is to get things done, to win, to force change. And he did. I know full well that LBJ didn't invent "We shall overcome." He appropriated the poetry of the civil rights movement while actually outlawing discrimination. It's one thing to say "Yes, we can." It's another thing to say "Yes, we did." I think it's why so many of us are turned off to Obamarama's sales pitch. It doesn't acknowledge that hardball politics are necessary to win progressive victories. By the way, smarty pants, read Robert Caro's series on LBJ and you'll learn a lot.

Miles wrote on January 9, 2008 5:19 PM:

Someone explain to after Senator Clinton Fake tears, the comment she made that "this is very personal to me and I don't want us to Fall back". Not we don't
want to fall back.
Someone plase tell her this not about her its about Americans

lombard wrote on January 9, 2008 5:20 PM:

ava wrote on January 9, 2008 4:06 PM:

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.

Comment:

Boy, you really are a hard headed, ignorant, propagandist aren't you? There was no voter fraud here (at least none that mattered in the aggregate). The exit polls matched the actual results (in aggregate) as well as any exit poll could. I've offered quantitative evidence of that but you are not interested in empirical truth; you are only interested in your bitter, partisan fantasies of being cheated of your desired result.

bbln wrote on January 9, 2008 5:21 PM:

gee- how many idiotic men are on this board? - here's one:

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

I think this is a legitimate question. She got emotional in response to a question about her hair. And yet she doesn't get emotional about Katrina or Iraq or any of the serious issues facing us

WHAT IS SHE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CAMERA IN HER FACE AT ALL MOMENTS - IS SHE SUPPOSED TO LIVE IN A BIG BROTHER HOUSE SO YOU CAN MEASURE THE SINCERITY OF HER EMOTIONS. WHAT A CROCK! THE OTHER SEXIST DYNAMIC AT PLAY - A WOMAN IS MANIPULATIVE, A WOMAN IS CALCULATED. All these men are digging themselves a much deeper hole with women voters who will make their judgment on Election Day.

Anthony wrote on January 9, 2008 5:23 PM:

I don't think so. The move will put the tears on the media centerstage for the next few days and voters wiil start ot get tired and start to rethink what the crying thing was all about. There are immediate reactions and then subsequent reactions that take time (days to weeks) to mature. This helps the maturation process out, and will prevent a future attempt at using tears to manipulation voters.

Lookingforhome wrote on January 9, 2008 5:25 PM:

So the first day after he loses his first election in this campaign, as he turns his sites towards an all-important, black-dominated state, Barack Obama has one of his most prominent black campaign representatives go on cable news and say:

"Hillary doesn't care about black folks as much as she cares about her own difficulties on the campaign trail."

Is this part of a pre-planned strategy launched on their way out of the all important first "white states?" Quite a unifying theme this, and of course almost unassailable, like the Oprah appeal that came before it, only radically less subtle.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 5:25 PM:

Florida lost its right to seat delegates when it moved its primary.

Sure, but will that be the line taken in March? I would not bet on it. Rep Pelosi (the chair of the convention) has said that the decision as to whether that rule will or will not be enforced lies with the nominee. If s/he agrees to seat them, they will be seated. As such, one cannot count them out, especially given that the candidate surely will not wish to alienate the voters of such an electoral-vote rich state as FL.

synykyl wrote on January 9, 2008 5:28 PM:

Well said BluePuppy. LBJ certainly had his faults and failures (Vietnam for one), but compared to everyone who has come after him, he was a hell of a President.

mcc wrote on January 9, 2008 5:31 PM:

Florida lost its right to seat delegates when it moved its primary.

Well, but the delegates aren't what matter here, are they? Clinton and Obama got the same number of delegates last night, 9 each, but I don't think anyone's going to seriously claim that this means Clinton didn't win NH.

I don't think Obama's going to win in Florida; after all, he's not campaigning there. The numbers can drift on their own, but the Obama campaign can't specifically do anything to close that gap.

loki wrote on January 9, 2008 5:32 PM:

BluePuppy... damn right!

Moved On wrote on January 9, 2008 5:34 PM:

What a thread! Not sure who if anyone will get this far -- but I fail to see why anyone is passionate about Clinton. She brings nothing to the table except her sense of entitlement.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 5:34 PM:

the Obama campaign can't specifically do anything to close that gap.

He could win NV and SC. I dare say that might do something to close the gap. ;-)

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 5:43 PM:

I've been an Obama supporter, hoping that he's more than a suit and a speech. However, if JJ Jr. is representative of the campaign, or of the type of appointments that would be made under an Obama admin., i really may have to rethink things. You just can't be the voice of hope/unity/creative communal problem solving and yet also be obliged to the sad old machine crap that JJ/JJ Jr represent.They may have been necessary in their time and place, but the idea that they are going to be major voices in an Obama admin. is really disturbing.

Maroon Watch wrote on January 9, 2008 5:46 PM:

He said this because Hillary is seen as more human now because she choked up for a second talking about her blessings and her fear for the country. Who hasn't? The story line of her being a cold calculating woman was diminished and he is trying to shore it back up. I say it's too late.

I also heard a black state senator from NC says on the NPR To The Point that, he believed blacks won't abandon "the Clintons to go on a exciting blind date." I think she's a shoe in now and I didn't decide to support her until she lost in Iowa.

savvy wrote on January 9, 2008 5:47 PM:

Thank you AVA @ 4:06pm
Your information is consistent with the exit polls which were consistent with the polls showing Obama up by 8 points going into the voting.

I do beleive that there was massive voter fraud in NH. That would be consistent with the tiny turnout for Hillary and the massive turnout for Barack in NH for their closing speeches there.

Also MCC@5pm

Jackson was referring to the question posed to Hillary right before she misty up which was 'who does your hair' that is what Hillary was asked before she went on the misty eyed teary weepy moment. WHO does your HAIR. That is what misty her up. So Jackson makes a fair point.

One other thing of note, the woman who asked the question was not moved by the misty eyed response she got and was totally flabbergasted by it. In fact, she was on CNN this morning telling the world that she voted for Obama.

Most of the older women I have spoken to also were unphased by Hillary's tears. That is consistent with the exit polls as well as the polls leading up to the actual voting.

Americans were ROBBED in NH!!!
Optical scan ballots should not show such a variance in the voting ratio between Hillary and Obama. It is just statistical not plausible.

Voter fraud is real and the Clinton machine and Hillary are stealing the most precious thing we have as American citizens in our democracy

OUR VOTES!!

grover_rover wrote on January 9, 2008 5:50 PM:

@lombard

Actually, for the only exit polls I saw, Obama was supposed to win over Hillary by a comfortable margin. So I don't know where your data is coming from on the exit polls.

Bruce Anderson wrote on January 9, 2008 5:53 PM:

Didn't the iron my shirt guy have a Clinton sticker on his notebook? Very strange. The Clintons went for broke. They figured they rather fake tears and plant a male chauvanist than lost the election.

And for those saying that Obama shouldn't fight back against the lies and distortions of the Clintons (at least to defend himself), do you want a president who won't fight back when attacked? Not with lies, but simply to correct the lies told by Hillary and Bill.

Ann wrote on January 9, 2008 5:59 PM:

This is what your complaining about. This is nothing. Where was the outrage when Hillary Clinton said that LBJ not MLK pushed the Civil Rights law. How about the fact the Bill Clinton twisted Obama's record and called Obama a fairy tale. Where was the outrage when Bob Kerrey called Obama a Muslim Manchurian candidate or Shaheen said the that Republicans may call Obama a drug dealer. Most of you said oh its just politics or I seen Shaheen is right thats why we cant vote for Obama because they want to go against Obama. Folks that are outraged are supporting the Hill anyways. Stop making something out of nothing.

mkolb wrote on January 9, 2008 6:09 PM:

I'll say again that this is the toughest race Sen. Obama has ever run - John Edwards and Hillary Clinton aren't Alan Keyes. How he runs his campaign from here on will tell us all more about him and what he stands for than almost anything else.

JJJr's statements were not a good beginning and it would behoove Sen. Obama to ask for his resignation, as Sen. Clinton asked for Shaheen's when he appeared to cross a line.

southpaw wrote on January 9, 2008 6:10 PM:

HRC had MLK/LBJ
Obama has JJJr/tears/Katrina...

call it an effing draw and move on both of you...

califone wrote on January 9, 2008 6:12 PM:

This whole speculation about race influencing the polls is BS. There is a greater chance the polls were fixed than some white conspiracy to lie on a telephone. Are they suggesting white people are so dishonest about race, they'd even lie on a telephone interview to someone they will never meet? BS! The media is covering their asses because they screwed up. Secondly, talking about the influence of race on polls is only going to set blacks back another generation. This is hogwash, and I'm really upset that the mass media is playing the race card to cover their lack of judgment. This only hurts Obama's campaign, and Obama seriously needs to ditch these Afrocentric moron's, and the white idiots like Chris Mathews justifying why they underestimated Clinton. (Now, there will be a strong possibility she will win, and this is only going to keep America as is.)

Obama/Edwards '08.

loki wrote on January 9, 2008 6:17 PM:

Move On said: but I fail to see why anyone is passionate about Clinton. She brings nothing to the table except her sense of entitlement.

Yep...she is indeed entitled to run for President of the United States and have every Obama purist pretend to think she's achieved nothing in her life, that she's only where she is because of Bill (imagine Laura running and getting as far based on her marriage to Dubya!), suffering the obnoxious aping of all the conservative right-wing talking points against her over and over again... all the while trying to maintain her dignity as best as one could expect.

Entitled indeed.

James Izzard wrote on January 9, 2008 6:25 PM:

Is this guy related to Jesse Jackson? Does he comprehend what that the Clinton's have done more for the black community than any other white politcal figures and this is the way they repay them.

This is a bigoted, racist comment and if the Obama folks don't fire this fucker then he should resign.

Where is the outrage?

BluePuppy wrote on January 9, 2008 6:27 PM:

"Where was the outrage when Bob Kerrey called Obama a Muslim Manchurian candidate"

Stop lying. Bob Kerrey never said any such thing. Bob Kerrey is one of the most honorable men this country has ever produced. Just because your candidate lost doesn't give you license to lie.

doodahman wrote on January 9, 2008 6:28 PM:

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.

Uh huh. Well, first off, she's a lousy actress because she didn't fool anybody with a whit of insight. As in, say, his Canadian (http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman01092008.html)

Clinton has shown yet another unpleasant aspect of herself in this campaign: her excruciatingly bad acting talent. First, there was that (recorded) use of Southern drawl when speaking in the South, then there were all those photo-ops with her face fixed in a determined, big-eyed Howdy Doody smile, and only recently, there was the quavering voice and whimpering sounds about it all being for America in reply to a question about how she continued her battle. She is simply terrible at doing these things, and I am sure it is obvious to all astute readers of human communication. The impression made is disingenuousness.

Not to mention the fact that she is the type of person who would stay with her husband after being publicly humiliated by his exposure as a serial philanderer. Does that sound like the behavior of a real, emotional person?

Well, we'll never know the truth, at least until somebody on the campaign finds they have to sell a book to make ends meet. But I'll wager one thing: if she loses the nomination or the election, she'll somehow find it in herself to divorce Bill in about two heartbeats.

Brian M wrote on January 9, 2008 6:29 PM:

I have no idea if her tears were real or not. When I first saw the incident my initial reaction was one of sympathy as I sensed the stress of the campaign and her (possible) perception that things were not looking so good for her. After all she has devoted a great deal of personal effort and ambition (nothing wrong with that) in her quest for the nomination.

Then she spoiled it while in mid-lower lip quiver finding the composure to bash Obama's lack of preparedness for assuming the office.

Still, the Obama camp response is stupid. She really can't ride that scene to the nomination but being so petty can derail the Obama express...er, limited.

doodahman wrote on January 9, 2008 6:31 PM:

Blue Puppy:

Oh my. You are something. LBJ was great? You must have ridden in on the same turnip truck. Not only was he one of the most corrupt presidents in history, he also engineered the Vietnam War by faking the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Or, do you think that's acceptable because he passed the Civil Rights Act? Which, incidentally, only passed because Kennedy was assassinated and was the driving force behind it. But you must have a warm spot in your heart for the Vietnam fiasco, since you also consider Bob "Shoot The Kids Last, They Run Slower" Kerrey to be a great American.

synykyl wrote on January 9, 2008 6:38 PM:

All this "Bradley effect" talk is utter nonsense. Obama won the male vote by 40-29 percent, but lost the female vote by 46-34 percent. Does anyone really believe this was due to different levels of racism between the two sexes?

ShutupNvote wrote on January 9, 2008 6:43 PM:

I say to Senator Obama and his supporters, we old worthless goats who sit around crying boo hoo about our looks while faking it who according to you all have no right to the future or a voice in this party say Bring It On. And Senator as you do not wish to be called kid I suggest you also respect Senator Clinton and address her as Senator I find your use of her first name in a formal debate session dismissive of women, as well. And all you fellow dems jumping on this divisive strategy raging about race using it as a club how about your blatant rabid viscous sexism and ageism you’ve been spewing. These are deep wounds being inflicted, hell Huckabee appeared to be the Statesmen in the race yesterday, and on an already raw base Representative Frank is correct you run a great risk for the Party when you remove the differentiators of Party principles.

Richard wrote on January 9, 2008 6:49 PM:

Well that does it for me. I have had it with Saint Obama's minions...and him too. How in the hell does this clown know whether Clinton cried over Katrina? Perhaps she did not cry on camera but is this idiot going to suggest that HRC did not give a carp about the Katrina victims? If so do it buddy..come on out with it and just say it. Has Obama , excuse me St. Obama cried for the 4900 dead in Iraq? How about the folks without health insurance? Or the homeless..the folks getting their houses nabbed?
This little creep is all about the same old crap..there is no CHANGE here at all.

Michal Clark wrote on January 9, 2008 7:00 PM:

Okay, she cried. If she cried it was prompted by the thought of the presidency slipping from her fingers. If a man cried similarly he'd be out of the race the next day. And who the hell wants Slick Willy back in the White House? This guy was and is a joke. He's the ultimate triangulator. Clinton would never mention the word "urban" without using the word "rural" in the same sentence. Fine, but give me someone with principle. Someone not afraid to talk about urban issues on their onw merits without fear that he has to cover his ass by counterbalancing with rural issues.

ChrisO wrote on January 9, 2008 7:11 PM:

I seem to recall that every inappropriate comment made by anyone associated with the Clinton campaign was immediately labeled by Obama supporters as part of the Clinton's Master Plan. There's no possibility that some county chair could go off the reservation, everything had to be orchestrated by the Clintons. Now, the Obama co-chair makes remarks that are roundly criticized by everyone, yet I see a lot of Obama supporters seeming to say that it doesn't reflect the view of the campaign since Obama didn't say it. Not very consistent, if you ask me.

I'm also amazed at the incredible self-assurance among Obama supporters, who know exactly what was going through Hillary's mind when she teared up (and who have also apparently been by her side for years, allowing them to proclaim that she never cried about Bill's infidelities.) If you want to be skeptical about it, fine. But just declaring "of course it was contrived" based on nothing more than wishing it so is ridiculous. And if she was choked up about something personal to her, so what? I'll bet there's been tons of losing candidates, male and female, who've locked themselves in their hotel room and had a good cry over a lost election. It's an exhausting process, and she definitely takes more personal shots than anyone.

A perfect example of the illogic permeating this thread was the post about Bill Clinton saying the incident probably helped her. Saying it after the fact does not mean it was planned in advance. I think it helped her, too. I guess that means I was in on the planning? And for evryone who says she's fair game for criticism because her csmpaign exploited the emotional moment, could you please provide an example of when they did that? Or let me guess, they had their corporate stooges in the MSM do it for them. Another pleasing conspiracy theory that requires no proof.

And can we stop trhis "code word" bullshit. Clinton referred to Obama as kid, which means boy, which is a code word? How silly. I don't doubt that there are many code words that blacks are attuned to, but many of the examples I've seen look pretty contrived.

Finally, I see a lot of references to how she has no feelings, is an ambitious machine who only thinks of herself, etc. I'm curious where people who don't know her, and likely have never met her, get this. This cometely mirrors the image promoted in books put out by right wing Hillary haters. I don't recall much in the way of her public statements or actions that prove that. Can we please have some examples. And no, I wouldn't consider campaigning against Obama to be proof of her selfishness.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 7:18 PM:

It's totally unfair that Hillary cried. Empty suits can't cry.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 7:21 PM:

Obama: the candidate who's not afraid to take bold positions in favor of hope(!) and change(!) and pretty unicorns(!)

"Dude, you like money AND sex? I like money and sex too. We should totally hang out."

TQTGA wrote on January 9, 2008 7:24 PM:

Real tears? Fake tears? Sexist tear backlash? I don't know and I don't care: I will not be distracted by something so trivial. We have lost almost 4000 soldiers in Iraq and about 30,000 more have been wounded. Nobody knows how many have PTSD. The new WHO estimate of Iraqi civilian fatalities is 150,000. I know who voted for AUMF and whether they apologized for that (Edwards) or not (Clinton), I will not vote for them.

burntbeans wrote on January 9, 2008 7:28 PM:

in the words of the immortal Vivian Ward,

"Big mistake: HUGE!"

Alex wrote on January 9, 2008 7:31 PM:

Well, he's right.

Roy Sullivan wrote on January 9, 2008 7:45 PM:

Jesse Jackson Jr. is an IDIOT.

I bet you when Barack Obama loses another state that they will attribute his lost to RACE.

These stupid people shouldn't discredit the voters and the fact that Hillary is a viable candidate.

They should be happy they came in second.

No matter how the media spins this, people are tired of the Media sucking it to Hillary. They should subject Barack Obama to the same scrutiny but are afraid to be accused of Racism themselves.

Again, Jesse Jackson Jr. Shut your mouth before you destroy your candidates chances.

You and your father still live in the sixties. Grow up.

JulieL wrote on January 9, 2008 7:48 PM:

Holy God.

Y'know what, Hillary haters? Hate her politics, hate her speeches, hell, hate HER if you want. But saying that the "tears" (what tears?) are phony is just stupid.

Speaking of stupid, what was JJJr thinking? How does he know if she ever cried about Katrina? Perhaps she didn't in public (and look where just a catch in the throat got her!) but unless this idiot has a hidden camera following her around 24/7, he has NO IDEA what she's cried about.

Not to mention lying while he's at it. Appearance? Where did he even get that?

Michael wrote on January 9, 2008 7:52 PM:

What an idiot. How embarrassing for the Obama campaign. Shut up about the tears and move on.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 7:56 PM:

grover_rover wrote on January 9, 2008 5:50 PM:

@lombard

"Actually, for the only exit polls I saw, Obama was supposed to win over Hillary by a comfortable margin. So I don't know where your data is coming from on the exit polls. "

I used the CNN exit polls that were available within minutes after the poll closings. I calculated a weighted average vote estimate that came out to 39.7% for Clinton and 37.4% for Obama.

ShutupNvote wrote on January 9, 2008 7:58 PM:

This is all bull a red herring to detract from Senator Clintons win.

Congratulation Senator Clinton keep it up good luck in SC the not so subtle attempt by Senator Obamas surrogates out there claiming you are a racist is unfortunate and not very hopeful or uniting but I guess part of the game to win at all cost.

We old conflictive crabby boomer women not entitled to participate in the countries future salute you and you great comeback.

Ben wrote on January 9, 2008 8:11 PM:

Her tears need to be questioned. But it needs to be done by a woman, so she can't scream "SEXISM".

Michelle Obama is a stronger, better woman than Hillary could ever hope to be. I'd much sooner vote for her than Clinton.

Edwina Williams wrote on January 9, 2008 8:15 PM:

SHE DIDN'T CRY! SHE DIDN'T SHED A TEAR! MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!

KatNh wrote on January 9, 2008 8:16 PM:

How sexist of the author to assume that the comment regarding her appearance was about her LOOKS! There are other ways to interpret the word "appearance."

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 8:21 PM:

Is it even constitutional for Hillary to get the presidency? From his shenanigans this election season, it seems a Hillary presidency will belong to Bill as much as, if not more than Hillary herself. Is that legal or constitutional. Who's next Chelsea, and then maybe Chelsea's future husband, and then maybe their child? Maybe another Bush before or after Chelsea? Will Laura Bush run? What about the Bush girls? Jeb or maybe Jeb's kids?

savvy wrote on January 9, 2008 8:23 PM:

When I read posts like ChrisO's

I begin to think America deserves Hillary as President, after all these are the same Americans who voted GW Bush into office twice. The only thing they understand and love are idiots, incompetent pandering idiots.

Listen to ChrisO go on and on about sexism against Hillary and how using her first name is dismissive, despite her clearly referring to Barack by his given name AS WELL!

Worst this so called expert on sexist remarks doesn't seem to understand racially dismissive terms at all. O noooo, he lives in a cave obviously with only females as he seems to empathize with the contrived and completed scripted misty eyed moment Clinton had when she was asked about her HAIR?!

Give me a break. this women has yet to tear up about all the lives she DISMISSIVEly sent to war that died because she could not be bothered to read the NIE report.

Americans like ChrisO deserve Hillary and GW Bush as well.

This country is pathetic.

Americans haven''t seen leadership in so long they do not know it when they see it.

ugh. unbelievable.

frankly0 wrote on January 9, 2008 8:39 PM:

Looks like the august NY Times, no doubt surprised in a very unpleasant way by the outcome in NH, simply can't contain its Hillary hatred, and has to find a way of pissing on her parade.

I'm sure they're re-opening the investigation into Whitewater as we speak.

cwolff wrote on January 9, 2008 8:46 PM:

Tears, crying? I didn't see any of that except from me when I first saw the video! She didn't cry she got choked up with emotion. Just like she didn't FREAK out at the debate when she raised her voice and opened her eyes when telling all the important things she had accomplished. Remember, health care for children and for the National Guard??? No one else stood up for that, but when Hillary realized national guardsman who were small business owners, independent contractors and sole proprietors were having trouble with their healthcare because they were deployed in Iraq, she fought the Pentagon and Bush (who always talk about taking care of our troops) and got it done. It's overblown. Romney got chocked up discussing his religion and no one said boo about that!!!

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 8:59 PM:

Maybe CNN should have Jacqueling Jackson on talking about how she feels about Hillary and why she has decided to support her over Obama when her husband and son are working for the opposition. She must have put a lot of time and thought into it and I'd like to hear her perspective.

grover_rover wrote on January 9, 2008 9:04 PM:

JJJr was actually on Hardball after this and was asked the same question, he basically stayed with the same message, but just put it better, and this time he didn't mention Katrina, he mentioned Iraq and some other things, saying there were many sad things. I don't know, I think he definitely didn't put it the best way the first time, and really the whole argument (and the whole question) is kinda stupid, but I think the response on here has been even more ridiculous. I think he obviously mentioned Katrina in the first one because it was the first thing that came to mind and he couldn't come up with a longer list on the spot...I think if he really wanted to make it about race or Katrina or whatever, he would have stuck to that theme in his second interview, and he didn't. Frankly I'm tired of the tear debate, I think it misses the point, which is the most striking revelations from NH, which were the false smear mailers the Hillary campaign sent out, the fearmongering about a terrorist attack if she isn't elected (straight out of Bush/Cheney/Rove), and Bill Clinton's deplorable butchering of facts and history to try to make Obama out to be a flip flopper on Iraq. Those are the things that scare me about the moral state of this campaign, not this stupid ass tear hype. This editorial over at Huffington Post does a good job at showing what the media is missing about NH (which actually helps the Clintons a lot): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/senator-clintons-fearmon_b_80782.html

Desider wrote on January 9, 2008 9:36 PM:

Perhaps Obama supporters should realize they represent him with their opinions. Unable to throw a cohesive sentence together, continually shooting yourself in the foot? You do have another option.

ChrisO wrote on January 9, 2008 9:43 PM:

savvy:

Yeah, you're real savvy, all right. Please point out where I ever mentioned sexism, or whether anyone addresses Hillary by her first name. Your lack of reading comprehension is surpassed only by your ability to spout gibberish. I'm not surprised you think Hillary supporters and Bush supporters are the same. The fact that you still think she was responding to a question about her hair makes it clear that you're not particularly tuned in to what's going on. pnr posted the link to video of the actual question here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-W3IXRTHU. Why don't you watch it instead of getting your information from commenters on HuffPo, then you won't sound so uninformed.

So, you got it wrong about me crying sexism, you got it wrong about me saying anything about her first name, and you got it wrong about the question she was asked. Three quick strikes. Not a very good at bat.

Danny wrote on January 9, 2008 9:59 PM:

Hillary can get emotional 'cause she's human. And this doesn't mean she can't govern. What I thought was good is that she didn't let one tear fall. She struggled to hold back them tears and with this she solidified my vote for her.

uscook, wrote on January 9, 2008 10:09 PM:

Tears are not a sign of weakness but of realizing something in its fullest degree.

A few more tears and far fewer fake faces would serve us better.

Don Warriner

Whit wrote on January 9, 2008 10:12 PM:

There were no tears. It was just a affectation of her voice. The camera is clear on that. Her eyes were even smiling. And she grinned as she turned it into a cut at Obama.

My wife pointed this out to me.

Celt06062 wrote on January 9, 2008 10:25 PM:

I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher, who prided herself so much on being the "Iron Lady" that when she claimed she sometimes had a "little cry" after a hard day in Parliament, hardly anyone believed her.

When she was photographed crying -- after tendering her resignation to the Queen, having being defeated in the leadership election of the Tory party -- the conclusion most of us drew was that it was only the loss of power that upset her.

I think Hillary's emotional moment (I didn't actually see any tears) was genuine. She was just afraid she'd lose the primary.

Dee wrote on January 9, 2008 10:28 PM:

I've been reading snippits of voter fraud in the New Hampshire primary. Nothing in the mainstream media. Anyone hear anything?

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 10:35 PM:

Hillary didn't shed a single tear. She did not cry. She welled up, her eyes teared up, but no tear fell. There is no photo of a tear streaming down Hillary's cheek. She held her composure. She did not cry and there is a huge difference between "welling up" and crying. A huge difference. So we should stop saying Hillary cried.

Now, why did Hillary "well up"? She was feeling sorry for herself, simple as that. Human beings often feel sorry for themselves, haven't you noticed? Apparently, this was the first time such a thing has happened to Hillary in public. That's a very good record, imo, since she has been under the media glare for a long time.

anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 10:40 PM:

The best thing to come out of all this is how Obama supporters who claim to be holier-than-thou rejecters of nastiness have shown what real a-holes they truly are.

BTW, I wonder what Obama supporters would say if Penn sent a couple of Clinton operatives over to an Obama appearance to yell "pick my cotton?"

Maybe the voters are finally seeing that with Obama they are merely going to get another 8 years of personality-cult defensiveness with mean-spirited supporters attacking with rabid ferocity and defamatory blathering anyone who dares question their annointed one.

jaime wrote on January 9, 2008 10:55 PM:

obama is brandishing change in every campaign but does not show a solid example for a change. he is advocating change in healthcare which is almost a copycat of clinton's. now he will be brandishing the race card and citing that crying is unfit for a president. didn't you all know that the strongest personalities are of women... who will shed tears by the pails but still continue with the struggles in life.

BOB wrote on January 9, 2008 10:57 PM:

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN...I am absolutely sick of talking heads...GIGO.

anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 11:02 PM:

Well, I'm sure Obama supporters can ask Clinton where the SPIN cycle is at her next appearance.

Abdul Rahim wrote on January 9, 2008 11:20 PM:

And had she cried, Hilary would be accused of faking emotion about something she knowns absolutley nothing about and has no personal connection to.

Foxx wrote on January 9, 2008 11:26 PM:

Well we've been waiting for an apology, for a firing for some hours now. Doesn't look like we are going to get it does it? Not even a comment.

It seems likely then that this was a caluclated strategy for the South Carolina and Nevada primaries to turn black voters and particularly to turn black women against Hillary.

xufapemu wrote on January 9, 2008 11:28 PM:

Every married man in the world has been in this situation. In the middle of an argument, his wife begins crying, effectively winning the argument. It's terribly frustrating and the reason so many men are dubious of Hillary's "moment".
The Clinton's should be prepared for the male backlash.

dcshungu wrote on January 9, 2008 11:33 PM:

Rough estimate: 75% of posters (regardless of who they support) feel that this was not warranted. Will Obama repudiate this sort of politics?

kozmik wrote on January 9, 2008 11:34 PM:

Right on.

Let's look at the Clinton record, and see where the tears are. Is she crying for NAFTA?

Observer wrote on January 9, 2008 11:36 PM:

The night before the "tears", Hillary had an interview in which she discussed crying by politicians. She said that men have cried, and that it shows a sensitive/softer side (or some such comment). The very next day, Hillary wells up during a question session. Very timely don't you think? Even the discussion of crying seems out of place in a political race, but to set the stage for the tears with her comments the night before is just far too coincidental. She talks about others being manipulative, yeah, right!

Ogre Mage wrote on January 9, 2008 11:37 PM:

Horrible move by Jesse Jackson, Jr. Is he trying to sabotage the Obama campaign from within? This is as bad as Bill Shaheen's comments about Obama's teenage drug use. Obama should fire his ass.

Xufapemu wrote on January 9, 2008 11:38 PM:

When will Hillary repudiate gender politics??? Live by the sword die by the sword.

kozmik wrote on January 9, 2008 11:39 PM:

And to the posters who claim this will be unpopular, for someone to finally call a candidate on their BS and theatrics, and demand people deal with issues.

Hey, wake up. Snap out of it. This isn't Survivor. This is your life.

We've been electing presidents on fluff and media narratives and that kind of pulp-fiction for decades.

Where has it gotten the country?

It's about time the Clintons were called out on their real economic record, and we do a little accounting of tears.

How many people have wept, to death, becasue they don't have HC insurance, becasue Hillary botched it last time, so badly, she killed the issue for over a decade. Where's the tears for that?

Marc wrote on January 9, 2008 11:43 PM:

Some of the "theories" behind Sen. Clinton's "emotional moment" are sexist and ridiculous. Saying the senator calculatedly collapsed into tears and that somehow flipped a switch that made those oh-so-emotional Democratic women check their ballot for Hillary is a low point of this campaign. She is damned for being "cold" and unemotional on the campaign trail and then condemned when she becomes emotional.

Rep. Jackson should be ashamed of himself by both playing the race card and questioning the authenticity of that moment. To me this is on the same level as Billy Shaheen casting aspersions about Obama's past drug use. This will backfire on the Obama campaign.

kozmik wrote on January 9, 2008 11:55 PM:

"Sexism" has nothing to do with it. It was just fake and self serving.

If she wants to cry, as Jackson said, how about some tears for all the policies the Clintons have botched over the years.

How can a person can weep at their own politcal fortune, and yet pass legislation time after time, with a smile, that screws the middle class and drives them to weep by the millions.

colonpowwow wrote on January 9, 2008 11:57 PM:

Wow!

This is clearly become an inexcusable embarassment to Obama and a lightning rod for Clinton supporters. Thanks, Junior.

We're just about freakin' fed up and cryin' mad from reading the ongoing lies, sexist "analyses," and innuendoes on this board from people who should know better, re Hillary, a lifelong fighter for the poor, for women, and for progressive causes.

Yes, you progressiver-than-thou, so-called Democrats should know better, but your blatant mindless, sexist irrational Hillary-hatred blinds you to the point where you are not even open to even discuss the facts of her lifetime of advocacy and Senate work that show her to be a perfectly good (and not perfect) Democratic voice and a fighter for liberal causes and social justice.

If you want to "blame" women and older people for Obama's loss in New Hampshire and for your unholy yet positively gleeful swallowing of long-discredited right wing lies about the Clintons, go ahead and continue to alienate and polarize these two groups - women and older people. They don't vote much, do they?

BTW women and older people cross all racial and class lines as well. Women were pissed in the NH election and that's a fact. Keep it up if you think it's working for you. As an older person, I've been irritated many times by the ignorance of history shown here by certain supporters of quite decent candidates. Arrogance is not change. By your definition, Al Gore is a politics-as-usual throwback to the Bush-Clinton era. We begged to differ in 2000 and we beg to differ now, whippersnapper!

I'd suggest that Senator Obama should step in and stop the bleeding ala Shaheen (sp?). But he's proven to be as stubborn as he is inexperien . . . uh . . . I mean . . . inspirational sometimes.

Joe G wrote on January 10, 2008 12:32 AM:

Ugh, colonpowwow, you are the worst sort of opinionated person... why do you even bother to express your opinion so overflowing with bile? So devoid of any real thought?

Both candidates have their pros and cons. Fact is, Hillary knows how to play "the game" very well and Obama refuses to condescend to that level. I do begin to think he may have to if he wants the nom.

Transcendental Floss wrote on January 10, 2008 12:36 AM:

Well, fortunately for Obama, it seems that no other media outlets have caught on to this.

Embarrassing for MSNBC, no?

Abner Kravitz wrote on January 10, 2008 12:43 AM:

Clinton's campaign has been in the mud all season, not Obama's. Clinton's campaign has tried everything, including covert and over racism. To ask Obama to repudiate this statement is beyond the pale. The fact is the woman cried over personal ambition and the likelihood (according to her own misplaced arrogance) that without her the country would "fall backward." There are probably 200 million Americans who are smarter and more capable than Hillary Clinton. There is nothing particularly exceptional about her. We will not collapse if she does not become president.

Smart Democrat wrote on January 10, 2008 12:52 AM:

The people who work for obama's campaign really should be fired or does obama reallysupport this desperate attack on our next President Hillary Clinton?

obama's team needs to fold, he has gotten away with too much. they lack experience anyway.

CalD wrote on January 10, 2008 12:53 AM:

Do we have any video of Barack Obama crying about Hurricane Katrina?

ScanDroid wrote on January 10, 2008 12:54 AM:

I see the news of this outrage hasn't spread to the MSM yet.

Thats ok. Let it spread. Let people pass it around. Let the word get out slowly. This is toxic to undecided votes and women alike.

You thought Bill was rough on Obama BEFORE? I think her husband, the same man who helped raise $150 million for Katrina victims, MIGHT just have something to say about this.

I still have hope for Obama. But his campaign is dead to me.

Sad.

Chris wrote on January 10, 2008 1:04 AM:

They really need to muzzle this guy. He caused a stir a few weeks ago when he said Obama had the "O.J. Simpson" problem--how does the black guy attack a white woman? It's like he's unconsciously trying to sabotage his own candidate.

Anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 1:11 AM:

I think that one joker is responsible for most of these posts. Apperantly this board allows multiple posts under multiple user names.

ShutupNvote wrote on January 10, 2008 1:19 AM:

colonpowwow wrote on January 9, 2008 11:57 PM:

Anyway it continued later today with a charge by a Professor Dyson a Senator Obama supporter on CNN and MSNBC that Senator Clinton and former President Clinton were using code racist words, hefty charge unbelievable really.

One of the problems with this pending train wreck is this silliness of the manufactured NEED of Change being job one before the economy, Iraq and immigration being so viscously debated intentionally divisive design to marginalize powerful groups within the base and it is so weak. Before this marketed need was crafted to sell a candidate the Dems swept almost every open seat in 2006, registration is at an all time high, Dem turn out the last election highest ever so the generational argument weak silly.

And now we have Bloomberg, media baron, threatening to enter the race and be a spoiler if we nominate Senator Clinton and not his choice Senator Obama......intimidation designed to subvert the Primary election process.

What are we the Independent Party interesting thought oh no the neo cons aren’t coming back are they??????????? ARGGGGG

sdhays wrote on January 10, 2008 1:24 AM:

My God! Move ON, people! She was exhausted and something about the setting and the question made her feel sentimental. Yes, if Obama or Edwards had done it, they'd be toast. Yes, it might have been staged (but I really, really don't think so). The woman voted for the Iraq War and stupidly trusted GWB AGAIN on the Iranian Republican Guard! I don't !@#$%^ care about how dry or watery her eyes get!

Mr. Jesse Jackson Jr.: Keep your blasted eye on the ball and focus on your positive campaign; stop sniping over meaningless drivel! It simply cheapens your own candidate (and I say that as an Obama supporter!).

Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA wrote on January 10, 2008 1:59 AM:

The media's gonna crucify Jackson?!?!?

I'm gonna crucify Jackson. What a totally boneheaded maneuver.

And Hillary's not even my first choice!

What's wrong with the Obama campaign? Pitch perfect to tone deaf in seven days, or what?

LarryE wrote on January 10, 2008 2:36 AM:

Clinton cried over her hair? Whose a** did that get pulled from? I'd say she cried (a little) because she was over-tired, frustrated, and expecting to lose NH.

Calculated tears? Planned? Are you joking? Because she is a woman, she is still expected every day to have to "prove" that she's "tough enough for the job." Even a few tears risks that and in fact a few have raised just that argument, going something like "Hey, what, is she gonna get all weepy if al-Qaeda gets in her face?"

And all you bozos - and yes, I'm looking at you, JJ Jr. - going "she didn't cry over Katrina," here's a question: How the hell do you know? The only thing you can say is you didn't see her cry over it - but just how do you know she didn't? And what the hell difference is that supposed to make anyway?

Geez, and I don't even like Hillary Clinton!

upper left wrote on January 10, 2008 3:43 AM:

I am a hard core Obama supporter. This is one of the first things to come out of the campaign that made me cringe. Just don't go there.

I think Hillary had an emotional moment that helped humanize her and helped address her serious authenticity deficit. Leave it alone.

Counter-punch against her lame accusations that you are a hypocrite. Point out her negative attacks every time she hits you. Encourage Dems to do better, encourage us to rise above Rovian style attacks, but leave the tears alone. This looks like she is being attacked for being a woman. Bad call.

devin leonard wrote on January 10, 2008 3:58 AM:

Jessie Jackson Jr, can say whatever he wants...but his boy got his butt spanked by Hillary and no amount of spin can change that.

JJ Jr. nees to accept that his boy is on his way out, it was a good fight, but now it's over.

Be Bye Obama, nice to have known ya:)

Timo Sinnemäki wrote on January 10, 2008 6:49 AM:

Given that this post has roughly a hundred times more comments than the average post and that most commenters are anonymous anti-Obama alarmists, I'd recommend the site admins to take a quick look at their IP addresses to see that there are no repetitions. Just a thought.

kay wrote on January 10, 2008 6:53 AM:

jj jr. is overtly subverting obama's chances. or, because he's unserious & dumb. those are the choices. he should be fired instantly. dyson, shut it--you are undermining o's message. all egomaniacs.

Timo Sinnemäki wrote on January 10, 2008 7:00 AM:

Eh, make it ten.

Mark P wrote on January 10, 2008 7:33 AM:

While turning this contest into racism vs feminism is a sure loser for the Democrats. If it comes down to dueling co-chairs playing on underlying hatred, Democrats are no better than the Republicans with their non-stop Al Qaeda-9/11 fear mongering.

I'm a bit concerned that Obama shares some of the blame. His remark "Your likeable enough" spoken with a snide whisper, seemed to be beneath the dignity he is trying to inject into politics.

pc wrote on January 10, 2008 8:04 AM:

As a very pro-woman,I couldn't get pastthe tears as they were totally out of character for Hillary.Her physical appearance no I think it was maybe more the appearance she was showing the country,world and that was causing the ache ,since she was trailing a young multcutural change canidate that will turn this country into a real "change" country. Lets look at how everyone picked up Obama's "Change" and worlded over time into makng it their own.Something did happen during the last hours but I don't think it was Hillary crying and being woeful.To end with this I admire Hillary and like her woman force but like anyone else on that trail to being POTUS ,it was a any-way to find an end to my means.

gtash wrote on January 10, 2008 8:10 AM:

I understand media vacuousness. Jackson isn't saying anything and the media feel it is their duty to make it appear so to fill the dead and leaden air they own.

Without exploring polling and voting machine irregularity in any depth, they have moved into more familiar territory: selling soap.

HRC's tearing up did cause people to wonder about her--some sympathetic and some suspicious. Mr. Jackson falls into the suspicious camp and whether he does this for political connivance or whether he is fgenuinely outraged that tears never emerged fromt he iron lady before in all her known career, I think the rational point he is making is a fair one.

Where was all this heart-on-my-sleeve compassion or thin-skinned sensitivity before? It sure looks like "image-management" to me too.

And if you think she did have a legitimate moment of injury, then why is John Edwards at fault for saying campaigns are rough and the Presidency rougher? You'd think HRC would know that by now--after 35 years of "experience"-- and if she really had no control over her feelings at that particular moment, she should have done a better job controlling herself.

No. I am no Obama supporter. But Jackson is being blamed for something he did not start, but he wants to see finished: an honest moment's reflection on what Hillary did by tearing-up.

Michael A wrote on January 10, 2008 8:35 AM:

ENOUGH, let's move on please.

Grant wrote on January 10, 2008 8:44 AM:

Despicable. I suppose this is what Obama meant when he said that he’d go all dirty Chicago political machine on Hillary.

Gervaise wrote on January 10, 2008 8:45 AM:

Jackson is a yahoo -- check out how he challenged a colleague to a fight.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10093488
It started when Democrat Jackson said, during a contentious floor debate, that Republicans can't be trusted.

Republican Terry responded by telling Jackson to "shut up," then walked over to add that he had found the Illinois lawmaker's comment inappropriate.

Terry said Jackson let loose a profanity-filled tirade.

"I'm not going to turn with my tail between my legs," Terry said, "so I just stood there."

Then Jackson asked Terry if he'd care to step outside.

ShutupNvote wrote on January 10, 2008 10:29 AM:

Time to move on indeed, but a wedge has entered the contest and the healing will not happen because it has already become ugly. And there is a movement not for Senator Obama that I am sensing but for control of the Party thats whats been bugging me this week that undercurrent the strong-arming like I somehow was in a Bush-Cheney Party all of a sudden.. Now anyone drop over to Newsweek and read Alters most recent dribble don these guys not really realize how draconian they sound. Seems to me to be a movement here that women badddd men goodddd and a strong arming to dictate to the women there choice. Anybody know where I can find the stats for Dem demographics in the country, how many, sex race etc? I know just as many male Dems as I do women and are women not the ones who are the swing voters generally in election? Anyway Jr needs to get some coaching from Pop whom by the way I admire greatly. Oh and by the way I just moved an Senator Obama supporter into Senator Clinton camp, he is young 30 MD, in NV yeahyeah attack women at your own risk in this party we have coattails. And go read the NYT PEW Bradley affect op ed needs to be considered when assessing delectability for Senator Obama and for Senator Clinton or does it apply to women need to do some research on this myself. Also is it not possible to call for change with a substantive measurable agenda old bad new good is a bad manufactured political need it will not hold up, and we have a 50s something women a boomer running to take this district from the Republicans and we have a good chine this time but trashing her as old bad cranky boomer could really shoot us in the foot here, ah and those old boomer cranky party types recall swept the elections in 2006 the manufactured need of change disappears into vapor when exposed to light. Tap Tap Good Day.
P.S. Senator Kerry well seems the old guard in lining up with the next best thing.

LS wrote on January 10, 2008 11:09 AM:

Senator Obama has not distanced himself or stated his co-chair was out of line, which in my mind means he is ok with it. So everything else aside, he is not holding himself to the same standards he preaches. do as I say not as I do.

Csteffe wrote on January 10, 2008 11:27 AM:

As a woman, I do feel manipulated by the tugging of the heart strings.
A few debates back, Hillary mentioned she wasn't running on being a woman,but on the fact that she was the right person for the job. But it seemed she played that card heavily in New Hampshire; in her tears, in the debate "A woman in office will be a big change."
When a woman is given special consideration just because she is a woman, then we are all disadvantaged- whether it is having doors opened or getting votes.

She is way to savvy a politician to 'break down' in tears- she certainly didn't during 911 when many politicians were visibly choked up, so I find her 'moment' disingenuous.
Now she is using that feminist battle cry,"I have found my voice!" It would be one thing if she meant it, but it is all in an attempt to garner votes.

Real equality will happen when we are all judged on our accomplishments and integrity, not the color of our skin and/or gender. Honestly, I think pulling out the woman card for votes is a manipulative blow to womens rights. It certainly is not representative of authentic leadership.

Powkat wrote on January 10, 2008 11:30 AM:

Okay, guys, listen up - I'll try to explain why women react to this kind of remark.

1. It is the same mind set that said, women are too emotional to vote, handle their own money, run a business, join the police, etc. etc. throughout history.

2. In the same way that African-Americans react to certain key phrases, like 'states rights' women react to phrases like 'hysterical' (and look up the origin of that word if you don't know it).

3. Women know full well that they have to work twice as hard for half as much to reach the level of power Clinton has - they know what it cost her to get there. And if you are going to say it's only because of her husband I'll tell you that her husband would not have succeeded as well as he did without her.

4. It's the Catch-22 of strong, powerful women - you are expected to act like a man, but if you do you are criticized for lack of femininity - too shrill, too harsh, lacking empathy. But if you ever do show emotion, you are condmed for acting like a woman. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

5. I have predicted for years that this country will elect a non-white man before it elects a woman of any color. Looks like I get to find out this year.

Got it?

Mark F. wrote on January 10, 2008 12:23 PM:

Greg Sergeant: you should really consider taking a break until after the primary season is over. You're so clearly biased, and so clearly uninterested in maintaining even the vaguest appearance of detachment that you have little credibility. Compare the obvious insinuation in your crappy headline with what was actually said. You're a great, shining example of what's wrong with the media these days. You should go to work for some partisan rag instead of fouling the waters here. You're one of the main reasons why I've mostly quit reading this formerly top-notch blog.

Moxie wrote on January 10, 2008 12:45 PM:

I won't soon forget the sight of Bill Clinton - after all, still the titular head of the party - savagely attacking Obama's integrity at Dartmouth. Can anyone imagine, say, Harry Truman in 1960 traveling to West Virginia to deliver such a blast against John Kennedy? Or Lyndon Johnson in 1972 visiting New Hampshire to issue such a deeply personal, highly public condemnation of George McGovern? And yet virtually no one in the party suggested that he might have behaved inappropriately.

I'm a lifelong Democrat who has never voted Republican for any office in my life. But in a McCain-Clinton contest, I'd vote for McCain. Though I disagree with him on many issues, at least he has integrity.

Anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 12:47 PM:

Hey Greg - you can't suck and jive.

Chester White wrote on January 10, 2008 1:32 PM:

Republicans are finding this so much fun.

Dems are assembling the circular firing squad as we watch!

anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 1:34 PM:

"Obama refuses to condescend to that level . . ."

What a hoot!!!!

You must've forgotten that "Clinton (D-Punjab)" xenophobic moment from the Obama campaign.

Or "iron my shirt."

Or the use of "Hitlery" by Obama supporters.

"I won't soon forget the sight of Bill Clinton - after all, still the titular head of the party - savagely attacking Obama's integrity at Dartmouth."

But its way okay to savagely attack Clinton's integrity.

LOL.

Mary wrote on January 10, 2008 1:42 PM:

Bad choice, Jackson.

Obama's claim to want a "new type of politics" has just been tarnished by the co-chair using the Katrina whistle.

Independents will be offended by Jackson tawdry use of same to bash Clinton , falsely.

Obama needs to step up and condemn this QUICKLY, or he will be tarnished by his "operatives" playing race games.

anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 1:46 PM:

Csteffe: " . . . in her tears . . . "

Since there were no "tears" this reeks with dishonesty.

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 10, 2008 2:13 PM:

Greg:

Josh claimns that someone from the TPM family asked
Obama about this statement. What was Obama's answer?
Will Jesse Jackson Jr. be retained? Is this story getting as
much coverage as the factually correct statment of Jack Shaheen?
Shaheen a supporter of Clinton's had to resign for making two
true statements.

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 10, 2008 2:13 PM:

Greg:

Josh claimns that someone from the TPM family asked
Obama about this statement. What was Obama's answer?
Will Jesse Jackson Jr. be retained? Is this story getting as
much coverage as the factually correct statment of Jack Shaheen?
Shaheen a supporter of Clinton's had to resign for making two
true statements.

Nancy Mendoza wrote on January 10, 2008 3:09 PM:

what an ass. i can't believe he is going to make this about her not crying at katrina. it's insulting and it is a terrible, desperate move. but they are not in a desperate position, so why would he lash out so absurdly?

Mary Beth wrote on January 10, 2008 3:52 PM:

Jesse Jackson just made a huge mistake. Injecting Katrina into this plays the race card. I thought Obama was the candidate of hope? Wouldn't hope ask him to campaign and believe us to be colorblind, hoping us into being that way? I felt sick when I watched this interview. Hillary cried when someone asked her about her and how she gets up everyday, not just about who does her hair. All of them looked beyond exhausted at the beginning of the NH debate. Isn't it highly likely she cracked a little under the strain???

By the way, Obama showed little emotion in response to Benazir Bhutto's death, something that clearly distressed and enraged Hillary.

I hope Obama reprimands Jackson for this. This is not change.

Silent S wrote on January 10, 2008 4:26 PM:

I'm black but cannot vote. Race is not an issue in this campaign. If Al Sharpton endorse Obama he will make it an issue. The reason why Obama won in Iowa is because it is an open Caucas. Anyone can see who you are voting for. And so many women who wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton could not do so because it was an open caucas. In New Hampshire women were free to vote for Hillary CLinton base on her issues without pressure from their husbands to vote for Obama. Hence Obama did overwhelming well among male voters.

We get away with sexism in the media that we cannot get way if it was racism. I am excited about these two candidates. FInally, citizens will have to discuss racism and sexism out in the open.

It's about time we have an honest dialogue.

libelian wrote on January 10, 2008 5:16 PM:

I don't think that either Clinton's tears or Jackson's response "read" simply, nor do I think they can be interpreted simply by splitting responses along traditional race or gender lines. As a white woman, I feel like Jackson's got a point here, however crassly political it might be for him to make it now.

Watching Hillary cry (almost) did "humanize" her for me, but after repeated viewings, I still haven't decided whether I believe the emotions are spontaneous or scripted. I'm a performance teacher and a lifelong actor, so I'm surprised to find myself facing such difficulty in interpreting Hillary's sincerity.

However, beyond being a bit startled by my inability to determine her sincerity, it doesn't really matter to me whether the tears are "real." Whether she "really" broke down or just took a calculated chance, the point remains that what she broke up over _was_ a question about *herself*. She may have used this as a way to draw a link between herself, her "humanity," and "what the country needs," but the point is that her emotions - real or feigned - were triggered by a question about *her*. She had this reaction, not in response to concerns about the country, but in response to concerns about herself.

The subtext here, which Jackson is pointing out, is that what brings out Hillary's tears are not national crises or situations that require empathy for others, but her own concerns about "looking bad," i.e., losing an election. So whether those tears were real or feigned, the source of their provocation speaks to a level of narcissism that has little to do with her being a good leader.

Such self-directed pity doesn't say a whole lot for her as a human being, either, in my opinion. I don't doubt that Hillary can feel pressure or express distress at the brutal assassination of someone she knows (viz. Bhutto). What I'm not so sure about is whether she really "feels our pain" - to paraphrase her far more charismatic husband. Maybe he's just a better actor, but I always believed that his politics were about more than just him. I've never been convinced by Hillary.

Jackson may not have chosen the best time or manner to suggest that Hillary's tears seemed a bit narcissistic, but I think it's a fair point.

anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 5:35 PM:

At a coffee shop in Portsmouth, Mrs Clinton became emotional when asked by a woman voter: “How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?”

After beginning her answer, her voice began to break and tears filled her eyes. “You know, this is very personal for me. It’s not just political it’s not just public. Some people think elections are a game, lot’s of who’s up or who’s down, [but] it’s about our country.”

It was a question about how she maintained an upbeat attitude in the face of sometimes vicious and always stressful political campaigning and she replied by pointing to love of her country and you claim that this was narcissistic!?

WTF!?

WHAT UTTER BULLSH*T.

What utter dishonesty about the context.

What a blatant self-serving spin on the circumstances and the tone and intent of the actual question that was asked.

anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 5:46 PM:

What a horrid woman Clinton is for wanting so much to personally do something positive for her country and getting all choked up about the opportunity to do so.

Man, what a b*tch!

Telling everyone that the election is not about her, but about the country!

Damn, that's sick, and not in a good way.

We can't let her get away with it!

We must vote for the person who has instead said it is all about him and his vision of hope, him and his vision of change, him and his vision of consensus . . . now, wait, which candidate is it that makes it all about their own personality and their own vision and their own interest in the country?

I'm confused, because after decades of observing politicians they all focus on themselves and what they bring to the table and what their personal investment is and Obama is no different in this than Clinton and pretending otherwise is delusional.

Oh, yeah

anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 5:59 PM:

You want to know why Obama picks up so much support among men, particularly black males, maybe you should consider this . . .

Much of the music and many videos specifically transmit, promote, and perpetuate negative images of black women. All women, but mostly black women in particular are seen in popular hip-hop culture as sex objects. Almost every hip-hop video that is regularly run today shows many dancing women (usually surrounding one or two men) wearing not much more than bikinis, with the cameras focusing on their body parts. These images are shown to go along with a lot of the explicit lyrics that commonly contain name calling to suggest that women are not worth anything more than money, if that. Women are described as being only good for sexual relations by rappers who describe their life as being that of a pimp. In many popular rap songs men glorify the life of pimps, refer to all women as they think a pimp would to a prostitute, and promote violence against women for 'disobeying.'

Of course, not all rap songs are misogynistic and all black men do not speak and think this way, but large percentages within hip-hop culture do. The name calling disrespects, dehumanizes, and dishonors women.

http://www.mysistahs.org/features/hiphop.htm

-----------------

There is real misogyny going on in this race that favors Obama.

Just like there will likely be real racism that favors Clinton or the GOP nominee who, after all, is guaranteed to be a white male.

But don't pretend it isn't cutting both ways and that both aren't suffering at the hands of a portion of the other's supporters and campaign workers, as well as at the hands of bigoted and sexist voters in general.

Quit pretending that Obama, his campaign workers, and his supporters are some kind of saints that haven't engaged in dirty, dishonest, misogynistic tactics against Clinton.

They have. They will. And it will be ugly.

Whether Obama himself agrees with it, authorizes it, tolerates it, or not.

Jackson Jr. is only the tip of the misogynistic iceberg that infests the Obama campaign and its satellites.

Quit living in a fantasy world.

Michael wrote on January 10, 2008 6:44 PM:

Sometimes I wonder...Jesse Jackson Jr is an idiot! Really Jesse! You want to question her authenticity! Really Jesse! Isnt that petty you addle minded, dotty and I want to appeal to no one but base idiot of a politician who is in the shadow of his father! Thank you for hurting Obamas campaign...Obama does not need representatives appearing on television wondering why she teared up for one thing but not another...IDIOT!

Michael wrote on January 10, 2008 6:45 PM:

Sometimes I wonder...Jesse Jackson Jr is an idiot! Really Jesse! You want to question her authenticity! Really Jesse! Isnt that petty you addle minded, dotty and I want to appeal to no one but base idiot of a politician who is in the shadow of his father! Thank you for hurting Obamas campaign...Obama does not need representatives appearing on television wondering why she teared up for one thing but not another...IDIOT!

kravitz wrote on January 11, 2008 12:54 AM:

Diner Woman Voted For Obama.

Today's (Jan 10, 08) New York Daily News is reporting the woman who asked Hillary the question voted for Barack.

And she did it BECAUSE of how Hillary responded. You need to check out the entire reply. It had a rather Andrew Cuomo tone to it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/01/10/2008-01-10_n_h_voter_who_got_hillary_clinton_to_wel.html

Giveitarest wrote on January 11, 2008 4:13 AM:

xufapemu, please keep trying to make this about guys getting backlash against women. That's such a winning issue in the Democratic demographic. I encourage you to push this issue as far as you can.

TattooedJohnDoe wrote on January 11, 2008 5:24 AM:

Everyone is missing the point about this election........

Its not a presidential race......its a racial race as well as a sexes race...

Hillary supporters are supporting Hitlery because shes a woman...not her policies and ideas.....

[most] Obama supporters are supporting Obama because hes black.....not his policies and ideas.....

THIS is a racial race.....you may not 'see' it......but it is....

Wake up White America.....or you will be mandated by your elected conquerors to sleep the rest of your life......

Look at Obamas church.......click on 'about us'..the 2nd one down.....read...

wait......this is from the church that he attends.....this is their "black value system"....

A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

Do you people actually know what this man, Obama, is up to?!?!.......he wants to transform this nation into another africa....

America elects its conquerors.........will you be part of the problem, or the solution??

TattooedJohnDoe wrote on January 11, 2008 5:45 AM:

Forget Hitlery, people........she isnt the threat of America...

Focus on Obama....and make sure you vote to put his ass out.....

......or you, as a White American, will be so sorry.....

Obama is like Oprah....they play into your hands.....they cater to Whites to progress blacks......He, as well as Oprah, hate Whites and want to see nothing but the downfall of Whites....

What happened when Mugabe made it in office in Africa??......you dont know??....look it up....its horrifying....

THIS/THAT is what will happen in this country if Obama makes it in....

WAKE UP!!.......WAKE UP!!......now is your time to stand.....

rawdawgbuffalo wrote on January 11, 2008 11:36 AM:

regardless of who crys it will be the economyand i explained that here

poor mr or mrs next president

and iraq ....the new efforts and focus on surge and money will not work . sunni or latter

Maryann wrote on January 11, 2008 8:05 PM:

Well, everyone knows the next states are NV, SC where there are lots of Arican-Americans. If they want to play this well-know-game, welcome aboard and bring it on, baby. African Americans are not that dumb, they have hearts and souls, purer than msnbc, first read, Chris Matthews and all his gangs. I have many girl friends there can tell you "don't mess my hair".
Bottomline is JJ is totally wrong. The way you talk is rude, angry, that is like "listen to what I tell you." It only hurts, no gains.

To me, in real life, I will pick a doer, not a talker.

Post a comment

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