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!