With More Than Half Reporting, Hillary Holds On To Slim Lead

Comments (55)

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 8, 2008 9:57 PM:

What happened to the double-digit lead in the polls that Obama held yesterday?

New Hampshire voters are telling us that it ain't over 'til it's over, either tonight (still too close to call, as of 10:00pm EST) or for the immediate future. This race needs to play out.

Marcus wrote on January 8, 2008 9:57 PM:

who knows. lets see if she can sustain it. this thing is going the distance.

Tithonia wrote on January 8, 2008 9:58 PM:

Josh printed a comment from TPM reader MS, who said she wanted to vote for Hillary just because of how horribly people like Chris Matthews were treating her. That's a really great reason to vote for her! Because she's a victim!

PJ wrote on January 8, 2008 9:58 PM:

Actually, I think the pundits are at least partly right. If I'm not mistaken, Hillary won big among women tonight, but not men-- and that show of emotion led all the national nightly newscasts yesterday. In my entirely speculative opinion, it was, at least, in part, a risky but apparently successful move.

Lots of other more important factors, of course.

Annie wrote on January 8, 2008 9:58 PM:

Who the $%@$ cares if she cried?! I mean, hell, if people said half the stuff about me they say about her I'd have thrown myself in front of traffic by now.

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

I'm with you Greg. NH was supposed to be Hillary's firewall, anyone remember that? A week ago this result was expected. In fact a week ago she was still up by at least 8 in the NH polls If I remember correctly.

I think NH voters were just not as easily swayed by the Iowa voters as the pundits thought they would be.

I'm also rejecting the 'more Independents came out for McCain than Obama' argument. Even if it is technically true, McCain and Obama could hardly have been drawing from the same pool of Independents. That makes no sense at all, given their differing positions on every important issue.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 10:00 PM:

If Hillary wins we all need to vote Republican to prove we were right, she can't get elected. GO OBAMA!

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 10:01 PM:

I believe (and hope) Edwards took a hit from the tears; his reaction made him look opportunistic and thoughtless.

I am sure the tears have something to do with it - they were a big story. But I also think Obama's cockiness may have had something to do with this one. It drove home Hillary's points on experience. Overconfidence is not Presidential.

Joe Buck wrote on January 8, 2008 10:01 PM:

I do think that there was a backlash that favored Hillary. It wasn't "the tears". It was the very blatant and obvious bias. The media loathe Hillary Clinton, and they make that very clear to all.

Now, she's my least favorite candidate because she's wrong on foreign policy (she's a hawk) and she's the closest of the big three to the corporate lobbies. But she's not the devil incarnate, and many of the blatantly sexist attacks on her make me cringe.

WWNPHD wrote on January 8, 2008 10:03 PM:

As much as I'd like to, I really can't believe that the tears did this. But what the ---- did? How could all those polls be so far off? I really thought with the drop out rumors, MLK comments, and crying, yesterday was the end for Hillary. How has she improved? I am seriously confused.

Barack Obama wrote on January 8, 2008 10:03 PM:

I hope this changes....getting worried

DCCyclone wrote on January 8, 2008 10:03 PM:

I think the tears mattered. "All because" of the tears? I don't know. But SOMETHING caused last-second movement to Hillary, and the exit polling shows she drew stronger than expected from women: 47-34. All the surveys had the women's vote much less one-sided. And the Dem voter breakdown was 57% women, 43% men, which I THINK was a bit more lopsided than expected.

I thought the "tears" moment was completely sincere, really did show her softer side, and frankly as a liberal Democrat and strong Obama supporter even I was truly moved by it and felt sympathetic toward her. Her words and emotions told me she's one of us: she knows Bush has fucked up this country in all the ways we realize on the left and she wants desperately to fix it. That was my read of her words, anyway.

And one more note: it was her moment itself that made my sympathize, not the sexist media spin. I don't think anyone is voting for her today because they're mad at the media. They're voting for her because of the teary moment itself, and it what it says about her.

So, yeah, I think it was the tears. It wasn't a small or petty moment that the media foolishly picked on. It was a big deal.

jose wrote on January 8, 2008 10:04 PM:

Anyone know what the total # of votes cast in the NH Dem primary is? 200,000?

Bonnie D wrote on January 8, 2008 10:05 PM:

Of course you are Greg. You have been carrying team Hillary's water since day one.

She won because of the female vote which reacted to the 2:1 male:female tag team at the debate and the tears from yesterday. She perfectly played the gender card and she won. Still doesn't change the fact that half of the country doesn't like her and wants change. I, for one, am not buying it.

Splitting Image wrote on January 8, 2008 10:05 PM:

"The Tears?"

Either that or people were convinced that her re-evaluation of Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King was correct.

I doubt that crying won her New Hampshire, although it might have swung a handful of votes, but I'd bet that the MLK comment cost her the nomination.

If anything, I'd guess that the Iowa bounce simply wasn't as powerful as it looked at first. Clinton had more support in New Hampshire from day one, so expecting a blowout was overoptimistic.

grover_rover wrote on January 8, 2008 10:05 PM:

She played the victim clear and simple, and it probably helped with the female vote. Meanwhile, Bill went out like a madman lashing out at Obama and the media. A very sorry sight for a former president.

Jeff wrote on January 8, 2008 10:06 PM:

The tears weren't even real! Did anyone even see the clip?

jamois wrote on January 8, 2008 10:06 PM:

I do think The Tears played a part, but only as a follow-up to the debate reaction; everybody's talking about the "piling on" that happened on Saturday night. I'd say if anybody helped Hillary out, it was John Edwards. Obama really didn't lay a glove on her, but I think he's getting lumped in with Edwards' attacks, nonetheless.

But The Tears definitely were a factor. She played the NH women like one, big, estrogen-drenched violin. Ugh.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 10:07 PM:

Doesn't anyone else think this had something to do with Obama, and not just Hillary?

Suzanne G wrote on January 8, 2008 10:07 PM:

DCCClone - you are absolutely correct. Look at the last 72 hours: Obama didn't do anything controversial. On the other hand, Hilary cried, Bill attacked Obama as a fairy tale, and there were a number of stories about the Clinton campaign imploding. The second and third items were bound to hurt her. Obviously the tears more than overcame those factors.

Suzanne G wrote on January 8, 2008 10:08 PM:

Anon - in a word, no.

Alan wrote on January 8, 2008 10:11 PM:

Can somebody get Chris Matthews to shut up! I know I don't have to watch him but I like Keith Olbermann.
He is already saying that the Clintons will spin this to their advantage. DUH, she appears to be the WINNER!

Eric wrote on January 8, 2008 10:11 PM:

Anonymous -- Don't be ridiculous. I also disagree with an awful lot of Clinton's policies and would prefer Edwards or Obama. But if she's the candidate, Dems should vote for her.

As for the tears, I think the media treatment of that moment is important. For one thing, it got played over and over again, thus reaching huge numbers of people. And they framed it as weakness (or political calculation), not as campaign exhaustion. That's misogynistic, and likely tipped undecideds.

cleter wrote on January 8, 2008 10:12 PM:

How much longer will poor old Bill Richardson hang around? And where does his 5% go? I would guess mostly to Hillary.

Does a narrow Hillary win greatly affect the dynamics elsewhere?

Bobbi wrote on January 8, 2008 10:12 PM:

Jamois: She played the NH women like one, big, estrogen-drenched violin.

AWESOME!

SLKRR wrote on January 8, 2008 10:13 PM:

I think it just proves once again that you can't always trust the polls:

Obama peaked to soon in Iowa...
Huge NH bounce for Obama...
Massive turnout in '04 means Kerry beats Bush...
Florida called for Gore... (oh wait, that did actually happen)

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 10:14 PM:

Shiny new pennies dull fast.

Obama got the spotlight from his win in Iowa. But he needed a more substantive message. If it's not at least in part about Obama five days after Iowa, then this whole primary season will just be a referendum on Hillary. And, in the Democratic Party, that's a battle she can win.

colonpowwow wrote on January 8, 2008 10:14 PM:

It's great to see sensitive comments like this from the progressiver-than-thous who want to tell us old-schoolers to shove aside:

"But The Tears definitely were a factor. She played the NH women like one, big, estrogen-drenched violin. Ugh."

Yeah, you've come a long way baby!

Josh Berthume wrote on January 8, 2008 10:14 PM:

I feel, in some ways, like it might be the economy.

Passing Shot wrote on January 8, 2008 10:14 PM:

Wilder Effect...

hello_world wrote on January 8, 2008 10:14 PM:

The tears definitely played a part. I'll say it's mostly her going all out to define the race in terms of gender, which she seems to have been able to. It's looking like the fact that Edwards seemed to pile onto Clinton every chance he got ended up helping Clinton too with women.

CNN just reported that the number one issue for Democrats was the economy, and that those that are falling behind broke for Clinton. The reasoning behind that may be the fact that things were good when Clinton I was in, so why not go back?

All in all, a disappointing night so far. Nothing has yet come from the college towns, but I'm not sure there's enough votes there to win this for Barack.

DonnaG wrote on January 8, 2008 10:17 PM:

I've been scrolling around the state map and do find that often, in the same precincts where Obama got outsized percentages compared to Clinton, McCain also got outsized percentages compared to Romney....I would guess that is the independent voters at work, splitting between the two 'mavericks'.

'Course, I am not calling this quick and incomplete exercise scientific.

LK wrote on January 8, 2008 10:17 PM:

I am just glad that all the "analysts" were wrong. Listening to Tim Russert on Monday, you would have thought that after NH, it was all over for Clinton. These have been primaries in 2 small states that don't really represent many areas in the country. Thank goodness the people have gone out and voted for their candidates and ignored the media. I am annoyed that the news media is suggesting that my vote won't matter. And, after all that has been thrown at her, Hillary has shown that she is real tough, tough enough to do the job.

stlounick wrote on January 8, 2008 10:20 PM:

Lots of reasons to vote for Hillary and some folks probably used media coverage and tears to reach a decision. Shrug.

Concord is in and went to Obama--40% to Clinton's 35%. Missing is Merrimack County surrounding Concord; Hanover and Grafton County where Dartmouth is; and Durham and Strafford County where the state university is.

I suspect the election has not been called as it was for McCain because these liberal areas have not yet come in.

Greg, have these areas reported yet?

Steven T Van Haren wrote on January 8, 2008 10:26 PM:

I'm with Eric.

The tears had little to no effect on the voter decision, but the narrative of the tears and the saturation that Clinton has achieved since Iowa, pitted against Obama's relative reclusiveness, gave Hilary the room she needed to make up ground.

One thing is for sure, this primary isn't over and Obama's tidal wave has yet to break.

roy gore wrote on January 8, 2008 10:28 PM:

the sucking that monica did for bill clinton was not even half as scandalous or as good as the daily blowjobs chris matthews has been giving to obama daily since iowa. chris is barack's monica, and chris sure loves it. why this guy even has a job truly sucks.

gc wrote on January 8, 2008 10:28 PM:

"Go Obama" and all Obama supporters obviously imbibed the Obama kool aid and mesmerized by pie-in-the-sky "hope" and "change".

jamois wrote on January 8, 2008 10:30 PM:

@colonpowwow: HRC can't have it both ways. If she's going to tear up about how hard it is to get her hair done in the morning (and don't forget - that was the question that resulted in the completely non sequitur dramatic interpretation that followed), she's burned her feminist card, no matter how much Gloria S. wants to cry foul.

Do I doubt that she might have broken down? Absolutely not. The campaign's grueling. But The Tears smacked of William Hurt's in "Broadcast News".

And again, I say, ugh.

Pepp wrote on January 8, 2008 10:34 PM:

It wasn’t the tears we do, and have from the beginning supported Senator Clinton as our desired Democratic nominee it is that simple. And we sure as hell are not going stand by like a bunch of sissy and let the press another election to be subvert through political stunts and false divisiveness. And dont be so sure that she can bring this crowd to another candidate for a group hug, attacks and behavior have consequences. And the political punditry MSNBC, Wapo and NBC and pollsters are now very suspect, beware America.

Yeah go Sneator Clinton action..is what we want.....yeah...?

Armando wrote on January 8, 2008 10:34 PM:

She's just been declared the winner of the NH primary. I do believe the pundits and the press (Chris Matthews, et al) have bought into the right wing's denigration of Hilary (I include Rachel Maddo in that group), and they are wrong. I want her to win because she would really make the Republicans sick!

Jean Doyle wrote on January 8, 2008 10:35 PM:

Tonight Chris Matthews stated,"I wonder if a symphthy vote will be enough for a national campaign" with regards to Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton is a woman of substance who has produced political change in a bipartician fashion. In my opinion she is brillant in her own right and if she becomes the next president it will be monmental for all women of this country. Historically men have always had the upper hand. For example, first only white men had the vote - then black men were included. Finally, after a very hard fight women earned the right to vote. Women should not be dismissed. Certaintly a talent leader such as Senator Clinton should not be underestimated.

dorikeller wrote on January 8, 2008 10:35 PM:

I do think that it's the "tears" so to speak - but not winning votes because of that .... I think it's a f...u to the media - don't tell the people what to do or what is going to happen

jose wrote on January 8, 2008 10:37 PM:

Ugghh! Her $$ is still going to dry up. we don't need a candidate to energize the GOP base in Nov.

James S. wrote on January 8, 2008 10:39 PM:

"I paid for this microphone!!"

Crown Him!

"It's not easy. It's not easy."

Crown her!

dorikeller wrote on January 8, 2008 10:41 PM:

chris matthews is trying to justify his very anti hillary schtick .... so is Keith Oberman - regardless - this is a great campaign and there is a movement that will carry H or B to the white house & more dems to congress ....

Shaker o salt wrote on January 8, 2008 10:43 PM:

All I know is all the posturing and outright sexist comments pissed me off. If I was in NH I would have voted for her on the spot even thought I'm an Edwards fan. I feel it also had surely pissed off a lot of women (and some men) in NH creating some sort of backlash, but how big?

Graham Patterson wrote on January 8, 2008 10:44 PM:

Hilary has been running half of the time as a feminist, equal in strength to any man, and the other half as a winy girl getting unfairly ganged up on by all the men. I decided to take her at her word as strong world leader material. When she cried I therefore compared that behavior to the possibility of any of the other candidates doing the same thing. Not only would Obama not cry in similar circumstances, neither would McCain or any of the other republicans who she might end up campaigning against if she wins. It's time to stop giving her the benefit of the doubt. I don't dislike her because she is a woman, I dislike her.

tigereyes wrote on January 8, 2008 10:46 PM:

Hillary was just declared the winner in NH. Now the pundits are trying to figure it out, since they were universally wrong. Maybe it has to do with the fact that people in NH and everywhere else are sick and tired of being manipulated by the press and the political operatives. Hillary is and always has been a viable candidate - as a woman, she has a harder fight than anyone else, but she can take it. The incident of "the tears" made me a little nervous, becase it was yet another opportunity for the guys to say "you see, this is what women do under pressure - they cry"...actually, it made it apparent that she's a human being - it was good to see her look softer for a moment - with the current crowd in the White House, we're drowning in testosterone - maybe a woman, who can think with her head and heart, and not with her lower anatomy, like Mr. Bush and his gang, is what the country needs for a change. In that sense, the tears might have helped, but don't ever underestimate her intelligence and skills.

vince morel wrote on January 8, 2008 11:20 PM:

i have to share this with the whole world lest this precious and enlightening nugget of wisdom was missed by some. chris matthews says: "has there ever been a great leader who didn't speak well?" as he carried on his daily quest to wrap that mantle of inevitability on obama. brilliant, huh? pssst, chris, how about great speakers who were vicious leaders? like, umm that mesmerizing speaker who gassed a few million human beings a couple of generations ago. this guy is so sophomoric, i can't believe he can make a living doing what he does. he makes michael savage look civilized.

Donna wrote on January 9, 2008 12:14 AM:

For Dawn who wrote, "McCain and Obama could hardly have been drawing from the same pool of Independents. That makes no sense at all, given their differing positions on every important issue."

I'm an independent and my top two choices for President are McCain and Obama. In fact, I'm hoping it's McCain vs. Obama in the general election - for me that's a win/win scenario. It's all about character and integrity for me, as is the case for most independents.

I think independent voters thought an Obama victory was a forgone conclusion and voted for McCain instead. That's what I would have done if I lived in New Hampshire.

Steve wrote on January 9, 2008 12:58 AM:

I think Hillary's win in NH should come as a surprise to no one. The media and a bunch of kids jumping on a bandwagon doesn't necessarily mean a win for Obama. Don't underestimate the voting power of us geezers.

angela vera wrote on January 9, 2008 1:26 AM:

i'm for change and all that, whatever. sounds like a nice shell of a theme even though we haven't seen any meat so far. lord knows how far the bushies have set this country back. but i can already hear the chorus of rush, heil hannity, laura and dr. laura, ann coulter, medved, o'reilly, savage, levine and the rest of the gang all repeating three words: barack HUSSEIN obama, tapping into that subconscious strain of racial/religious distrust among americans to peel off enough independents and eke out another karl rovian squeaker.

anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 2:01 AM:

in the course of the primaries, and in the general election -- in case he makes it as the nominee -- barack obama will get a taste of the "tom bradley syndrome." so far this has been an unspoken factor. bradley, the popular mayor of los angeles, who had been bruited about as a potential vice presidential or even a presidential prospect, led all polls against a lightweight republican opponent, george deukmejian, for california governor. when the votes were counted, bradley sadly lost. the experts were flabbergasted, and never put a finger on a definitive cause. bradley had enough money, ran a reasonably effective campaign and all. it gradually dawned on them that a certain segment of white voters will answer a pollster's question differently from the way they vote in the privacy of the voting booth. i think this was clearly in play in new hampshire, as this segment of the white electorate viewed obama strutting about in the wake of his iowa triumph. and we haven't seen the last of the tom bradley syndrome manifesting itself.

dorikeller wrote on January 9, 2008 2:31 AM:

I agree with u angela - I also think that the call from the republican talking heads will be a racist - all be it a quiet racist msg .... especially with his (Barak's) father having been a muslim. It will turn ugly .... but I believe that the Republicans are so out of touch with the societal revolution that is going on in this country that come November they will be hit by a tidal wave that has not been felt or seen since FDR.

angela vera wrote on January 9, 2008 3:11 AM:

dorikeller, i share the hope of a tidal wave scenario. but the 9/11 trauma (played to the hilt by bush-cheney for years now) will take away some of its steam, in the same manner that the depression boosted fdr's. the so-called "national security voters" will be torn, and some will ultimately vote their fears, not their hopes. i hope i'm wrong, but more likely than not, the right wing will rip obama to shreds (keywords: weak, risky, appeasement, muslim jihadists; plus their other fear ace -- illegal immigration) he might look like dukakis months before the election.

Post a comment

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