Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

An Emotional Clinton Reflects on How She Does It

VIDEO | Hillary Clinton was near tears during a Jan. 7 campaign stop in New Hampshire where a new poll shows Clinton is trailing front-runner Barack Obama by a wide margin. (AP)

By Anne E. Kornblut
If there were any doubt that the presidential campaign has become a grueling -- and personal -- experience for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, she laid it to rest on Monday in a choked-up moment, captured on videotape, in a diner in Portsmouth.

The trigger: a friendly question from a voter about how she stays so put-together on the campaign trail.

"My question is very personal, how do you do it?" asked Marianne Pernold Young, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, N.H. "How do you, how do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?"

"You know, I think, well luckily, on special days I do have help," Clinton said, initially responding in an upbeat manner. "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 that rare moment of sympathy -- in contrast to the beating she has taken in recent days -- seemed to then get to her. "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do," Clinton said. Her voice broke, and her eyes appeared to well up with tears. "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."

She continued: "Some people think elections are a game, lots of who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' futures. And it's really about all of us together."

Clinton has looked emotional at similar moments in the past. But coming just one day before the pivotal New Hampshire primary, following harsh questions about whether voters just don't like Clinton enough to support her, it immediately took on larger-than-life significance. Reporters scrambled to assess whether it was a true human moment or a calculated one designed to create a connection with voters. Odds are on its being a genuine revelation by Clinton, who has typically preferred a steely Margaret Thatcher style on the campaign trail.

"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.

"And so when we look at the array of problems we have and the potential for it really spinning out of control, this is one of the most important elections American has ever faced," Clinton said.

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 7, 2008; 2:44 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Pet Project for Romney?
Next: At Independent Forum, Optimism on Iowa Results

Comments

What is wrong with a candidate showing a human side? If she's stern, she's an uncaring machine. If she's sensitive, she's not strong enough. How many of you have had to put up with the scrutiny and pressure of being a woman running for president? As voters, we don't have the experience to judge her emotions. Hillary has proven that she is a strong, informed, experienced, and prepared candidate. I believe and trust her. If by some fluke her name is not on the ballot, I will write it in. I will not vote for an alternate choice. Keep up the good work Hillary!!!

Posted by: gremlin99 | January 9, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I certainly hope nobody is falling for this BS from Hillary. The kiss of death for this country is if she ever is elected president. People who plan to vote for her are dangerous voters and should be immediately deported to the middle-east somewhere, where they can witness first-hand the consequences of appeasement, something that this far-left nutjob is a spokeswomen for.

Posted by: tim_r_leek | January 8, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Hillary evoked my sympathy.

But this election isn't about sympathizing with her, about validating her or validating her cause as an individual contestant, about demonstrating how important is this grueling process and experience upon her personally.

It's about electing the President of the United States.

Posted by: FirstMouse | January 8, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't the "this is personal" line sound like John Edwards at the NH debate. This looks calculated to me.

Posted by: jgresh | January 8, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's emotion was in responding to a personal question about how she keeps going, and she mentioned the web sites, cretins like some of the people here posting hate filled thoughts about her day after day. Obviously many are Republicans who have an agenda to derail Hillary in the primaries to get an opponent that assures them another Republican president.

I know Obama polls well against Republicans, but they haven't started on him yet. His empty rhetoric will be laugh track material by the time they are done with him.

There were people better qualified for president than Obama literally destroyed by Republican dirty tricks, McGovern and Kerry come to mind, both anti-war candidates which Obama supporters are particularly high on.

You naive youngsters have no idea what Republicans do with national security fear mongering with peaceniks like Obama, oh a peacenik who said he'd invade Pakistan by the way. You and him have no earthly clue.

But when you see a new Republican president and the Supreme Court finished being replaced with Bush type evangelical judges, you'll officially have lost your naiveness. So will we all.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | January 8, 2008 2:45 AM | Report abuse

I swear she must have practiced that in the mirror. I respect Hillary and all, at least as a human being, (not so much for the blood of innocent Iraqis and American soldiers that are on her hands, which frankly should disqualify any official in any race from further public office, due to such a collassal failure of judgment that that represents), but that seemed a bit fake.

At the rehearsal space earlier that morning:

[HILLARY is in front of a large mirror, center stage, practicing tears and a speech, BILL is on stage left, taking notes as if critiquing her performance. MARK PENN is on stage right, seated in a chair. In between sending out messages on his blackberry, he is checking polling data come in on the laptop seated on his lap.]

BILL: "No, do the tears bit first, then give it a a couple moments to sink in, that'll show that you are human and passionate. Then finally close with your stump speech about why Obama is not ready. Make sure you get that money point: on "...and some of us are ready for day one, while others are not..."--then, right then, that's when you want the tear to fall."

MARK PENN: "Most definitely, the polling data says that need to see that you are human and passionate, so that should be your motivation. The women in the next room really find that touching, and so this will improve your numbers with women for sure. The men though seem to think too many tears makes you appear weak, so don't actually let any fall, just get to the verge, flutter a bit and such. Although you are probably asked this question at least 5 times a day on the campaign trail, we will make sure the cameras are in place this time, so all this practice in front of the mirror won't go to waste."

Posted by: muaddib_7 | January 8, 2008 2:32 AM | Report abuse

WildaHughes, that's your interpretation. One could just as easily interpret the context to be that she was upset and crying about her campaign which has been heading backwards and her chances to be President are drifting away.

Even if we accept your interpretations, wasn't she basically saying that the country is going backward in her opinion because they are rejecting her. This was a self-serving moment whether the tears were real or not.

Posted by: diksagev | January 8, 2008 2:20 AM | Report abuse

tkdcmd,

LMAO

Posted by: diksagev | January 8, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

What did the sympathetic ol' softie, Hillary, do during the debate on Saturday after Edwards told the story about the insurance company waiting until just hours before that young girls died before they approved the care she needed? Did Hillary cry then as Edwards nearly did? No . . . big hearted Hillary pointed out that the Bill that Edwards helped pass in the Senate was defeated in the house and basically blamed Edwards "failure" for leading to that girl's death. What is this Jeckyll and Hyde show, anyway?

Posted by: diksagev | January 8, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Could these tears that almost were be all it takes for Hillary Clinton to change the momentum in the race for President?

Talk about your double standard. Edmond Muskie cried in a 1972 press conference after an opponent criticized his wife and it cost his campaign a shot at the Presidency. Based on one woman I saw interviewed on TV and two who were interviewed in an article for Politico.com, the show worked. One woman said, "I have a better feeling for Hillary", and she has switched from supporting John Edwards to backing Hillary because she feined a little emotion. Another undecided voter who decided to support Hillary on the spot said, "her emotions made her real".

I don't believe the tears were real - not for a moment. This is an old Bill Clinton trick that Hillary has learned well. I recently came across an old video that showed Bill Clinton walking briskly across the White House lawn just after Ron Brown died in a plane crash under questionable circumstances related to one of the many Clinton scandals. Bill was all smiles and laughing until he realized that he'd just walked in fron of TV cameras that ere rolling, and in a nanosecond his laughter changed to tears. Coincidentally, I ran across this while searching for the account of Muskie crying in his press conference. "The elder Bush couldn't possibly be any weepier than Bill Clinton, the man who trumped him in 1992, and who seems able to summon a dubious tear whenever there's a camera in range."

Crocodile tears should not win votes in an election for President!

Posted by: diksagev | January 8, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Hillary hatred never fails to tell me more about the hater than about Hillary. She's cold, calculating, a robot (nobody said "shrew"?) so the "tears" must be faked. No, the tears, I mean, "breakdown" was real, so she's weak, emotional, can't stand the heat (somebody actually said "midol"). Oh, yes, and all this is just objective criticism. You can tell by all the exclamation points.

BTW, the whole Muskie alleged crying incident has been so debunked and defanged now that this Hillary episode will have no impact whatsoever in 36 hours. Hillary-haters, keep your eyes peeled for the next opportunity for objective criticism.

Posted by: dthai | January 8, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

All these men are attacking Hillary for finally giving women voters something they can identify with: Compassion. We've been waiting to see if Hillary is strong enough to share an authentic part of herself. Emotion, after all, will soon be all that separates us from machines. Hillary is smart and she is the most competent candidate. The campaign is also, apparently, bringing out the best in her. Until now, I didn't think Hillary could win, but I've changed my mind. I live in Oakland, one of the most corrupt cities in the country and I definitely don't want liberals in the White House. Hillary and Bill aren't liberals, thank goodness, they are conservatives who somehow ended up with both brains and hearts. If you want the recession to end, you will send the Clintons back to the White House.

Posted by: anniemcgeester | January 8, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse


I saw the video, it's real emotion in response to a spontaneous question.

I decided you deserve Obama. Good luck to you.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | January 8, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

I can't be the only one who's quite suspicious Hillary's 11th hour emotional display wasn't a calculated move.

I saw Barack Obama in Rochester, NH tonight, and nothing about him even hinted at anything other than authenticity.

You decide.

Posted by: binkynh | January 8, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Are people really comparing the welling up after a terrorist attack in which thousands died to the chocking up of a politician after being asked how she stays "wonderfully upbeat"

Whether you are pro-Bush or anti-Bush the comparison/contrast to the aftermath is really outrageous.

Posted by: deann_r2002 | January 8, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

i am embarrassed to be an american right now. i cannot believe the hate spewed forth here. we deserve the downfall that awaits us with idiots like you choosing our next president. i remember a "cute, charming" washington outsider who once promised to change the way things are done - who promised to be a "uniter." well, he sure succeeded at changing things, didn't he? let's all rush out to fall for that one again.

Posted by: matthewmaverick | January 8, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse


Hillary's emotion was in responding to a personal question about how she keeps going, and she mentioned the web sites, cretins like some of the people here posting hate filled thoughts about her day after day. Obviously many are Republicans who have an agenda to derail Hillary in the primaries to get an opponent that assures them another Republican president.

I know Obama polls well against Republicans, but they haven't started on him yet. His empty rhetoric will be laugh track material by the time they are done with him.

There were people better qualified for president than Obama literally destroyed by Republican dirty tricks, McGovern and Kerry come to mind, both anti-war candidates which Obama supporters are particularly high on.

You naive youngsters have no idea what Republicans do with national security fear mongering with peaceniks like Obama, oh a peacenik who said he'd invade Pakistan by the way. You and him have no earthly clue.

But when you see a new Republican president and the Supreme Court finished being replaced with Bush type evangelical judges, you'll officially have lost your naiveness. So will we all.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | January 8, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the most insincere woman in the United States. She's willing to say or do anything to get elected President and move back into the White House. She's even willing to give every pregnant woman $5000 in order to win their vote. She ran for Senate in NYS in order to be elected President. She bought a house in Chappaqua and I'll bet she was unable to tell you in what county Chappaqua was. She's as arrogant as any woman who has ever taken the political stage. Remember her on TV saying that it was a "Right Wing Conspiracy" when Bubba was having fun with Monica? It's somebody else's fault, not Bubba. He'd never do anything bad! No, not Bubba, he's a real upstanding citizen! If she's elected President, then get ready for President motivated by a lust for Hollywood recognition and the power of pandering to the masses regardless if it's good for the rest of the country or not.

She's for the Clintons, and the liberals who are willing to go to any extreem to win the White House, even if it means smearing the names of heroic Americans like General David Patreaus.

Posted by: finkenjk | January 7, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

This was very clearly staged. Amazing that in this supposedly candid, spontaneous moment, that she STILL managed to throw in some of her campaign slogans!!

Pathetic what some people will do for power.

Posted by: ohio4580 | January 7, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

When I heard about this on the news I got REALLY PISSED OFF!!! THIS IS SO SEXIST! WE HAVEN'T PROGRESSED ONE BIT! Like previous posters stated, when a man gets misty eyed, he is brave to show his sensitive side, but women appear weak. THAT REALLY PISSES ME OFF, THE DOUBLE FREAKIN STANDARD.

I am no great defender of hillary, but c'mon people! As a working woman in a position of authority who often has to make the hard decision to fire people or deny them time off to meet a deadline, I cannot believe that I would be considered a cry baby if I felt bad about doing it and briefly showed it.

I cannot count how many times I've heard bill clinton or prez bush's voices crack and no one says a thing. That would be considered RUDE. I don't know why HRC is so special to deserve such vicious attacks for showing some humanity too. It is SEXIST to think that women only cry to manipulate people or b/c they are weak. WHY ARE THOSE THE ONLY TWO CHOICES???????? SEXIST PIGS! What's next? MORE CLEAVAGE SHOTS????? Freakin morons!

Posted by: changingfaces | January 7, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

People asked for a link re: Hillary failing the bar: it was reported in the WaPo by Carl Bernstein in excerpts from his book "A Woman in Charge". Here's a quote from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18981558/: "Bernstein said "A Woman in Charge" offers readers numerous revelations, including the fact that Hillary Rodham shocked her friends when she failed the Washington, D.C., bar exam. That subsequently played into her decision, he said, to move to Arkansas with Bill Clinton."

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 7, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary knows how to fake it. U go girl, shade those crocodile teals

Posted by: forjarigirlonly | January 7, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

I hope there is a special place in hell for people who hate so deeply that they can not acknowledge the pain of another human.

Like her or not, Hillary has taken a beating in the last few days. Some of it has been by the press some by the polls. Not all of it has been deserved. Today she briefly showed that she has feelings like the rest of us.

Someone will be our next president. Several will not. Does who it is matter so much that we are willing to lose our humanity.

Posted by: lpeter59 | January 7, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

How odd to see Hillary Clinton well up and moved to tears, as she yet manages to stay on message in criticizing her opponents to the last ("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, "). Yet we are to believe supposedly that rejection by New Hampshire voters affects her more deeply to tears than the rejection and the betrayal of her husband? She would have been credible in her attempt at displaying a genuinely honest disappointment had she showed us any tears in her reaction to her husband's exposure as a serial adulterer. Yet years ago in the most personal kind of emotional disappointment that a spouse can experience, not once did we ever see a report showing her voice cracking, or tears welling up in her eyes, when she was interviewed by the media during Bill Clinton's adulterous scandal and impeachment. So Puh-leeze!! Give us a break! Most of us wern't born yesterday! Her emotional moment in New Hampshire was staged!! And journalists like CNN's Daniel Gergen and WAPO's Anne E. Kornblut, among other talking heads, are either naive or they are intentionally spinning a sympathetic defense for Hillary Clinton at her most indefensibly dishonest moment which is clearly false!!

Posted by: thedefendant | January 7, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Did any of you watch the rest of the video-tape? One minute after the "soft side, human" display of emotion in front of the cameras, she attacks Senator Obama as the one who is not ready while SHE is ready, etc, etc. Keith Olberman showed this video and did a solid story on her use of the politics of fear (Al Queda, etc on the new POTUS first day in office, etc) against Obama a few hours after this display of her soft side. If you believe Hillary's display was authentic, then you will believe that Bush got into Yale on his SAT scores, and that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. And that Bill did not have sex with that woman.

Posted by: shirleylim | January 7, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

I hope there is a special place in hell for people who hate so deeply that they can not acknowledge the pain of another human.

Like her or not, Hillary has taken a beating in the last few days. Some of it has been by the press some by the polls. Not all of it has been deserved. Today she briefly showed that she has feelings like the rest of us.

Someone will be our next president. Several will not. Does who it is matter so much that we are willing to lose our humanity.

Posted by: lpeter59 | January 7, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

The tears were genuine as was the impulse to seek solace in attacking Obama. The bigger question is why is she on the verge of tears at all? As Mr. Penn himself has pointed out, Bill lost the first five primaries/caucuses before he found his footing. The problem with her is that her negatives are high and they have never moved. The national "support" she enjoyed was based largely upon name recognition. Her strategists (who are not nearly as stupid as they are being made out to be) realized that they had a fairly weak candidate who took the "quasi-incumbent-it's inevitable approach" in order to generate a cascade effect (i.e. I am going to vote for her because you did). Once the aura of inevitability was extinguished the entire dynamic is changed -- she is just another candidate except she is weighed down by those negatives, the Clinton's collective baggage and the very real desire by a large segment of the Democratic party, the Media and --what is most important for Obama -- Indies to be done with the Clintons who are the Addams of political families.

Don't discount a Clinton "rope-a-dope" strategy -- inflating the margins between her and Obama and then when she loses by "only" 6 pts in a state she lead by 9 two weeks ago it will be a "win." Then they take the medicine show on the road to "party only" primaries where the Kool-Aid is more refreshing. . .

But if she loses big tomorrow even the NY Times will feel the pressure to throw her over (no more friendly photos of a beaming, post-debate Hillary while a cabal of three dour men stand to the side apparently conspiring against her). It will be sad to see them go they have been the most entertaining politicians we have ever had. . .

Posted by: PeterVenkman1 | January 7, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

to squatty2....romeny DID cry on camera just a couple weeks ago talking about how he felt when his church decided to accept people of color in his church...know why you didn't know that? because the media and others like you did not slam him ad nauseum like they have done to hillary, who only got misty eyed and soft-spoken, she didnt exactly shed a tear. the old double standard is alive and well though as usual, against hillary and women in general. now....dont feel just a little bit stupid??

Posted by: ogdeeds | January 7, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Stonehinged and Phil5 have made interesting and relevant points.

There is cynicism and there is bitterness toward the Clinton candidacy; there's bound to be, b/c Hillary has been built up by National Dem leadership, the msm has dutifully supported that idea -- and now the wheels are falling off this magic juggernaut!

Those who were furious at the anointing are venting. Those who are defensive of Hillary are smarting. The rest of us are trying to say what we have known since her initial announcement: Hillary cannot win a general election. Hillary has too much baggage. Hillary's stint as first lady doesn't count in the big 'experience' computation. Hillary's frequent attitude of arrogance is worse than annoying.

All those points are not made by mean-spirited, bad Americans who should move to another country. Those points are made by passionate voters who want the truth told about Hillary just as much as they want the truth told about Obama, Paul, Romney, Edwards, et al.

Hillary's flaws are there for all to see, just as Biden's were, only Joe Biden never got his chance in this king/queen making exercise.

Posted by: suzeq | January 7, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

First of all, Hillary did not break down crying. Her eye got a little teary and her voice quivered a little. Big Deal! Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, GW Bush all teared up on occasion. You miserable Hillary haters have the gall to attack her and say this was either a calculated move or a sign of terrible weakness. You're not only vicious, you're stupid. She's a warm human being who has been hounded and slimed for years by the GOP and now she's being slimed by Democrats who like another candidate in the primary. Congratulations. You are the morons who will destroy the Democratic party. At this point I don't think the nomination will help anyone. The hate spewed out by Obama and Edwards supporters (and by Edwards himself)are weakening the party every day. I know that I am so angry at the comments I have seen online by fellow Democrats that I will never vote for Obama or Edwards because 1) they are not qualified and 2) I will never forgive the Hillary haters among their supporters who have poisoned the whole process.

Posted by: myskylark | January 7, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

How staged could a moment be? "I am so worried, ulp, about moving (my campaign) forward, sigh, and what is bets for America (ME)" Puh-Leeze!

Posted by: parnum | January 7, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary crying? That's it! She lost my vote -i just can't employ her to handle this highly important position. Hillary, Please you've done your very best for this country, now, please take a break.

Posted by: KofiAgadzi | January 7, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

This is all Fake just like the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying War Criminal Mass Murderer Serial Killer in Chief and his VP of Torture's WMDs.

Someone needs to have some courage to prosecute Mission Accomplished and his Neoconartists for War Crimes. There is no statute of limitations for War Crimes.

http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm



[as corrected by the procés-verbaux of 10 November 1998 and 12 July 1999]


PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW

Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression.


2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(b) "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

(c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

(d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

(f) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

(g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

(i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term "gender" refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term "gender" does not indicate any meaning different from the above.


Article 8
War crimes

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;
(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii) Taking of hostages.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;

(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

(xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(iii) Taking of hostages;

(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

(d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.
(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

(vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;

(viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

(ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;

(x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

(f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.
3. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.


Article 9
Elements of Crimes

1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. They shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.
2. Amendments to the Elements of Crimes may be proposed by:

(a) Any State Party;
(b) The judges acting by an absolute majority;

(c) The Prosecutor.

Such amendments shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.

3. The Elements of Crimes and amendments thereto shall be consistent with this Statute.


Article 10

Nothing in this Part shall be interpreted as limiting or prejudicing in any way existing or developing rules of international law for purposes other than this Statute.


Article 11
Jurisdiction ratione temporis

1. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

2. If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under article 12, paragraph 3.

Article 12
Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction

1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.

2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:
(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft;
(b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.

3. If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question. The accepting State shall cooperate with the Court without any delay or exception in accordance with Part 9.


Article 13
Exercise of jurisdiction

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:
(a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or

(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.


Article 14
Referral of a situation by a State Party

1. A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed requesting the Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes.

2. As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be accompanied by such supporting documentation as is available to the State referring the situation.

Article 15
Prosecutor
1. The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the United Nations, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.

3. If the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he or she shall submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation, together with any supporting material collected. Victims may make representations to the Pre-Trial Chamber, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

4. If the Pre-Trial Chamber, upon examination of the request and the supporting material, considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, it shall authorize the commencement of the investigation, without prejudice to subsequent determinations by the Court with regard to the jurisdiction and admissibility of a case.

5. The refusal of the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize the investigation shall not preclude the presentation of a subsequent request by the Prosecutor based on new facts or evidence regarding the same situation.

6. If, after the preliminary examination referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Prosecutor concludes that the information provided does not constitute a reasonable basis for an investigation, he or she shall inform those who provided the information. This shall not preclude the Prosecutor from considering further information submitted to him or her regarding the same situation in the light of new facts or evidence.

Article 16
Deferral of investigation or prosecution

No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.


Article 17
Issues of admissibility

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:
(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;

(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

Article 18
Preliminary rulings regarding admissibility

1. When a situation has been referred to the Court pursuant to article 13 (a) and the Prosecutor has determined that there would be a reasonable basis to commence an investigation, or the Prosecutor initiates an investigation pursuant to articles 13 (c) and 15, the Prosecutor shall notify all States Parties and those States which, taking into account the information available, would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crimes concerned. The Prosecutor may notify such States on a confidential basis and, where the Prosecutor believes it necessary to protect persons, prevent destruction of evidence or prevent the absconding of persons, may limit the scope of the information provided to States.
2. Within one month of receipt of that notification, a State may inform the Court that it is investigating or has investigated its nationals or others within its jurisdiction with respect to criminal acts which may constitute crimes referred to in article 5 and which relate to the information provided in the notification to States. At the request of that State, the Prosecutor shall defer to the State's investigation of those persons unless the Pre-Trial Chamber, on the application of the Prosecutor, decides to authorize the investigation.

3. The Prosecutor's deferral to a State's investigation shall be open to review by the Prosecutor six months after the date of deferral or at any time when there has been a significant change of circumstances based on the State's unwillingness or inability genuinely to carry out the investigation.

4. The State concerned or the Prosecutor may appeal to the Appeals Chamber against a ruling of the Pre-Trial Chamber, in accordance with article 82. The appeal may be heard on an expedited basis.

5. When the Prosecutor has deferred an investigation in accordance with paragraph 2, the Prosecutor may request that the State concerned periodically inform the Prosecutor of the progress of its investigations and any subsequent prosecutions. States Parties shall respond to such requests without undue delay.

6. Pending a ruling by the Pre-Trial Chamber, or at any time when the Prosecutor has deferred an investigation under this article, the Prosecutor may, on an exceptional basis, seek authority from the Pre-Trial Chamber to pursue necessary investigative steps for the purpose of preserving evidence where there is a unique opportunity to obtain important evidence or there is a significant risk that such evidence may not be subsequently available.

7. A State which has challenged a ruling of the Pre-Trial Chamber under this article may challenge the admissibility of a case under article 19 on the grounds of additional significant facts or significant change of circumstances.

Article 19
Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court
or the admissibility of a case

1. The Court shall satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it. The Court may, on its own motion, determine the admissibility of a case in accordance with article 17.

2. Challenges to the admissibility of a case on the grounds referred to in article 17 or challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court may be made by:
(a) An accused or a person for whom a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear has been issued under article 58;
(b) A State which has jurisdiction over a case, on the ground that it is investigating or prosecuting the case or has investigated or prosecuted; or

(c) A State from which acceptance of jurisdiction is required under article 12.

3. The Prosecutor may seek a ruling from the Court regarding a question of jurisdiction or admissibility. In proceedings with respect to jurisdiction or admissibility, those who have referred the situation under article 13, as well as victims, may also submit observations to the Court.

4. The admissibility of a case or the jurisdiction of the Court may be challenged only once by any person or State referred to in paragraph 2. The challenge shall take place prior to or at the commencement of the trial. In exceptional circumstances, the Court may grant leave for a challenge to be brought more than once or at a time later than the commencement of the trial. Challenges to the admissibility of a case, at the commencement of a trial, or subsequently with the leave of the Court, may be based only on article 17, paragraph 1 (c).

5. A State referred to in paragraph 2 (b) and (c) shall make a challenge at the earliest opportunity.

6. Prior to the confirmation of the charges, challenges to the admissibility of a case or challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court shall be referred to the Pre-Trial Chamber. After confirmation of the charges, they shall be referred to the Trial Chamber. Decisions with respect to jurisdiction or admissibility may be appealed to the Appeals Chamber in accordance with article 82.

7. If a challenge is made by a State referred to in paragraph 2 (b) or (c), the Prosecutor shall suspend the investigation until such time as the Court makes a determination in accordance with article 17.

8. Pending a ruling by the Court, the Prosecutor may seek authority from the Court:
(a) To pursue necessary investigative steps of the kind referred to in article 18, paragraph 6;
(b) To take a statement or testimony from a witness or complete the collection and examination of evidence which had begun prior to the making of the challenge; and

(c) In cooperation with the relevant States, to prevent the absconding of persons in respect of whom the Prosecutor has already requested a warrant of arrest under article 58.

9. The making of a challenge shall not affect the validity of any act performed by the Prosecutor or any order or warrant issued by the Court prior to the making of the challenge.

10. If the Court has decided that a case is inadmissible under article 17, the Prosecutor may submit a request for a review of the decision when he or she is fully satisfied that new facts have arisen which negate the basis on which the case had previously been found inadmissible under article 17.

11. If the Prosecutor, having regard to the matters referred to in article 17, defers an investigation, the Prosecutor may request that the relevant State make available to the Prosecutor information on the proceedings. That information shall, at the request of the State concerned, be confidential. If the Prosecutor thereafter decides to proceed with an investigation, he or she shall notify the State to which deferral of the proceedings has taken place.

Article 20
Ne bis in idem

1. Except as provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court.
2. No person shall be tried by another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court.

3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7 or 8 shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:

(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.


Article 21
Applicable law

1. The Court shall apply:
(a) In the first place, this Statute, Elements of Crimes and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
(b) In the second place, where appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict;

(c) Failing that, general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles are not inconsistent with this Statute and with international law and internationally recognized norms and standards.

2. The Court may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions.

3. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and be without any adverse distinction founded on grounds such as gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, age, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.
________

Part 1 / Part 3

Posted by: mawt | January 7, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

THERE'S NO CRYING IN POLITICS!

Oh, wait. There is. Especially when politically expedient.

I don't doubt the tears are real - she's panicked, exhausted, and watching something she so desperately wants slip through her fingers. I bet everyone who has posted to this article has cried for the same reason at one time or another.

But what makes me laugh is that people are more likely to vote for her for this reason. It doesn't make her policy ideas any better and it doesn't increase her "strength and experience" (does crying mean she is no longer strong? Or is it a "change" from her strength and experience image?) This is what we should all expect, though, in this over-condensed primary season. Small, dumb moments like this have huge importance because there is so little time to think them over.

Posted by: karenchristian1 | January 7, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Three questions, the envelopes please.

First question: Was the question planted?

Second question: How long did Senator Clinton have to practice until she got the tears just right?

Third question: Did Senator Clinton practice crying while listening to "Your Cheating Heart"?

Posted by: auto1 | January 7, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

This blog post says more about the writer, Kornblut and the Washington Post than it does about Hillary Clinton or her competitors in tomorrow's primary.

Is your post atonement for your paper's repeating without correction, statements about Obama's being a Muslim?

Is your post a continuation of Broder's comments about the Clinton marriage and whether it is just for show?

Or is your post a continuation of the above examples of non-journalism that makes your paper a sorry shadow of what it once was.

If this is your job, you can say that, but then your job is not as a journalist.

Posted by: jdgssf | January 7, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary needs a Midol.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Hide all of the sharp instruments. It's going to get ugly after Obama wins NH.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | January 7, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm expecting a sympathy bounce any minute.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Certainly Senator Clinton can now expect a sympathy bounce. Emotional fragility is an underestimated quality for world leaders.

Posted by: the.rohliks | January 7, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

And I simply have no tolerance for people who say "Shame on you..." They are imbeciles of the first order.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Well,
Since some of you seem to be so suspicious of other posters who do not support Mrs. Clinton, here's what I see in YOUR posts:
There is a very disturbing trend among her supporters to think any criticism (your word of choice seems to be vitriol) of her is based on mindless hatred or some perverted dysfunctional sexism. You simply dismiss any objective criticism. Fine, that's your choice. But it's gonna be people like you that drive people out of the polls, not toward them.
Watch in the coming weeks as Obama's popularity overtakes the country. Ask yourselves if Mrs. Clinton could ever generate that enthusiasm. If you're remotely honest, the answer will be NO. Are all those young people Rovian robots? It's YOU who are being knee jerk reactionaries.
Would I have ever voted for Mrs. Clinton?
Honestly, I'm not sure. But now there is another candidate I can vote for with conviction. I hope you all will be able to say the same.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea declined to attend the all black public schools in Washington. Instead she attended the Quaker shool Sidwell Friends in preparation for a spititual career in the hedge fund industry.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama has successfully deflected everyone of the criticisms Hillary has tried to direct against him. If nothing else - he is Teflon Man!

Posted by: magellan1 | January 7, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the previous comment of how the media, and apparently other bloggers, characterize Senator Clinton as a cold-hearted __________. After watching the debate exchange with Obama ("you're likeable enough"), other candidates, as well as today's expression (where she was choked up, but held back tears), I've gone from somewhat undecided to supporting Sen. Clinton. I will vote for her in the primary. Put it this way: Recent events related to how the other candidates have dealt with, treated Sen. Clinton have helped me also decide who I decidedly do not want.

It's sad to see how people react to her in this forum (and elsewhere) based on a lot of built up, fomented hate and prejudice. I.e., it's as if she can do no right, and is judged by a whole different set of standards based on that negative mindset/spin, and, her being a woman. Reacting with emotion now, taking it personally is wrong, calculated? None of us have gone through what Sen. Clinton has recently, really. If a man expressed as she did, he'd be a sensitive, enlightened being, etc. You could try to walk a mile in her shoes, and if you must still judge by piling on, I reminded, "Judge not, lest ye be judged". After reading as much of the posted vitriol as I can stand, I pray, "God help us all, everyone".


I'll take Sen. Clinton's experience, judgment, and vision over the change rhetoric of the other candidates any day.

Posted by: MollieRaleyMIR | January 7, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Broaddrick said she does not remember on what date she was allegedly raped. She did supply the name of the hotel (Camelot) and the reason she was visiting Little Rock (a nursing home seminar) when the incident allegedly occurred.[6] NBC News found that a nursing conference was held in the Camelot Hotel on April 25, 1978.[2] The hotel was located in the state capitol where news reports indicate Clinton was that day and that he had no known official commitments that morning. The Clinton White House declined to release his official schedule for the date. Three weeks after this date, Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser. According to the The Wall Street Journal (February 19, 1999, p. A18), "Her friend Norma Rogers, a nurse who had accompanied her on the trip," found Broaddrick distraught shortly after the time of the alleged attack.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Look, Clinton is hated because people are tired of lying politicians. She and her husband are liars and it is very tiring having to defend their lies to Republicans - especially when they are constantly betraying our Democratic Party principles whenever it suits their purposes (NAFTA, welfare "reform," the Iraq War, the Iran War, etc.).

She made a mistake campaigning with Bill last week because she reminded people how tiring it would be to have in the White House again.

Bush is now hated because he is a liar. Eventually, even the dull-witted American public can smell them out.

As Abe Lincoln said, "...you can't fool all of the people all of the time." End the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton cycle!

Posted by: johnsonc2 | January 7, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Travelgate.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

The billing records.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Betty Currie.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Monica Lewinsky.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Paula Jones.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Sandy Berger.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

I think you all commentators should come down from your high horse and really look at yourself. If most of these comments come from Democrats it is really saddening. Let the best man/woman win, but I cannot imagine any presidential candidate even wanting support from people showing such malicious meanness evil. HRC has a huge disadvantage in the sense that everyone believes they know her. Why is it so wrong suddenly to work hard and to have ambition? If you have ambition and determination it would suggest you would have the guts to run the country. Why does suddenly everyone love Obama? What do we really know about him? Will you turn on him in the way you have turned on hrc if he shows to much determination or ambition? The only thing I have heard so far from Mr Obama is that he wants change. But what change are we talking about? Are we talking about immigration, job security, social security, family policy etc? Has he shown any legislation that supports the idea that he will unite Washington? If I was Obama, I would have politely dismissed your vote and asked you to return home. I would welcome you back after you have done some studies of the human heart and learned how to treat every single human being with decency. You can disagree with anyones policy as much as you like, but your ill mannered comments sounds like the worst gossip magazine where the heart has lost its soul. Shame on you.

Posted by: lundal | January 7, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

"View the clip again. She was tearing up because of her concern over the country going backwards."

The country's been going down the tubes for several years now. Funny how she never teared up about it before her career plans got derailed in Iowa.

I have no trouble believing Clinton's tears were genuine. Seeing power snatched from you when for years you've been the inevitable heir, anointed by Everyone Who Matters ...it would be enough to make any power-hungry careerist cry.

Posted by: kevrobb | January 7, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

"View the clip again. She was tearing up because of her concern over the country going backwards."

The country's been going down the tubes for several years now. Funny how she never teared up about it before her career plans got derailed in Iowa.

I have no trouble believing Clinton's tears were genuine. Seeing power snatched from you when for years you've been the inevitable heir, anointed by Everyone Who Matters ...it would be enough to make any power-hungry careerist cry.

Posted by: kevrobb | January 7, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

"View the clip again. She was tearing up because of her concern over the country going backwards."

The country's been going down the tubes for several years now. Funny how she never teared up about it before her career plans got derailed in Iowa.

I have no trouble believing Clinton's tears were genuine. Seeing power snatched from you when for years you've been the inevitable heir, anointed by Everyone Who Matters ...it would be enough to make any power-hungry careerist cry.

Posted by: kevrobb | January 7, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Forgive me but I have to believe that the phrase "uppity N-word" is being thrown around a lot at Clinton campaign headquarters tonight.

Who could have foreseen the implosion of Hillarys' campaign? Minimizing the role of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement! Pulling another Muskie on national TV! RIP

Posted by: magellan1 | January 7, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

One can see how a lively critique of Senator Clinton is regarded as unfair considering the high mindedness of her team's contributions to political discourse:

"Bill Shaheen, the co-chairman of Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire, mentioned the drug use in a December 12 conference call with reporters.[51] Shaheen said that if Obama were to win the nomination, Republicans would use Obama's admissions against him in a general election. He suggested that in such a scenario, Republicans would ask, "'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'"

But, to be fair, Hillary's staff made this statement to put the issue to rest:

"The issue related to cocaine use is not something the campaign is in any way raising" Mark Penn

Posted by: the.rohliks | January 7, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

THE MYSTERY OF THE MAKEUP THAT DID NOT STREAK

Hillary Clinton's makeup artist is
Kriss Soterion in NH.

Ms. Soterion has ALREADY stated in published reports the type and nature of Her Highness' makeup during the debate and after.

Easy to prove the makeup would have smeared if the "tears" were not preplanned.

Video on Entertainment Tonight, web article at http://www.plasticized.com/2007/06/the_answer_to_t.html

Previous article redacted from Boston Globe.

The Queen has no clothes

----The Naked Queen Conspiracy---

Posted by: JaxMax | January 7, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Following up on WildaHughes, it's likely that many of the nastier posts on this thread are simply Rush-rabid Republicans posing as Dems.

Posted by: jims1 | January 7, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is the terribliest perso, fully unsuitable for the presidency. In general, she is not a good actress, but this particular time she was not that bad in her performance. Anyhow, the faster she is finally out , the better. Voters have already said clearly that they want her to pack her bags. It would be really nice, if she does it right after NH.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 7, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I AM NOT AN ADMIRER OF ANY POLITICIAN- BUT THERE IS NO NEED FOR PEOPLE TO GET SO VICIOUS. DO THESE POSTERS TRULY REPRESENT AMERICA? IF SO- WE ARE A SSSIIICCCKKK COUNTRY.

Posted by: RudeIsraeli | January 7, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Okay. I'm going to say one final word on this subject. In 2004, I crisscrossed the country several times. I tuned into talk radio everywhere I went. At night, I tuned into motel televisions. No matter where I was, Republican media in all of its forms spewed hatred toward Hillary Clinton. It was over the top. And so I knew the campaign was on to destroy her. What's sad about this is that almost all media outlets jumped in subtly or overtly over the years, and soon Dems and Republicans hated her. So what I'm saying is this--the campaign against Hillary (which predates 2004) was just as strong and villifying as it is now. So I don't believe it. Because those were the same whisper and shout campaigns that gave us eight years of the Bush administration. So if they are that "agin" her, maybe I ought to be for her. Although I'm actually leaning towards Edwards, but that's another story. Still, just keep talking folks. You might push me to vote for Hillary yet. If the Bush supporters are this scared of her, maybe she can actually do something for this country.

Posted by: WildaHughes | January 7, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Such venom in these posts. But transference is a powerful thing. Clearly, lots of folks have had mothers, sisters, female bosses, wives, or girlfriends who've treated them harshly at one time or other. And Hillary is such an easy scapegoat to redirect their lingering resentment and humiliation. Those with such an unhealthy animosity toward Hillary are just that -- unhealthy. I say this as an Obama supporter. Pick Hillary apart for her DLC and dynastic tendencies, but save the Freudian stuff for another time, please.

Posted by: jims1 | January 7, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Yes, she did start out to make that alarming point about the country going backwards, but then her horror at the prospect of reverse planetary rotation overwhelmed her. Is the country sinking also? Should we be evacuating the coasts?

Posted by: the.rohliks | January 7, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I can look at my daughters and tell them they cannot reinvent themselves whenever it suits them. I can do that and do them a favor at the same time.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Do any of you people have daughters? Can you honestly look your daughter in the eye and tell her that this highly qualified woman cannot or should not be president? A lot of you remind me of the father in the Mary Poppins movie; he at least smartened up by the end, I fear it may take most of you another 87 years. how truly sad. repeat after me: SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS

Posted by: hamptonlawyers | January 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Mrs Clinton has earned every bit of scorn she's now getting from more than half our party.

There is no 'there' there with this woman, nothing of value, no substance, only a grand sense of self-importance, ego and entitlement.

Please NH, send her home packing.

You know she was throwing dishes and tearing up the plane after IA on the way to NH...let's cut and kill this cancer on our party ASAP.

If you think this is bad coming from Dems now, what do you think the GOP will do to her?...fry her sorry ass.

Posted by: mjzahara | January 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Look, it's not her weepy delivery that is so disingenuous. Listen to what she says. For example:

"I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it."
Yawn. Obama wants to reverse it, Edwards wants to reverse it...hell, even Republicans want to reverse it.

"You know, some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds..." Yeah? Like being the first Black presidential nominee doesn't make for difficult odds? Get a grip, Lady.

"some of us are ready and some of us are not..." And some of us are in bed with corporate America. Right, Mrs. Clinton?

"...some of us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't thought that through enough" Please, don't pretend you're the only one who's thought it through. Don't be that vain.

All you females who think this is about chromosomes or whatever, you're just wrong.
This is about a self absorbed, self centered person who thinks she is just misunderstood. I can't believe none of you see that.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

No, johnsonc2. View the clip again. She was tearing up because of her concern over the country going backwards.

Posted by: WildaHughes | January 7, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

I agree with those who think she would be more sympathetic if she were crying over Iraqi and American war dead - and her role in causing their deaths. That she would cry because it is hard to run for office when you are losing and people are saying negative things about you is understandable, but not that remarkable. She would not make a good President because she only cares about herself and her career. She is like her husband in that regard. When the chips were down, it was always about him and his supposed causes came second. I hope that Obama or Edwards can retain some of their integrity in office, if they make it. Based upon her record, we know that Hillary would not.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | January 7, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

When George Bush teared up about the flag, they all heil hitlered him. Hillary tears up for a moment about the state of this country and it is evidence of estrogen, not an illegal substance, but certainly suspect.

Posted by: WildaHughes | January 7, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Simply because Mrs. Clinton becomes a bit wrought up after losing a single caucus does not mean that she wouldn't respond handsomely if the nation were attacked on a large scale. But perhaps it would be fair for Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards to get a time out from the Democratic leadership in order for Hillary to get her emotions under control. Also, by punishing them for bullying her, enemies of the USA would be put on notice that making Hillary cry when she's President just won't be tolerated.

Posted by: the.rohliks | January 7, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

errinfamilia said:
"You need to face real electoral battles and win them, something Hilary has never done before. The presidential race (her first one) is NOT a good place to start trying things you've never done before."

Good point. I've been thinking for a while now about the election where Ted Kennedy was the annointed crown prince of the establishment but he muffed it with that really bizarre TV interview (1980?). He's continued on with a long and influential Senatorial career.

Maybe Hillary is human after all and the deal she made with her own private devil (Bill) isn't looking so attractive after all.

Posted by: LongTimeRez | January 7, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how they manage to do it, but some of the posters seem to be both shallow and vicious at the same time. And they think putting their "thoughts" into all caps somehow makes them more effective.

"menapausal (sic) battle axe" is not exactly uplifting language for discussing public policy, is it?

C'mon people, we can't all be as elegant as George Will, perhaps, but we can maybe think a little?


Posted by: chuckmcf | January 7, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

I've seen this clip twice and I don't see what the big deal is except that the media's run amok again. Most days, the media implies that Hillary is a cold-hearted _______. That's because we know, deep-down that few people, men or women, could have endured the relentless persecution that this woman has stood up to. So she's steely. She has taken her knocks again and again, and keeps standing, and that drives people crazy. Today, she explained how much she cared for this country. And it felt genuine. She meant it. Now she's an "emotional woman" who cannot possibly lead. Since when? I'll tell you what. If I had to jump in a foxhole with someone, I'd sure want Hillary in there. She wouldn't cut and run. So the real question is, why do so many of you hate her so badly? Even if you distrust all politicians, why does this one upset you more than any other? You just had an administration take you to war under false pretenses, lie to you about the cost, kill your sons and daughters with it, wreak havoc on the American economy, sell your civil, legal, and consumer rights, as well as your very air and water to the highest bidder. Yet Hillary Clinton is supposed to be the country's villain. It's that extra X chromosome, isn't it? Admit it.

Posted by: WildaHughes | January 7, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

This really is a deeply misogynistic country, and an extremely mean country as well. Because of that, a Republican will win overwhelmingly in November. Hope all of you people dissing Hillary will be proud of yourselves then

Posted by: skylark1 | January 7, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Hillary, Mr. Data called. He wants his emotion chip back.

Posted by: whatmeregister | January 7, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

skylark1 wrote:

"Americans are small minded, sexist, petty, and mean..."

Only those that sterotype a population of 300 million are minded. Speak for yourself, not me. It's not my fault eveyone is sick of the Clintons by now.

Posted by: Digitalman08 | January 7, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Yasmine.Branden:

That's how I got treated at the Obama web site -- I was BANNED even after I had donated to the campaign -- good call on your part BTW : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Do you use ALL CAPS BECAUSE YOU'RE HAVING AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE, or because YOU ACTUALLY HAVE NO REAL POINT TO MAKE AND THINK ALL CAPS WILL MAKE ONE APPEAR?

Posted by: avalle | January 7, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if reporters or editors ever ask themselves; "if this was someone else how would we report it?" The fact is if Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, or even McCain got choked up about the reasons they were running we would be talking about how deeply felt are their passions to serve the country.

Instead, because Hillary is a woman and because she is trying to present strength as an attribute, when she has this moment we have an over-reaction by the MSM, let alone the right-wing media, about how she is crying, breaking down, can't take the pressure, is being calculating, etc, etc, etc. The fact is if you take a moment to see the tape, she is expressing her real feelings about why she is running and why she stays in the public arena in spite of the way she is treated by the right, left, and center.

She is a politician and all politicians try to manipulate voters, but sometimes there are true moments and this is one.

Posted by: whoislike | January 7, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Hands down, Hillary will cream the others and is certain to take home an Oscar at the next ceremony.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | January 7, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Don't get caught up with the theatrics. the Clinton's are con artists.

Posted by: fredferst | January 7, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

A truly grotesque moment. I suppose if the prez of Iran ever breaks bad, Hillary will just send him a pic of herself crying and he'll put down his nukes. What a disgusting woman. At least I THINK she's a woman.

Posted by: birvin9999 | January 7, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Political trueism: the quality of a candidate is reflected in the quality of his/her supporters. Based on the unmitgated hatred I'm reading here, I will never again consider supporting Barack Obama. I don't want to be aligned with hateful people such as those posting today.

Posted by: Yasmine.Branden | January 7, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Yeah right. Like this is real! Are we to believe that suddenly she has a conscience? The HC campaign must be in pretty bad shape to play the cry-card.

We can do so much better with Obama!

Posted by: BethesdaMD | January 7, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Amadeus, and I really want to move to Canada now. Americans are small minded, sexist, petty, and mean, (like Digitalman) and now we will get four or eight more Republican years. Hope you all are proud of yourselves.

Posted by: skylark1 | January 7, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary may be sincere in her convictions and emotions, but her way of bringing change has involved a lot of things that make me never want to vote for her. Go Obama!

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

Posted by: Martin4 | January 7, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Don't get caught up with the theatrics; the Clinton's are con artists.

Posted by: fredferst | January 7, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Breaking News. The Clinton team has unveiled their secret weapon: Chelsea.

The end is near.

Posted by: stevefought | January 7, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse


I much prefer Hillary Clinton's caring so passionately about the United States as opposed to George Bush caring most about the big fish he caught.

Posted by: tperry1 | January 7, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

I guess she is going the try and cry her way into The White House.

Posted by: fredferst | January 7, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

The Post will never attack Obama, because, the Post is seen as the "white" newspaper in town, and they don't want to further alienate their black readership by going on the attack against Obama-WHICH THEY, AND ALL THE OTHER MEDIA PUNDITS NEED TO DO, BUT WON'T, FOR FEAR OF BEING CALLED "RACIST"-THE MEDIA NEEDS TO START EXAMINING OBAMA, AND WHERE HE REALLY STANDS ON ISSUES, SORRY, NO FREE PASS FOR OBAMA SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.

Posted by: farfalle44 | January 7, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is showing the signs of running at full steam, and gaining no traction. This on the heels of realizing she is no longer the front runner. She may swing back in front on 'Super Tuesday', and these early races may then be just a bad dream. However, now that she has cried, and we all know that "there's no crying in politics." to paraphrase a movie phrase. To me that moment dooms her run to the White House. The media will play that tape over and over, and Republicans will include it in negative ads, should she be the nominee. To me then, it is over for her. Just my opinion.

Posted by: bfjam | January 7, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

But Hillary could she she was ready to cry earlier, & she's ready to cry now

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

If Romney and Hillary win their nominations and, if asked in a debate about crying on the campaign trail, Romney could brag that he's cried earlier and more times in public than Hillary.

Posted by: mikebythesun | January 7, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Voters look for optimism, confidence, & something ephemeral they can identify with.
Mrs. Clinton has been a little weak in these qualities which is why Obama is about to put out her headlights.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Yep. You nailed it, B2O2 at 05:59 PM!

Posted by: nfbindc | January 7, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

What level will the Clinton's stoop to next??? Watch out for ol' "I have cancer, and I only have 4yrs to live" scam next. A special on the Lifetime channel can't be far behind. Please kill me now.

Posted by: mackmusic78 | January 7, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

As to Hillary Clinton's eyes watering and voice cracking, this should be her undoing. If she cannot handle the emotional stress of the campaign, especially in these early stages, she certainly isn't steadfast nor strong enough to handle national security, the economy, a volatile Congress, and - heaven forbid - an enemy.
Bill Paddock
Tulsa, OK
I am a woman and not a very young one. You can not compete for the highest office in the land and expect voters to support you when you can't handle the stress of negative polls, etc. in the primary process. Tears do not humanize the candidate. Voters look for strength and leadership.

Posted by: bimehnert | January 7, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

remember when former presidential candidate colorado representative pat schroeder shed a tear several years ago and then someone asked something like "would you want someone who cries to be the one who pushes the button that starts a nuclear war?" and the response was something like, "would you want someone who wouldn't?" it's the same thing here. you think the worst president ever and his sidekick dick would wrestle much with the moral implications of such a decision? i think it's doubtful, based on their "me first" agenda and their horrific track record of lies and deceit. the world would be a better place if world "leaders" showed a little more love and compassion toward the planet and its inhabitants. it's the only thing that will save us in the end. it's time to stop electing sociopaths to positions of power.

Posted by: live_free_or_die | January 7, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

knightlaw04:

You're welcome -- are you a law student, practicing attoney, or other? I practiced for 35 years but am currently retired. I pulled the delegate count from an AP story on KOS, although I am sure some other political blogs are keeping track as well:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/5/94441/88077/214/430996

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

it's just another cadidate handling his or her stress. one cheats on his wife, another one prays, this one cries. what's the big deal?

Posted by: nfbindc | January 7, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

This isn't a male-female issue about who's stronger than the other or who can lead. It's just another cold, calculated move by Hillary to let people think she's been unfairly gang-tackled. Anyone that thinks otherwise has fallen for it. Her performance, Academy award winning as it may be, luckily, won't fool 51% of the voters.

Posted by: Digitalman08 | January 7, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Ohhh Geez!

Last time Black men made White women cry, Cocaine was outlawed!

Wait a minute...

Posted by: rat-the | January 7, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Odug, wow, that was very creative.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I think her emotional response is genuine but not for the reasons outlined. From the beginning she was anointed the front runner. It was almost a forgone conclusion that she would be the Democratic nominee. She had her hubby, Billy in her corner lobbying for her. She had formidable endorsements from powerful supporters. Now her campaign is on the verge of disarray after the Iowa caucus results and the latest polls showing her trailing Obama in NH. She's having to change her strategy and it's really frustrating for her. The point is she is an A-type person. She is Ivy league educated. Was the first wife of a Governor and a president. She is now a US senator. She's not used to failing. She feels she is failing now and is getting emotional.

Posted by: jabreal00 | January 7, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

jime,
Welcome to the Internet. See, this is where a few hundred million people get together & express opinions. You may not like them, or share them, but you're free to ignore them.
And "she" is not the only candidate who would like to make this country "better".
As for moving to Iraq, I think I'd like
Oregon better. But thanks for the tip.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

stone--unhinged, Time for you to go play with your atanomicaly correct inflatable doll. I think you're a perfect emotional match. ODUG

Posted by: odug | January 7, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter who joins with those saddened and disgusted by the insults and catcalls being thrown at Hillary Clinton. As Democrats, we're in the wonderful position of having three excellent candidates in the running - I wish we could all support our choice with vigor and enthusiasm without wanting to destroy the others.

Posted by: sdewitt | January 7, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Yup, B202 at 5:59p.m. has his or her finger on the pulse of this non-story.

Posted by: SarahBB | January 7, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

If any of the male candidates cried answering any question, we'd be all over him. There is no crying in presidential politics! This should be an instant disqualification. Instant! no questions asked! Whether you vote for Obama, Edwards or cross over to the dark side please think twice before voting for someone who cries while merely running for the most stressful job on the planet. I'm sorry but I can not respect a commander-in-chief that has a "hallmark" moment answering an "oxygen/we channel" totally estrogen filled question. How is she going to protect us from terrorists if she's pausing to cried about the situation first. What a bag of complete "boldrich."

Posted by: gtaylor301 | January 7, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

She is considered cold-hearted,why,I don't know,but she finally shows a little heart and you morons still find something bad to write about her. Again,WHY?
It's because of aholes like you that this country is faltering and close to crashing,what's your excuse for that?
Hillary had my vote from day one and she will have it on the final day. She is working to better the present Fk-up but you don't see that.Pitiful lives you must have to belittle someone on a computer and try to crack the funniest joke while this ONCE great country is going down. When a Democrat wins,you can all move to Iraq because you all think everything is fine now over there.

Posted by: jime2000 | January 7, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama & his campaign have been civil, cordial, and even supportive of Mrs. Clinton. So quit the endless moaning. Damn. And here's news you can use:So WHAT if Mrs. Clinton voted "yes" or "no"...She voted "yes" when she should have voted "no".
Beginning to see the bigger picture?

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

B202 at 5:59 p.m.: EXACTLY!! You nailed it perfectly. Bravo!

Posted by: citizenjane | January 7, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

When all else fails, cry.

Posted by: zbob99 | January 7, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

She's going down in flames. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when she realizes she's screwed. Nail down everything that can be thrown.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | January 7, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I don't think her crying is the issue. I think it's that her crying seemed fake. Come on, who would say something like this in a truly emotional state: "There are some who are not ready to lead, and others who will be ready on Day One." Crying and soundbytes just don't seem like a natural combination. This was clearly phony.

Posted by: phillyboy81 | January 7, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't help myself ask whether Hillary's emotional "moment" is real or another fake.

It may not matter at all? If real, then she is a weakling who can't lead the country. If fake, the voters keep laughing and mocking her. Whew... tough life for her!

Posted by: sukkee | January 7, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

You'd have to be heartless to not feel sympathy for Hillary Clinton right now. Her dream has been shattered. And, like it or not, not all of it is her fault. She has done a lot of good. Unfortunately, some of her more rabid supporters post vicious attacks on Mr. Obama for being black or being given a Muslim middle name and against men for just being males. I'm a Democrat and I wrote off Ms. Clinton when she never called these radical feminists off and appeared to even appease them in some of her speeches.

Right now, I really like Barak Obama. He seems to represent Middle Class working men and women. He could wreck his candidacy, still, if the mob of "black leaders, the Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's, try to ride his coat tails as the "black candidate". I would expect Mr. Obama to welcome their support but tell them to keep their distance as the same sort of nutty fringe group as the lesbian's and gay right that sunk Hillary's candidacy.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 7, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

How about realizing it was a well-scripted/well-acted and not truly an emotional moment. HRC is a consumate politician, er, actress and has 8 years on PA Ave to prove it!

Posted by: meadmkr | January 7, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

I find the diatribes against Hillary Clinton disgusting and frankly downright un-American. So, if one shows emotion, it is somehow a calculated move or makes you weak? Would to God George W. Bush shown some of this emotion in the past coulple of years. And frankly, Barack Obama is not impressing some of us. Using the language of change and not actually voting for it in the Senate is telling. Lest anyone forget he was against the Patriot Act before he was for it! Yes, friends and neighbors, Sen. Obama voted for that renewal.

Let's also not forget that he was for a mandated national health care system before he was against it. John Edwards is right in his criticism that you can't "nice" these guys to death. I find it amazing how gullible the main street media has been with this guy. Hillary can't show emotion unless it is calculated, but the great Obama can do nothing wrong. Give me a break!

And by the way, at least Hillary voted in the Senate instead of voting "present". If you can't put your view in an up or down, yes or no vote in the Senate, then you are not qualified to be President of the United States.

Posted by: jkstiles | January 7, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Could you please share where you found the numbers on the overall delegates who have endorsed certain candidates already (e.g. HRC with 175, BO with 75). I would like to be able to track this. Thank you, and thanks for being one of a small number of rational non-haters on this thread.

Posted by: knightlaw04 | January 7, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

FYI, Latest polls indicating a blowout in SC:

South Carolina Democratic Primary
Saturday, January 26 | Delegates at Stake: 45

Poll Date Sample Obama Clinton Edwards Spread
Rasmussen 01/06 - 01/06 553 LV 42 30 14 Obama +12.0
SurveyUSA 01/04 - 01/06 579 LV 50 30 16 Obama +20.0

=========

Wow.

Posted by: zbob99 | January 7, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

if she really believes that she sees what is happening in america why does she persist in believing that we must continue a troop presence in iraq for another decade or that she believes that military aggression may be necessary against the iranian people? is she not listening? does she not read polls? this si what happens when special interests get in the way of beliefs. or is it the other way around? emotionalism is the last thing that america needs right now. what we need is a leader that is both pragmatic and TOUGH when it comes time to deal with an america that is currently nothing better than a train wreck waiting to happen(or has it already begun?). we must mend some bridges and get tough with countries such as israel and pakistan. in others words cut off the funding for dictatorships and occupationalists. hillary doesn't have the courage to truly put her life on the line for america and this is precisely what it is going to take.

Posted by: wa_idaho_lonewolf | January 7, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"Mrs. Clinton is a better, more competent,stronger, more honest, more decent human being, than you and your pitiful ilk ever have a chance of being."


Since you have no idea who I am, or who I am voting for, since I am certain you wouldn't know decency from decadency, I will simply dismiss you as a fool. Consider yourself dismissed.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"Mrs. Clinton is a better, more competent,stronger, more honest, more decent human being, than you and your pitiful ilk ever have a chance of being."

Since you have no idea who I am, or who I am voting for, I will simply dismiss you as a fool. Consider yourself dismissed.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

How is an "average bear" supposed to have ANY idea, amid this cacophony of candidates and cynics, who would be the best president of the United States? I agree with those who have said they'd rather see tears shed for our war dead. I agree with those who have said that tears don't necessarily indicate weakness. But I still don't know to whom to give my own little slice of power -- my vote. My problem I guess...I don't want to be called a crybaby.

Posted by: Jinny | January 7, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

To be clear, "crocodile tears" are feigned tears referring to someone seeking sympathy, and is gender unspecified as men and women are equally prone to this behavior. To be sure, I believe both of the Clintons to be generally deceitful, unsavory figures, and that their legacy of "progress" is largely a mirage. The data just doesn't bear it out, real wages for workers at or below the median wage level decreased stagnated under the Clinton engineered boom. No doubt, Bill was one of the great orators of the 20th centuries, but his policy did very little in real terms (certainly more than Bush, but what is that saying?) for the both half of the income bracket. Economic estimates figure that close to 80-90% of the income growth in the 1990s accrued to the top 5% of the income bracket. Bill Clinton also blew-up the only pharmaceutical plant in Sudan to "change the story" from his own screw-ups.... All told I'm under no delusions about what Obama can really achieve, I am, however happy to see voters rejecting the Clinton message the second time around....Here's to small victories!

Posted by: hockmuth | January 7, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

You people make me sick. Emotion DOES NOT equal weakness, it signals some humanity, some qualitative evaluation, some compassion. I WISH bush had some empathy for the people around the world whose lives he fails to value.

Posted by: racimperman | January 7, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

You know, seeing Hillary Clinton as "emotional" how much this candidacy means to her, how much she has worked on behalf of the people, has made me like her more. I support John Edwards as President, but I will vote for Hillary, for sure, because the alternative-OBAMA -IS NOT AN OPTION HERE.

Posted by: farfalle44 | January 7, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

To be clear, "crocodile tears" are feigned tears referring to someone seeking sympathy, and is gender unspecified as men and women are equally prone to this behavior. To be sure, I believe both of the Clintons to be generally deceitful, unsavothat ry figure, and their legacy of "progress" is largely a mirage. The data just doesn't bear it out, real wages for workers at or below the median wage level decreased stagnated under the Clinton engineered boom. No doubt, Bill was one of the great orators of the 20th centuries, but his policy did very little in real terms (certainly more than Bush, but what is that saying?) for the both half of the income bracket. Economic estimates figure that close to 80-90% of the income growth in the 1990s accrued to the top 5% of the income bracket. Bill Clinton also blew-up the only pharmaceutical plant in Sudan to "change the story" from his own screw-ups.... All told I'm under no delusions about what Obama can really achieve, I am, however happy to see voters rejecting the Clinton message the second time around....Here's to small victories!

Posted by: hockmuth | January 7, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Omyobama. Compared to the moron in office, any of the Democrats would fine as President, Hilary included. I think Obama would be transformational and I don't see any reason to settle for anything less. Obama in the White House, Hilary in the Senate..sounds good to me.

Posted by: thebobbob | January 7, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Well the press finally accomplished it's mission. It found, oh my God, a tear in Mrs. Clinton eye. And all of you who write in such a gleefully vicious manner, are acting out like such gutless, vile, sociopathic fools. Yes, nativetexan, stonhinged, aepellum, amadeus, bdstauffer, ect., all of you apparently fail to realize that the evidence seems to indicate that in every respect, Mrs. Clinton is a better, more competent,stronger, more honest, more decent human being, than you and your pitiful ilk ever have a chance of being. Of course go f*** yourself, serial draft dodger, angry Cheyney, with his avarice, incompentence, and cowardice seems to be someone you could identify with and vote for. ODUG

Posted by: odug | January 7, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Stupid White Men have fought wars that saved your pathetic butt. They have created the most dynamic economy in the history of the world. They have been poets, mathmaticians, surgeons & scientists.
If anyone is ruining America, it's people who are too bigoted to know any of this.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

THE BITTERNESS AND DASH OF CYNICISM expressed by some writers may have to do with the suppressed anger many Democrats feel with the apparent "anointing" of Ms Clinton by the Democratic Party national leadership.

Having lost several recent elections with this tightly-controlled leadership, many Democrats have understood that Hillary's candidacy would be shoved down the throats of potential voters -- no ifs, ands, buts.

Now that it is obvious that Hillary's machine is broken, a lot of Democrats are finding it liberating to lash out -- we made every effort to influence the DNC et al to promote an electable candidate.

Those of us who comprehend what the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and the well-funded "swiftboaters" can do to destroy a candidate, also understand that Hillary's many triangulations and her spotty Senate votes are not nearly good enough to get her past the GOP dirty tricks.

Nor will she be elected in a general election; too much baggage, too much Bill.

So, there are at least two who can win for the Democratic Party -- and Hillary is not one of those two. Many progressive Democrats and Independents are waiting for the dust to settle in NH so that a real campaign for the nomination can begin.

Posted by: suzeq | January 7, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Huh?? I thought she was suypposed to be the iron lady. So faced with a difficult situation, say something like the cuban missle crisis, what is she going to do, curl up in a fetal postition and say "this is so hard" and start crying? She needs to give it up and back a real leader Barack Obama.

Posted by: zbob99 | January 7, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

There's no crying in the primaries!

Posted by: musselmanm321 | January 7, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I admire Hillary AND have to say that the doubts among contributors here that this may be some sort of last minute humanization strategy suggest she and her campaign will have to justify even her most subtle nuances endlessly, and this very tedium is so much of a distraction that many of us prefer it be moved to a more private arena, so she can have her life back, and have her real passions back, so she can help her party and her country in ways more consistent with her enormous gifts. I look forward to her consulting with the likes of Obama on foreign policy, but I'm not so clear on how I feel with Bill as a too easy and likely pick as her roving ambassador.
I wonder how she will respond when Obama or Edwards approaches Michael Bloomberg to explore the possibility of creating a truly post partisan administration, with maybe the mayor actually on the ticket.
Has my imagination...

Posted by: thanksforfish | January 7, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

All these hateful commentators. They can't allow someone a small human moment.
These are the ones Obama is going to teach to love others!

Posted by: chanduri | January 7, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Stupid white men have ruined America. Its time to give women a chance. I'd vote for Senator Clinton before I'd vote for any white man. Obama is the Republican choice so I can't vote for him. And I'll take a person with a heart before a cold blooded warmongering snarling silver spoon fed living off the public teet Bush or Cheney any day.

Posted by: JDeter | January 7, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

First of all, she did NOT break down and cry. She looked and sounded emotional for a moment. Whoop-de-doo. Why not give her the benefit of the doubt that it was genuine, and whether or not it is, WHAT is the big deal?

Second, WORD on everything that's been said already about her can't-win situation. It's either "Ice Queen" or "Can't Take the Heat." Double standard, much?

Third, I am not a Hillary voter but I too, fail to understand the level of bile she provokes. Leave the lady alone. Whatever her limitations as a Presidential candidate, she doesn't deserve all the hate.

Posted by: lylee65 | January 7, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

No one is showing up at Hillary's rallies. The Clinton campaign is busing supporters in from Massachusetts. The radio reported today that at the Clinton rallies the parking is filled with Massachusetts license plates--hardly any vehicles from New Hampshire.

Posted by: charko825 | January 7, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

The 'positive spin' on the voice-cracking, eyes-watering Hilary is ridiculous. It is going to hurt her in a bad way. America wants someone who is a beacon of strength during times of adversity. I'm not so sure that FDR's speech after Pearl Harbor, or Lincoln's Gettysburg address would have been as effective if they were getting misty-eyed.

Posted by: mikekim | January 7, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

You're not the one who has mesothelioma. If you want to be a leader, you have to lead.

Posted by: boating | January 7, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter I don't get off on seeing HRC humiliated. That's not the kind of change or healing that is attracting me to Barack's message. There IS a double-standard, always has been, always will be that powerful men who cry are "brave to show their sensitive side" and women who cry are weak or calculating and manipulative. I don't think HRC is a good enough actress to fake this -- I was impressed by her truly emotional devastation at being rejected on the eve of what she had hoped would be her political triumph. I don't think it necessarily makes her any less or more stable than any of the males running for the office but it doesn't change my vote. Barack Obama is as experienced in his own right and has a unifying message of hope and change. Look at the vitrol of the posts on this blog if you need to see a tiny bit why I don't want a Clinton campaign in 2008 (whether it's fair to blame her for her detractors or not). HRC is simply not electable and guess what -- even if she were, I don't have to settle for political expediancy this election when I have actually been inspired and excited for the first time in 20 years (yes, since the first Bill run). But let's remember our manners and remember we're all gonna need to be together in November! Go OBAMA!

Posted by: Omyobama | January 7, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

That frustrated fantasy of being the most powerful woman in the world spilling into tears. All the hard earned corporate and special interest connections, all those big plans for Bill and Bush Sr. The big white house in Washington you longed to hold court in (and whose furniture you tried to steal).. All that longed for control may be blowing in the wind. By losing, Hillary is saving the country from being torn into a million pieces. Obama's the right one at the right time.

Posted by: Marnie42 | January 7, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Aw, how sweet and tender - maybe it'll give you more of the lesbian vote, but lickety split - the game is over. Trying running a real campaign next time. Slogans and a song do not make a president

Posted by: zendrell | January 7, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

My wife and I were of the "Hillary is toast" school until, ironically, we saw this clip. She came across as the human that we always had trouble finding in Al Gore. Being emotional is not being weak. Nobody ever accused Reagan of being weak because he got weepy. Can't say I'll vote for HRC over Obama, but I'm not going to write her off because she has feelings.

Posted by: CntrvilleCitoyen | January 7, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Comprehensive Primer for American politics, 2008 edition:

1. If a man appears strong and speaks his mind with confidence, he is a RESOLUTE LEADER FOR DIFFICULT TIMES.

2. If a woman appears strong and speaks her mind with confidence, she is an ICE QUEEN and we won't go for her.

3. If a man (e.g., Mitt Romney) appears choked up during a single isolated moment on the campaign trail, it is because he cares SO MUCH about the inclusion of African Americans in his forward-looking church a mere century after slavery was ended.

4. If a woman gets choked up during a single isolated moment on the campaign trail, it is CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL EVIDENCE that she is unfit for the rigors of governing. Unless we in our telepathic wisdom decide she is faking it, in which case refer back to rule #2.

That's about it, isn't it?

Posted by: B2O2 | January 7, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Two Words....

Crocodile tears....

That last refuge of a........

Posted by: hockmuth | January 7, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

It didn't work for Ed Muskie in 1972.

Posted by: slim2 | January 7, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The question in and of itself was INSULTING...Romney is getting attacked from all sides, far more regularly, and even has had attack ads aired against him. He then lost in Iowa to someone who he outspent SIX to ONE...

But no one is asking him how he manages to "keep it all together and stay so wonderful"...and if he shed a tear...for ANY reason save the death of a close family member, he'd be FINISHED...

why the double standard?

Posted by: squatty2 | January 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Sort of reminds one of the child who did not get the Christmas gift she knew she deserved from Santa.

Afterall Hillary considers herself the rightful heir to the Oval Office and what must she feel finally to realize that not only is she "not young enough, not tall enough, not liked enough" to be acceptable to the present mood of the electorate.

Afterall every move she has made (including the one to New York State) has been carefully calculated to win this election. She has been collecting campaign funds for the past eight years and gathering in political IOU's from local Dem pols but now it seems they may not be able to deliver on their debts.

As someone observed the product is past "sell date."

But Sen. Biden put it most aptly --though perhaps a bit inelegantly--when he very early on observed that one of the main attractions of Obama is that he is "not dirty." His meaning, of course, is that he is not tainted with a list of questionable acts and statements like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This last Hurrah for Big Bill was also a grievous mistake; Hillary should have bought him a ticket to Vegas or some other flesh pot of the world and kept his "experience" in the White House--which Hillary claims is one of her longsuits--faded in public memory.

On the other hand maybe she next will claim that Obama is just another manifestation of the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy" whose only reason for being is to bring down the fragile and oh so human Clintons.

And so as someone already noted: Maybe there is something about the cold and unforgiving nature of New Hampshire and its clearheaded people that cause candidates to just silently weep when things don't seem to go their way.

Tough buns Hillary. We feel your pain!!!

Posted by: AmericanInterestsFirstandLast | January 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Next we will be hearing about the vast left-wing conspiracy. Please, Hillary, do yourself a favor - find a strategy, a message, and stick with it. Quit stealing obama's "CHANGE" and now Edwards' "THIS IS PERSONAL FOR ME." And, for the sake of all of us women, do not, I repeat DO NOT start blubbering and don't use that "you hurt my feelings" line again. It's embarrassing. A lot of us strong women out here would rather wait for the first woman president be one who has made it on her own...not her husband's reputation.

Posted by: joy2 | January 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Someon mentioned that Obama doesn't have any "executive" experience...and to that I respond, what experience does Hillary have?

The First lady isn't the POTUS...she doesn't sit in on his daily meetings, she didn't have a security clearance...she wasn't a cabinet member...she was the first lady...

Does Barbara Bush, nancy reagan have "executive experience"? Would they have been ready on day 1? How about Jackie Kennedy?

Does Bill Gate's wife know how to run Microsoft? My wife is an attorney...would I be able to try cases through the osmosis of living in the same house with her?

Posted by: squatty2 | January 7, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey "Bill Paddock" of Tulsa OK (who posted above)... have you ever gotten emotional about anything? I mean just choked up like Senator Clinton did today, it doesn't have to involve actual tears.

If so, does this mean that YOU are unfit for any stressful, important job? Tell us the truth now. You sound like such a manly man, I wonder if you're man enough to be honest even on this anonymous forum here?

If not, why not? Do you simply not care about anything, or anyone, enough to get emotional about it/them? I pity your children then, if you have any.

Posted by: B2O2 | January 7, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

If this is a real display of emotion, it might hurt her as a "sign of weakness", but I'm not too concerned about whether she's "tough enough" to lead. I think the more damaging issue is how politically convenient it is, and how every indication from the video is that it's a contrived ploy. A day before the votes are cast, I think it confirms what most people think about Clinton: that her every move is designed to help her win elections. Here's what I see:

After she says "passionately believe it's the right thing to do," she gathers herself, and then appears to "switch into emotional mode". She rests her chin in her hand, makes some fast little head nods, all emphatic and very "stage acted".

How many people, when actually emoting, use their campaign slogans? "Ready to lead on Day 1?" That's just not authentic. Similarly, she attacks Obama (and possibly Edwards; I'm not sure if she thinks she has more experience than Edwards or not) by saying "some of us are ready, others are not". If you're describing the way you feel about being on the campaign trail, this is really tangentially related.

Here's what pretty obviously happened:

After Iowa, she decided to go negative. After she went negative, she slipped in the polls. She figured she was being seen as too cold, so she did a little calculation: she wanted to come after Obama, but she also wanted to soften her image. Hence, this speech.

It's probably not coincidental that she's just today decided to "take control" of her message; a lot of people in Camp Clinton probably felt it was a mistake to look soft, because a President also has to be a Commander in Chief. She was desperate, and wanted to go for it anyway.

Why does it matter?

Well, a President ought not to be about manipulating the public to support him or her; a President ought to be in the business of working to construct policies that benefit the country, and then communicating these policies in order to persuade the country of their efficacy.

When politicians put their own self-interest ahead of the good of the country, things like Clinton's Iraq War vote are the result. If this is a charade, and I strongly suspect it is, it further entrenches the impression that for Clinton, getting elected is worth manipulating the American public.

Posted by: unitedstatesofamerica1 | January 7, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure how many of you live in IL. but Barak has never beaten anyone in a tough election. He comes from a district on the South Side of Chicago where he has competition from only other black politicians. He then gets the primary win to face a Ruplican party in IL that has it's governor going to jail and his first choice getting divorced for questionable sex acts - who also had the last name Ryan. Barac has only beaten Alan Keyes - who was not even from IL - for the Senate seat that he has. I could have won that election. God help us Democrats when the Republicans tear into him - there is NO evidence he is a "gamer" when the Lions DO NOT lay down with the Lambs. Obama is a joke if you believe this stuff - IL Resident

Posted by: bmcclo6978 | January 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Marianne Pernold Young is a dog licked her makeup off before the interview...did you ever consider that?

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

THE MYSTERY OF THE MAKEUP THAT DID NOT STREAK---

Hillary wears enough makeup to erase all wrinkles. Not that there is anything wrong with that, indeed, its good.

But her meakeup did not smear or streak.

Actors have to use special makeup to avoid streaks in emotive scenes.

Sherlock Holmes solved a mystery when he realized the dog did not bark.

Hillary's crygate will be solved by the makeup that did not smear.

Posted by: JaxMax | January 7, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

"It's about our country!"

"I just don't want to see us fall backwards!"

"some of us are ready and some of us are not!"
comments by HRC
=========================================
Yes, it is about our country! And no we don't want to fall backwards into another CLINTON ADMINISTRATION! AND NO - YOU ARE NOT READY!

This is all put-on. I don't fall for your poor, poor me pathic me act, which you've tried to pull on us before - blaming "It's a right wing conspiracy" - when all along Slick Willy had you fooled.

Give us a break! Give it up! This is NOTHING, NOTHING compared to what you will get from the GOP is you are the DEMs canidate. But, then, you'll never make it!

Posted by: nativetexan | January 7, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's speech tommorow night: You hate me, you really, really hate me.

Posted by: diabloquick.wa | January 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

GO MOLLY IVINS!!!

Seriously, though, Hillary Clinton is still in the leads with the delegate count. Most superdelegates contacted by the AP before the Iowa caucuses were undecided. However, among those who have endorsed a candidate, Clinton leads with 160, compared to 59 for Obama and 32 for former Sen. John Edwards.

An AP analysis of the Iowa caucus results going into New Hamshire showed Obama winning 16 delegates, followed by Clinton with 15 and Edwards with 14. In the overall race for delegates, however, Clinton leads with 175, followed by Obama with 75 and Edwards with 46.

A total of 2,025 delegates is needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, let's blame the WaPo for this...
Look, it was Mrs.Clinton who decided to sit for this interview in front of a camera. If she were sooo emotionally frail, she should have said NO.
And this has a lot less to do with her sniffles than her self-pitying, poor-me-I'm so good & so misunderstood routine.
I, for one whould rather listen to her sniffles than her self-absorbed whining.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

The absolute worst part of all of this Clinton bashing is that so much of it's coming from women. And women wonder why the good ol' boys won' let us in the game? What a joke!

Posted by: Justice66 | January 7, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"Some of us put ourselves out there against some pretty difficult odds", says Hillary The Vulnerable (how do you like me now?).

She must be speaking of Obama, not herself who had 30 point leads in Iowa and New Hampshire six months ago. Or maybe the odds she speaks of are related to her now impossible comeback.

I'd cry too if I was going down in history as having blown the biggest lead since the 1964 Phillies blew a 6.5 game lead over the Cards with 12 games to go.

No Heimlich for this choker. DOA. Call it, doctor.

Posted by: filmex | January 7, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

The spirit of Molly Ivin lives on.

Posted by: MissMay | January 7, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Well... all of you know that President Bush has never shed a tear on any count. His makeup would not run anyway, as he uses waterproof foundation and mascara by Cover Girl. He borrows it from Laura.

Posted by: MissMay | January 7, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

It's really amazing. Before the haters were saying how cold and unemotional Hilary is. Now, she is a cry baby who can't take the heat (the article says "her eyes appeared to well up", but the haters make it like she was balling like a babe.) Then the haters say the WaPo is promoting Hilary. Has anyone been paying any attention? If Hillary could only get some fair media from the likes of WaPo, NYT, NBC, MSNBC, etc, she would still be in the lead.

Posted by: pdris1 | January 7, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm hardly Hillary's biggest fan, but I don't understand all this hatred for her. Maybe some of it is just old fashioned misogyny.

Posted by: newageblues | January 7, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

It wasn't really much of an emotional outburst. Her steely facade wavered a bit and a small drop of emotion leaked out. The timing of it makes me believe it's at least partially contrived. I mean, come on ... her one big negative is that she's not considered likable and warm and then we get this on the eve of the most important election she's ever faced. In a way, though, it doesn't really matter if it was real or not. It's the fact that so many people can be unsure if it's real when she shows emotion that is her real problem.

Posted by: skrut003 | January 7, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I support Hillary a lot and I think she would make a wonderful president. Some of you are saying she is calculating and this is an act or she is being portrayed as weak, and I just don't agree with that. You're so suspicious of Hillary, but what about obama? He is not this "holy saint" on the road to change either. His dream to change America is just a tad to idealistic.

Posted by: aptx4869_sage | January 7, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

It's hard for me to believe any emotion displayed by Sen. Clinton is genuine. Based on past patterns, I believe her emotional response is contrived. I think Hillary and Bill are not very honest people.

Posted by: earth2charlie | January 7, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"Good grief, people. The meanness of spirit in most of these comments says much more about Mrs. Clinton's detractors than about Mrs. Clinton."

I'm with keith_in_seattle on this one. Gandhi said "Be the change you want to see n the world." Based on the comments posted here, I'd say you all want more of the same snipy, offensive politics that we've got now.

Posted by: leahkkal | January 7, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

There's only ONE response (not "responseS" plural) in this thread that invokes the word "hormone" -- Posted by: checkered1 | January 7, 2008 03:54 PM

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Please, please stop harping on this crying incident. You, the Washington Post, as always, are feeding into the most blatant gendered stereotypes. Why is it a huge news story that Hillary Clinton is a human being with human emotions. For once, just cover the election responsibly and impartially.

Posted by: es1355a | January 7, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Few observations:

1) She doesn't really cry, she's barely verklempt, the press is making her out to be like the youtube video of the Brittany Spears Whining Guy ('Leave Brittany alone...)

2) Observation one doesn't matter. If you look back at the Dean Scream it in and of itself wasn't that big of a deal, but put into the context that Dr. Dean was a little weird, it took off. Never act like the characture that people create for you. HRC's tongue twisted response in the Philly debate re: driver's licenses and undocumented aliens looked like something Jon Stewart's writers would have come up with... BHO did the same verbal triple flip in the next debate and it was dropped. Why? partly because it follows the her pre-programmed stereotype. Today's slight emotional glitch, hurts her because it either plays into the Hilary is a manipulative robot stereo-type, or ( and I hope it isnt this) into the sexist stereotypes re: woman as world leaders (note the responses that mention "hormones")

3) In 2004, we quickly jumped onto a candidate, and everybody said later maybe we should have let the primaries vet them better... maybe we should spend more time looking at the candidates... in the end i think, Obama, Edwards, and even Clinton (if she fires Penn) could survive this trial by fire, but its scary annoting someone so quickly. We (the demos) have to win the this one.

Posted by: perkinsneurology | January 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Academy award!

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Hilary, my love. Once I wanted you to lead us, 15 years ago, but the world has changed, and with that change has come pending disaster if we don't have a FULL sea change. There are three candidates of providing a much needed 180, Dennis, Barrack, and John. Dennis has no chance of course, Barrack has the best chance thus far, but man...if you want to turn this thing around, and kick the corrupted establisment in the cajones....EDWARDS ALL THE WAY! If everyone is as ready for a turning of the tide as I am, than why can't this gentleman get any traction?

Hilary, go home Hon. It's just not to be, and it shouldn't be. These "dynastys" need to stop now.

Posted by: CharlesWGray | January 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Thirty-five years experience. She gets things done. That's her pitch?

The one thing she was asked to do as First Lady, the one thing she promised to do as this so-called two for one we heard all about in the 90s, was bring about Universal Health Care. She failed so badly that not only Republicans were opposed to her plan, but also many Democrats.

True, not all her fault. But then she tells John Edwards to get back to reality because his patient's rights bill failed???

What has she delivered? Her vote helped the neo-cons get their war in Iraq. Nice one, Hillary.

Tears today, but doesn't anyone remember when she faked the laughter that one Sunday she appeared on all the network morning shows. How phony was that?

Posted by: edzo2 | January 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

This could be Hillary's Howard Dean moment (remember the Scream)

Posted by: wusaga | January 7, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I remember another black man who offered a dream.... Sure glad Hillary wasn't around to tell him dreams are not action and don't create change.
Posted by: No6_The_Prisoner | January 7, 2008 03:37 PM

I couldn't AGREE MORE. As an Africa-American its because of dreams that I have the opportunities I have now to freely express my political opinion through voting WITHOUT fear of reprisal or attempts to dissuade me through bogus tests administered by bigots. I am eternally grateful for those dreams because now I can cast my vote to further a personal dream and not have her in office!

Posted by: jlowens70 | January 7, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

tkdcmd:

I'm glad to hear you are doing better -- did you hear the rumor (above) that Karl Rove has been working since he left the White House to make sure Hillary was NOT nominated -- I think he might just have made that come true as well.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Everything Hillary does is a calculated move. Everything!

Posted by: mirammp | January 7, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Check with a makeup artist.

If tears are spontaneous, the makeup will run.

Where is the smeared makeup?

Crygate.

Posted by: JaxMax | January 7, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

You'd be disappointed if she left the race. It's just too much fun to hate her.

Posted by: dfc102 | January 7, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault
I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you
warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question.
Yes, I can answer Brit Hume's question. You are the same Hillary that you were
twenty years ago. You are cold, calculating and self-serving. You cannot tolerate the
thought that you will soon be without the power you have wielded for the last eight
years. Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I
only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton
is not an honorable or an honest person.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"Bill has talked so much about Juanita", and
that you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you
entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember
how you thanked me, saying "we want to thank you for everything that you do for
Bill". At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you
kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement,
but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the
last eight years. You said, "Everything you do for Bill". You then released your grip
and I said nothing and left the gathering.

Posted by: Phil5 | January 7, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I used to cry also when I thought she might actually be elected President! Since Iowa, I've been much better and think I might make it!

Posted by: tkdcmd | January 7, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

While this might make her more endearing to those who already like or support her, I doubt seriously this will convince any undecideds that she is in fact prepared to lead the country. Probably a "real" moment, but I don't believe a helpful one.

Posted by: avalle | January 7, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

hillary, hillary,hillary you can dish it out, but you can't take it. the racist, mean spirited things you said about mr. obama were more in the lines of desperate and despicable repugs.but you do take your marching orders from them. your faithful husband and old poppa bush are mighty chummy, these days. and to knock the iowans when you spent so much time and money there, because they did not want you. dragging out your mama and little chelsey, did not change one thing.get out of the race now before you pull a britney spears, and conk completly out.oh yeah, i do believe that question was a plant, you did it before and you weren't as desperate as you are now.go home, ny, il, or ar. we don't care which one, just go and take your dirty old man with you.

Posted by: ninnafaye | January 7, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it was scripted - but I do think it was the enormity of her emotions over the last 24 hours - having years of preparation all come apart virtually overnight and feeling helpless to do anything about it.

Posted by: tyty | January 7, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

is there anything more plastic that Obama and his fanatics?
NO.

Posted by: newagent99 | January 7, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

An Oldie, but Goodie:

". . . I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight. As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.

Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that."

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Someone must have upgraded her software.

Personally, I don't care whether she cries or not. It's sad to see the stress that any candidate has to go through, but this is a cakewalk compared to running the world. What matters to me isn't that she's ready to return to Washington to fight, but that she seems eager to pick unnecessary fights that have nothing to do with the national interest and everything to do with ego. Edwards, on the other hand, has got my ear and is starting to make me question my attachment to Obama. Either of those two would make great presidents, though - it's clear their both thinking of the country and not of self-vindication.

Posted by: treetopflyer | January 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton, we KNOW how personal this is to you because we know just how BADLY you want to be the President. However, if this emotional display helps you in the polls, watch out, because next week Mitt Romney will be blubbering his way through press conferences. Let's elect a PRESIDENT, not a pollster. OMBAMA IN '08!!

Posted by: roedel74 | January 7, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

It's the Ibogaine talking.

Posted by: stevefought | January 7, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I think her comment about people thinking the election is a game seemed quite sincere to me -- and it's true, we enjoy elections and sometimes they become too much entertainment and not enough about what's good for the country. And that bit is hurting Hillary, because she isn't too good at entertaining.

On the other hand, the whole bit about being ready "from day one" is just copied from her stump speech, this time with some emotion.

I think she needs to realize that voters aren't buying her whole "experience" argument, and it's not just because they don't find her likable. It's because, actually, Barack Obama is not the ingenue she makes him out to be. He isn't some kid who just graduated from college -- he is a person who knows the challenges faced by some of the poorest communities in the country, has ideas about how to create solutions, and is good at communicating these ideas to the public. Could he be wrong? Sure -- but so could Hillary. I don't think people want the president to be an expert... they want someone who can be a leader.

Posted by: nc473 | January 7, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Not to be churlish, but it's rather flattering to Sen. Clinton to describe her style as reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher's. Thatcher had few of the advantages lavished on Mrs. Clinton, and among other things had to display her "style" after the IRA tried to blow her up.

Posted by: jbritt3 | January 7, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Wow! I honestly have never heard she flunked the D.C. bar exam -- and I've followed politics pretty closely -- if it's at FreeRepublic, then it must be believed, right?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1425564/posts

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Bill Paddock, you are right. We can't have a president who shows stress. Hillary should take a lesson from W and just swagger with dull, intoxicated grandeur. The whole world will respond to us like anyoone who sees a drunk weaving down the road: slow down, pull over, and wait for the guy to careen into a ditch or a tree.

Posted by: jkoch2 | January 7, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Did you catch the latest episode of The HillBilly sitcom?

***SPOILER***
She cries after finding out that she actually didn't place a phone call to Bill while he was talking.

Posted by: painintheass97 | January 7, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Now she is crying!!!! There is no crying in politics! Absolutely disgusting. I guess she is not as ready as she thinks. This emotional ploy is unacceptable.

Posted by: dnbraggs | January 7, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I tend to write off HC as a "win at all costs" heartless b___tch. This cuts against my image of her. Which is good, I suppose. However, I also need to remind people that Ed Muskie had a breakdown that cost him a lot of credibility in the primaries. And, like many people exposed to the Post's biases over the decades, I too wonder about the prominence given to this piece.

Posted by: gparshal | January 7, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone have a link for Hillary Clinton failing the bar exam?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Every moment of Hillary's campaing is choreographed. Only an idiot would believe that the tears were genuine. This is a loathsome and pathetic last gasp from the rotting carcass of the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: nrch2o | January 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

What has this woman ever accomplished? What are her credentials? She has seven years as a senator, that's it. She has no executive experience and she only has seven years as a legislator. Has she done anything significant in the Senate. The remainder of her adult years were spent as the wife of an elected official, as a coniving political operative for her husband, and as a lawyer in po-dunk Arkansas law firm. I ask. Where is the beef with this woman?

Posted by: MickPack | January 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

It's not cynical to read her own words and find them wanting...
"I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it." Yeah? You & about everyone else.
"You know, some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds..." Yeah? Like being the first Black candidate doesn't make for difficult odds?
"some of us are ready and some of us are not..." Yeah? And you're "Ready" why? You never made policy, did you?
"...some of us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't thought that through enough" Yeah? Then tell us what you will do on Day One. And please, don't pretend you're the only one who's thought it through.
All her self-aggrandizing, her poor, little, wonderful Me routine, set to sniffles is NOT what some of us see as Presidential.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I think this was a genuine moment for Hillary, but its a bad sign that the pressure is getting to her so significantly. I cannot imagine what Bill O'Rielly and the Fox boys will do with the video. I am not anti-Hillary at all, but the reality is that, she has not in any way handled the pressure or anything other than the thought that she was the inevitable nominee, well. She is good when things are good, horrible when they aren't, which has been the case since the debate where Obama and Edwards finally started hitting back.

DRWJR

Posted by: donny_williams | January 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"Acting! Thank yoooou!"

/Jon Lovitz

Posted by: alex.calfee | January 7, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Great. We have a current Prez who's the poster child for "dumbest, luckiest, frat boy" and now we have an emotional, menapausal battle axe as a leading candidate.

Posted by: edwardlee35 | January 7, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I knew Hillary shouldn't have given away the dog Ellen DeGeneres gave her.

Posted by: AB68 | January 7, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Oct. 25th, 2007 AP article. "'Bill could cry, and did, but Hillary can't,' says Tom Lutz, a professor at the University of California, Riverside who authored an exhaustive history of crying. In other words, the same tearful response that would be seen as sensitivity in Bill could be seen as a lack of control in his wife.

Posted by: MatejaB | January 7, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

oh, Anne:

If you think this crying thing is such a big story, why didn't the media go after Romney for crying twice in 2 days? What a non-issue, and you're pushing it?

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

Posted by: spenceradams | January 7, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

It reminds me of the Daily Show skit about her delayed laughing at several jokes:

[Sensitive question detected...]
[Initiate emotion protocols...]
[Commence emotional response loop...]
[Execute...]

Hillary: *sniffle*

[Command executed]
[Return emotion module to base state...]

Posted by: zippyspeed | January 7, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I think this was a genuine moment for Hillary, but its a bad sign that the pressure is getting to her so significantly. I cannot imagine what Bill O'Rielly and the Fox boys will do with the video. I am not anti-Hillary at all, but the reality is that, she has not in any way handled the pressure or the at least any other than the thought that she was the inevitable nominee, well. She is good when things are good, horrible when they aren't, which has been the case since the debate where Obama and Edwards finally started hitting back.

DRWJR

Posted by: donny_williams | January 7, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm no Hillary fan, a Republican in fact, and a veteran. Obviously those who view showing emotion as weakness know nothing about history or strength. History is filled with accounts of generals crying for their troops. Anyone who has seen combat has seen soldiers cry over a fallen buddy then pick up a gun and get on with blowing away the bad guys. I guess the critics would be the same folks who think we should just throw away any of our soldiers who show similar "weakness."

Posted by: slucasx | January 7, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

To errinfamilia: great post. I think you nailed it. When she blathers on about her 35 years of experience it makes me crazy. Surely she can't be claiming 35 years of experience as an elected official. That leaves only a reference to her professional career as a lawyer and activist... hummm, sounds like Obama and Edwards too.

Posted by: apeterson | January 7, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Peter JJ -- There is no "balance" Sen. Clinton could find that would ever satisfy these people.

In this hyper-partisan society on steroids, it is the press, the public, and the politicos that can't find the balance in dealing with a woman holding the top job.

Posted by: desi | January 7, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Billary! lol

Posted by: misslissg | January 7, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

anne...another objective article...devoid of snide inuendo (cuz I really don't care about your personal feelings for the subject youre writing about). so, good job. keep it up.

Posted by: ogdeeds | January 7, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I've got a real sneaking suspicion that the posters on this board consist of 5 Clinton operatives, 3 Obama operatives and an occasional politically minded average Joe/Jane. Sadly, I think we are all waisting our time...

Posted by: toneye | January 7, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I totally agree with neabas. The level of cynicism is astonishing!! It's so sad - and its pathetic that in all these comments - there is so much emphasis given to the superficial instead of the substantial. Wonder how many of those who are commenting have taken the trouble to read the candidate manifestos. Come On Folks - let's at least stop being vicious to each other - my heart craves for some old world politeness and humaneness. Wonder if we've lost it forever.

Posted by: madhulikag | January 7, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Come on, people. She's only human - and last time I checked, humans get emotional under extreme stress. In any case, I hope she feels better by tomorrow because it's Party-time! (Go Obama!!)

Posted by: rblair75 | January 7, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

BTW, I missed the choking up and tears. I thought she sounded sincere. She seems to sincerely believe that ONLY SHE is "ready to lead". That is delusional ego-tripping, because as we all know by now, HRC is not that smart. She failed her bar exam, while Obama passed his, and was Law Review Editor to boot. "Most important election"? I don't think so.

"I see ..." yeah, cause us common people are so stupid. Sheesh, please, NH, get this woman off the stage!

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 7, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

man...this woman simply cannot win...how many men have we witnessed crying on television? dubya and his dad in particular...seems like there is a lot more sympathy for males than for hrc displaying some emotion...and, it isn't like she was sobbing hysterically but Im sure that she will be painted and described as such like many of you here. to be tough does not mean one can never show emotion...Im a former female marine and have witnessed weakness in men (and women) without needing to see tears...hrc has steely ones but it doesn't mean she is devoid of human emotion...even secretary of defense gates and general pace showed tearful emotion (far more than hillary) and no one seemed to get after them like they do hillary on this forum. as usual, the tiresome ole' double standard when it comes hillary...makes you all look like pathetic little people.....she's got my vote despite the fact that everyone has gotten on st obama's train without really checking out the goods...the guy continues to go unvetted...at least until the repubs get him in the general election.

Posted by: ogdeeds | January 7, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

It's an incredible commentary on the vacuousness of the media that nitpicks Hillary Clinton while giving the Moron-in-Chief a free pass in the press. George Bush has done more damage to this nation during his term in office than 20 Hillary Clintons could do in a lifetime and yet not a peep from the Knights of the Keyboard about the wreckage the BoyBuffoon's stupidity has made of the USA.

Posted by: Jerryvov | January 7, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

That was absolutely pathetic. Totally manufactured. She will stoop to anything to try to win. I am a liberal Democrat and I can see as much.

This is still more evidence that this country cannot stand anymore Bush/Clinton. Move on.

Posted by: vjskls | January 7, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"What are all you malicious buttmunchers going to do for amusement when you don't have her to hate any longer?"

Posted by: dfc102

We'll find some other self-serving, hypocritical politician to mock.

Posted by: errinfamilia | January 7, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

This is borne out of the difficulty faced by a woman candidate. The rub is that they are not strong enough, too emotional. So Hillary spends years cultivating her bone fides as a strong leader suitable for the rigors of the Presidency. Finally having put the strength question to bed, she is now expected to be the caring empathetic person that a President is also expected to be. She is finding it tough to get that balance right.

Posted by: PeterJJ | January 7, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Ah, yes -- the Double Standard is alive and well. When a man does it, it's genuine, moving and compassionate. When a woman does it, she's weak, cracks under pressure, or faking.

How pathetic.

People choose to see only that which reinforces what they already believe. Blind to their own prejudices, they then pat themselves on the back for being so perceptive and brilliant.

Posted by: desi | January 7, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute everyone. This woman has incredible poise and control that no one I know has. She is able to go out everyday with her hair and pitch perfect.

Then, one day before she is predicted to lose a pivotal primary, she loses that control and it's an accident?

C'mon everyone. When have you ever seen her lose control? This is purely political calculation and I hope there is massive negative blowback for yet another cynical ploy to get what she thinks should be bestowed upon her as a god-given right.

Posted by: shahpesareh | January 7, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I don't usually read blogs - too much memmemememmememme for me - but I scrolled through these from the beginning. The depth of the cynicism is astonishing. Are these real people or just stereotypes of themselves? Just wondering.

Posted by: neabas | January 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Will the "Hila-Cry" be the "Dean Scream" of this political season?

Posted by: errinfamilia | January 7, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree w/ those who've said that many of the comments here are mean-spirited. I really don't understand the Hillary-hatred. It seems so wildly out of proportion to anything she has done or said.

Posted by: jrgalegher | January 7, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

...another one of those "Damned if you do and Damned if you don't" moments...

Posted by: sam51 | January 7, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

What are all you malicious buttmunchers going to do for amusement when you don't have her to hate any longer?

Posted by: dfc102 | January 7, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with someone having the depth and, yes, strength to express these emotions? It does not mean she is unable to handle the campaign or the challenges of governing. She is simply pausing and reflecting without the script. She is not "crying", by the way. This alone more than anything has made up my mind. Hillary is a strong human being with the insights and broad experience to govern but with the heart and soul to care. Obama is charismatic but he is not Martin Luther King.

Are these postings pulling in some Republican attack dogs on assignment to sabotage Hillary because she would be the real challenge? Just wondering...

Posted by: jeannine | January 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Karl Rove is a Genius.

He gets Obama to do all the heavy lifting of destoying Hillary Clinton, the only candidate that's a true threat to the Republicans.

Rove takes one of the best thing Hillary Clinton does -- listening to the American people; to their wants and needs, understanding and feeling their pain, respecting their wishes, and trying to come up with plans and policies to give them what they want, need, and have a right to have, and Rove and the Republicans turn it into a negative.

Rove and the Republcans label being a representative for all the people -- not just giant corporations and the ultra-rich -- "triangulation" and position it as a "bad" thing.

To Republicans, Democracy=bad, plutocracy=good

To Democrats, it is and should be the opposite.

Republicans are afraid of Democracy.

They should be. They only represent the top 1/2 of 1%.

Democrats love Democracy.

They should. Democrats represent 99.5% of all Americans.

Democrats represent all Americans.

The Democratic party stands for Democracy.

Hillary Clinton is the true Democrat.

Hillary Clinton stands for Democracy.

Posted by: svreader | January 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

awwwww.....poor Hillary. Does anyone wonder if she'd be all boo-hooing it if she was 10 points ahead instead of ready to go down in a ball of flames??

Posted by: shahpesareh | January 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Queen Hillary the Compassionate explained:

"She continued: "Some people think elections are a game, lot's of who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' futures"

RESPONSE: Any tears for the "kids futures"
horribly terminated through a partial birth abortion?

Posted by: JaxMax | January 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

you know honestly, I think the country will lose a great leader if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. The press thus far has made her out to be cold and calculated and keeps boosting Obama like he's the new Bill Clinton. All I hear from Obama is change and hope.. that's it.. he hasn't talked about one policy issue.. and did you see him in the New Hampshire debates? He said he would go into Pakistan immediately? He has no executive experience and the that's the worst thing we as a country could do at this point.. Why does the press find it so easy to target a woman? This election is so important for the future of this country and it would be sad to think that somebody will win this election because the press wouldn't give another qualified candidate a darn break for once.

Posted by: pmsavenger311 | January 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The level of hatred towards Hillary Clinton disgusts me.

As it does me.

Posted by: amadeus56 | January 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I go back and forth between Obama and Clinton, and no matter who wins may the winds of change remain with them and sweep the politics of division, smallness, and greed out of the White House and back under into the shadows. Thank you, Hillary, for reminding us of your humanity and for being among the best qualified slate of candidates ever put forth by an American political party!

Posted by: ddlcteacher | January 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"The meanness of spirit in most of these comments says much more about Mrs. Clinton's detractors than about Mrs. Clinton."

Obviously, you've missed the vast majority of the anti-Obama posts, the ones that are overtly racist, as well as the ones that call him funny-looking, an ego-tripper, make fun of his name, etc. I would not respond in kind, but I would not blame others who do.

IMHO, Mrs. Clinton is the one who has introduced meanness into this campaign. She doesn't know how to attack Obama without going racist, which speaks volumes ("unelectable"? Please!).

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 7, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Your angry, cynical missives tell me one thing: our electorate is the problem.

Brinksmanship with Iran, 1000 dead in Kenya and we're talking about whether Hillary's tears are real. American idol starts NEXT week, this is the presidential race--if you can't tell the difference, then enjoy your $3.50 gas.

Posted by: ksinger | January 7, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Everything that this woman has done politically has been scripted and calculated. She plants questioners in the audience. Hell, she planted one of her staff at a Republican debate. Hard to know what to believe with this woman other than she wants to be President badly. That's not enough. She lacks any real deapth.

Posted by: jamescyr | January 7, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The level of hatred towards Hillary Clinton disgusts me.

Posted by: jonathanpmann | January 7, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

My goodness, she's come undone.

Posted by: jtsmith2 | January 7, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

She CRIED?

Hey, Hillary -- how about living up to more stereotypes about women? Hit somebody with your purse, OK?

Posted by: drankland | January 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

OK I watched it twice.

TYPICAL hrc.

I DO NOT believe her emotions are tied to honorable and egalitarian notions of kid's plights in America, and reversing Bush's damage to America. That isn't the body language of someone so concerned about such heady problems. Such individuals tend to get irate and you see fire in their eyes.

She DOES exhibit the body language of someone trying to LOOK concerned.

I DO believe she is upset about getting her clock cleaned by Obama... that's the voice cracking you hear. "I've done all of this and you still don't want me?"

NO. We DON'T.

GO OBAMA!

Posted by: onestring | January 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"...this is one of the most important elections American has ever faced", and she's right by saying so.

I can see no one on the Democratic side who is more qualified for the job of President of the United States (remember Healthcare & Employment)

But it would be well served to bring up the fact that this election could be based upon Style over Substance...and if so, GOD HELP US.

Posted by: jthomas_19709mm | January 7, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, Hillary is not ready to be president. What's going to happen when Arab world leaders refuse to meet with her because she's a woman, whom they don't respect at all because of her gender? Will she break down in tears? Sorry but this is a bid based on emotion. We have very serious world issues that don't get resolved because of tears. A cabinet position might be better for her but not the presidency. We've had enough of Hillary-gate, travelgate, selling of the Lincoln bedroom, issues from the Rose Law firm and more. Since Hillary claims to have 35 years experience, she can hang her hat on the problems that she was in the middle of while first lady. Sorry, we've had enough.

Posted by: cricket35 | January 7, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary voted for the war in Iraq and voted for the Patriot Act.

That's Hillary's idea of bringing about change for our country.

She can go screw herself.

Posted by: TomIII | January 7, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I was in the service and I am going back. That's what I am doing for my country.

Posted by: TennGurl | January 7, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse


Criminy, so many commentators here are so free with their double-standards.

Geo. Bush routinely wells up with tears (likely faked, but who knows), and he doesn't get this crap from these rethuglicans - because he's also a rethuglican.

These people, like billpaddock above, are intellectually dishonest; the will always find reasons to fling hate and slurs at any democrat.

This is why "bipartisanship" is a joke these days. Republicans just need more whippings at the ballot box. They aren't interested in responsible goverance or bipartisanship. They only seek to destory political opponents by hate, smear and fear. I mean, they mocked someone's purple hearts at their national convention while celebrating not one, but two draft-dodgers.

Meanwhile, they continue pouring hate and lies on the Clintons. It's a reflection of their own ugly souls.

There's really no political compromise with them.

Posted by: Egilsson1 | January 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

If all else fails, she might as well try crying to get sympathy.

Posted by: billsomerville | January 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

This country has had enough of a 2nd Bush. The thought of a 2nd Clinton isn't very appealing.

Posted by: tabernas66 | January 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary--Ready to Cry on Day One.

All the lives Hillary and Bill have destroyed, and now she cries over pending loss of an election.

Hillary will NOT withdraw. She will play this out till the end, just like Jezebel, the FIRST power gender feminist.

Posted by: JaxMax | January 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

This without a doubt, is the saddest bit of political theater I have ever witnessed. I am certain it is a tough, grueling process to run for public office. But as John Edwards said it best, the office of the President is far tougher.

I am one of those former staunch Clintionites. I used to believe with convection in President Clinton, and supported him throughout his Presidency and beyond.

But the fog lifted at the start of this race, as I began to see through the low, dirty, obnoxious tricks used to bring down other candidates. Now this, is just too much. Well if you can't win, then we can get the sympathy vote!?! It's a truly sad and, dare I say, desperate measure to regain the lead. All the more reason why NOT to support candidate Clinton.

I thought this mornings comments that her, "8 years in the White House" was laughable and a cheap ploy to show how much experience she has. By the way, does anyone know where she gets the 35 years of experience from. From where I sit, she is just a junior a Senator as Mr. Obama.

Truly very sad...

Posted by: walkertechie | January 7, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"I'd 100 time more rather have Edwards than Obama.

He will rip Republicans limb from limb.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving group of folks."

Dare I say it?
Typical response of a Hillary supporter...

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Whatever Sen. Clinton is, she is human. Who among us has given so much to their country? The political process appears to be both emotionally and physically exhausting. Love her or hate her, give her some slack; what are each of you doing to bring change to our country?

Posted by: ADWagner | January 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary showing real emotion? Wait till she loses tomorrow. I imagine that there will be some lamps flying then."

Bill Clinton would be wise to be somewhere else tomorrow.

Posted by: TomIII | January 7, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Scripted or not, we know a young women dying from lack of liver transplant only elicited a snarl from the Queen during the Debate Saturday Night.No tears there.

No public tears during Trailer trash days at the White House.

To really get the Queen to cry, take her power.

The tears are probably real. And deserved.

Probably a sick ploy for the religious vote.

Didn't the Bible record "Jesus wept" (John 11:35, The Bible)

Posted by: JaxMax | January 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I can only assume, based on the comments posted prior to mine, that these people are not in New Hampshire and are not experiencing the intensity and frenzy that has enveloped us (New Hampshirites) in the past few days. I know Maryanne and she was not a plant. Have we all become so hardened as to think that a candidate can't experience real emotion?

Posted by: tanna | January 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Geez, people. You respond like she had fallen down sobbing in hysterics. Her voice cracked a little bit and she slowed down her answer. She remained composed and finished her answer. First she gets piled on for being cold and now piled on for being weak.

I must admit HRC isn't my favorite candidate and the prospect of two families holding executive power for a whole generation is unappealing, especially at this time in history. However this has nothing to do with it. You're all proving her right and treating the election like a game. It says more about you and your own maturity than hers.

Posted by: nvamikeyo | January 7, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary showing real emotion? Wait till she loses tomorrow. I imagine that there will be some lamps flying then.

Posted by: jamescyr | January 7, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"Her voice broke, and her eyes appeared to well up with tears."

Didn't happen. Watch the video.

Posted by: zukermand | January 7, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I find this more than a little disconcerting. I guess as president during a major national crisis, she'd break down in tears and have Bill fix it for her. This is not a character trait we need in a president.

On the other hand, maybe it's calculated to win over female undecided voters which she appears to be losing.

Nothing would surprise me.

Posted by: sgoetz | January 7, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I am sorry I was a woman in the service (and going back in when I finish college this year). I have seen very few women start to cry when things got tough so people would feel sorry for them. Stop playing the victim. I hate it. If you want to play with the big boys you can't cry. Especially being the first viable woman. You have to be harder, tougher, stronger and authentic. She proved she cannot handle the stresses of BEING the President (not First Lady). She is not READY TO LEAD.

Posted by: TennGurl | January 7, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

It's only the second primary and she's crying because she's behind in the polls? She's obviously a self-centered, spoiled shrew whose hormones kick in when she doesn't get her way. "Ready" to be prez? Yeah, right.

Posted by: checkered1 | January 7, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a great woman.

America will miss out on a truly great President if she doesn't win the nomination.

Love for Obama will fade as people find out that there is no "there" there.

I'd 100 time more rather have Edwards than Obama.

He will rip Republicans limb from limb.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving group of folks.

Posted by: svreader | January 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

IS IT 'MEAN-SPIRITED' to look closely at a candidate's response?

Is it mean-spirited to examine a candidate's emotional make-up? I don't think so. Other readers don't think so.

When a candidate so obviously appears 'emotional' and different from usual (i.e., "focused") then examination is in order.

There is such prevailing defensiveness about Hillary backers; they seemingly believe Hillary should be immune from even the most usual critique.

Get over it; Hillary is running for an office that demands much more than being "upbeat" and "wonderful." And, if tears haven't happened when discussing the war and its aftermath, then these tears are way too late to imply deep emotion.

Posted by: suzeq | January 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Once again, reporters (and many commentators here) show their cynicism and eagerness to find any angle.

As most people with a degree of common sense know, sympathy is a much more likely trigger for tears than hostility. When you get beaten up all day every day, the unexpected kind remark is what will get to you, not the irrational shrieking.

But Hillary is going to be attacked for this display of emotion either way. Either she's playacting to simulate her alleged absent heart, or she's too weak to lead. Go ahead, Hillary haters. Have a field day. You're only happy when you can vent your hatred anyway.

Posted by: citizenjane | January 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Artifical and contrived 'moment' probably has sunk her campaign.

No one believes this crap or that she didn't have her inaugural speech in hand coming through the birth canal.

Bloodless, soulless and half of America hates her and any Republican beats her in Nov.

Time to move on to others. The Clinton/Bush era seems to be over.

Posted by: mjzahara | January 7, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Only a Clinton could turn on the tears on eve of her campaign crashing and burning.

I can just imagine her engaging other world leader - peace talks between the Iraeli's and Palestinians perhaps - and her crying when things don't go her way.

My predication is that John Edwards will be the next candidate to turn on the waterworks. He's probably more of a crybaby then Clinton.

Posted by: sps0618 | January 7, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

This cheap "little woman" routine. This woman didn't blink an eye, ruining other people hopes, dreams, plans, and even lives. Very often without any sense simply for the pleasure she was experincing through such torture. However, she is so pitiful compassioned to "deeply beloved" herself. Anyhow, the person with such routines with tears is even less suitable for the leader than Hillary without such routines. The faster this woman steps down the race, the better for everybody, including her. I am really tired of her.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 7, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

If her people put out a press release on it, then it was staged.

Posted by: Swindull | January 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

In response to today's NY Times editorial page:

I don't know why we should expect anything else from the NY Times, but I am greatly disappointed that there is hardly ever a mention of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict either in presidential debates or NY Times or Washington Post editorials. This is probably the preeminent foreign policy issue of our time and as our dear leader says is on the verge of bringing us to WW III.

It is a national disgrace that we continue our unconditional support for the apartheid Zionist invaders who continue their racist subjugation of the Palestinian people and illegal occupation of Palestine.

I intend to vote for Barack Obama in November, but I'm very disappointed in his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The problem is that this issue is not given an honest airing for the American people. As a result, the American people are basically ignorant of this issue, and it would be political suicide for an ambitious politician to address this issue fairly. Just as it would have been political suicide for Hillary to vote against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Here is an article that shows what we are up against. It shows how Barack Obama executed his abrupt flip flop on Palestinian support when he began his campaign for a US Senate seat from Illinois:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

How Barack Obama learned to love Israel

Posted by: rick22407 | January 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Ok. So Hillary finally broke down in tears. We realize that this campaign process is difficult for all the candidates. However, when people said that Hillary should show some emotion, I don't suppose they meant that she should cry on national teli. I felt touched by that show of emotions, but I still won't vote for her. That teli cry has just made it worse; is this how she is going to deal with tough global challenges? break down in front of the world? That must not be the character of a Superpower America. Let me apply Hillary's own line to her - "If she can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Posted by: alegopala | January 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

If Mrs. Clinton thinks this "humanizes" her, she really is out of touch. She sounds like an ego-inflated, self-pitying whiner.
And if reporters have to ask themselves if this performance is heartfelt, the answer is....YES. She's getting her rear end handed to her by a dynamic, eloquent, youthful male.
Every day isn't easy when you're the Queen.

Posted by: stonhinged | January 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can go cry on the shoulders of the DLC and their corporate masters.

Crocodile tears, as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: TomIII | January 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Woooo Hooooo! The word-parsing, opaque, lawyer-candidate is on the electoral ropes!

I couldn't be happier. Well, except when I see Obama take the oath of office. Yeah, then I'll be even happier.

I voted for Bill Clinton when he had LESS foreign policy experience under his belt than Obama does now... so let's can the phoney talk about "experience", and get with REALITY.

Only Obama can unite the electorate making the beltway insider roaches scurry to pander to a new direction as a result.

The rest of the field are dinasaurs from the beltway.

I don't want to vote for a senior citizen for president.

Posted by: onestring | January 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

She was "crying"? I don't think so! It seems to me that some people are so very cynical about HRC's "motives", but they never question what Obama's "motives" are!
Can you really read the minds of these people? Or only Hillary's mind, and you just don't care to look further at Obama's "mind" and his "reasons" for running.
First black nominated to run as the candidate of a major party--quite a feather in his cap!
He won't win though (Republicans are crossing lines now to give him the boost), and what we will be left with is another four years of Republican rule from the White House.
I'm glad I am neither that cynical to suspect ONLY Hillary's motives, nor that gullible to fall for a media-pushed celebrity candidate like Obama!

Posted by: amadeus56 | January 7, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I've been listening to her on the campaign trail, and every now and then you can tell what she's very passionate about. I don't think it's national security, or the economy, or even the national debt. I think it's kids. She seems to care about adoption, and family issues, health care (that's a family issue too). I think that she should persue her passion- what gets her really choked up. That's what makes a great politician a great politician; pusuit of passion. I think it's the differnce between Hillary and Bill- he was passionate about being President, all aspects of the job. She's not passionate, she's ambitious. And truly, that's the difference between Hillary and Barack. He's passionate about the presidency, and people can feel it; it's genuine. Maybe she should consider a position on his cabinet as Sec. of Health and Human Services.

Posted by: Kafi1974 | January 7, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Good grief, people. The meanness of spirit in most of these comments says much more about Mrs. Clinton's detractors than about Mrs. Clinton.

Posted by: keith_in_seattle | January 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh-oh. Melting snowflakes; not good.

Posted by: hisroc | January 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

As a woman, I know full well it's very tricky for a woman to appear both authoritative and sympathetic but I think there are better ways to show warmth than to break down and start crying. She's coming across as weak not as personable. I'm planning to vote for Obama, but if he starts crying on me because it's so hard for a black man being out there in a white man's world, I'm staying home. If you're not up for the job, don't apply for it.

Posted by: monikashehi | January 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I actually thought this was a beautiful moment. She obviously cares very deeply about this country, our children and our future. Some have tried to paint her as this heartless machine. Well, here is proof that she has a very large heart indeed.

She also showed tremendous strength in this clip. She did not let her emotions overwhelm her. She still gave a lucid, intelligent, honest response to the question.

I want a president who cares passionately about this country and its citizens. But I also want a president who is smarter than me. Someone who has the experience, the grit to get things done. Why are people threatened by her ambition, her intelligence and strength? Aren't these qualities that we want in our president?

Posted by: sisterleetrade | January 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Does Hillary ever choke up and cry about the 3900 Americans she sent to their deaths in Iraq? In an unnecessary invasion and occupation that Chimpy LIED to us about.

No, she didn't. Hillary doesn't care about our troops coming home in a box.

After all, she's AIPAC. And when Israel supports our kids getting killed in Iraq, Hillary does too.

Posted by: TomIII | January 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Oooogly Moooogly. Could this be an Ed Muskie moment for Hillary? Stay tuned!!!!

Posted by: oskar1921 | January 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Poor baby, so the going is getting rough? If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen and leave politics to the pros!

Posted by: nmg3rln | January 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

If she can't handle this what makes anyone think she is "Ready to Lead" America?

Was Obama crying when he was called a drug dealer or Muslim Manchurian candidate? No. She needs to grow up and be woman. She is not ready to be president.


Posted by: TennGurl | January 7, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

It's funny. Rush Limbaugh used to have this clip where this woman screams, "We're fierce, we're feminist, and we're in your face." I guess Billary is none of these.

Posted by: bdstauffer | January 7, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

No offense to Hillary Clinton or her supporters, but this sort of thing really only tells me one of two things.

Either...

1. This is a calculated moment, in which case it shows her as something of a passive-manipulative monster

or

2. She can't stand the heat when she is in the eye of the storm, unlike when the heat was on Bill and she was on the periphery.

For all those who say that the other Democrats aren't tough enough to be able to withstand the Republican attacks in the general election, they'll certainly be far worse than what she has weathered to date in the Democratic primary...which were apparently too much for her.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | January 7, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I remember another black man who offered a dream.... Sure glad Hillary wasn't around to tell him dreams are not action and don't create change. What a crock of crap HRC offers. If a man chocked-up on the campaign trail we would say he is crumbling under the pressure. But then again, maybe she doesn't have a hard drive for a brain.

Posted by: No6_The_Prisoner | January 7, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I almost felt sorry for her.

Not.

Posted by: nicodemis2 | January 7, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

LET'S LOOK AT THIS "DISPLAY OF EMOTION" with a bit of critical analysis. The question referred to the candidate's "..ability to keep upbeat and so wonderful..." Are voters to assume that the candidate cries b/c of the huge effort required to maintain a facade?

This voter would have preferred that Candidate Clinton cry at the sight of bodies coming into Dover AFB wrapped in the American flag; or, that she weep about bodies in bombed houses in Iraq.

So far I haven't seen emotion about the latter.

Posted by: suzeq | January 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I truly believe that this is the real Hillary Clinton. And if she would ditch all of her "smart" advisors -- including Bill -- and run as this person, she would win hands down. She still has time to do that. I hope she will.

Posted by: forrest1 | January 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The only real primaries and elections Hilary Clinton has ever won have been cakewalks through New York. She was given the New York Senate seat as a gift from the Democratic establishment. Never had a real primary fight, never had a real tough election.

It should be painfully obvious by now that she is done for. The path to the presidency is NOT a kushy New York Senate seat for a decade or so. You need to face real electoral battles and win them, something Hilary has never done before. The presidential race (her first one) is NOT a good place to start trying things you've never done before. I too wouldn't be shocked if Edwards put her into third again in NH tomorrow, as she simply is not a very good politician, especially when compared to the likes of Barack Obama or John Edwards Hilary's swimming with the sharks now, and it shows.

You cast your vote for Hilary, and you cast your vote for the losing campaign of a weak candidate. Iowa proved that last week, New Hampshire will prove it again tomorrow. I just don't see her voter support being that strong to put up with her losses for very long at all.

Posted by: errinfamilia | January 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Good grief! When don't you guys jus admit that the WaPo is a part of the Clinton election team. Give me a break!

Posted by: bdstauffer | January 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Were the emotions real, or were they Memorex? I cannot help but to think HRC continues to try and manipulate voters into sympathizing for her. I cannot trust her because everything seems too crafted and so staged. I just cannot believe her, or her public display of emotion.

Posted by: meldupree | January 7, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

She does it for power, like all politicians. Of course, establishment rags like the Washington Post will have you think otherwise, that all these politicians care not a wit about power and are merely pursuing their chosen profession.

Posted by: errinfamilia | January 7, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

As to Hillary Clinton's eyes watering and voice cracking, this should be her undoing. If she cannot handle the emotional stress of the campaign, especially in these early stages, she certainly isn't steadfast nor strong enough to handle national security, the economy, a volatile Congress, and - heaven forbid - an enemy.
Bill Paddock
Tulsa, OK

Posted by: billpaddock | January 7, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

As to Hillary Clinton's eyes watering and voice cracking, this should be her undoing. If she cannot handle the emotional stress of the campaign, especially in these early stages, she certainly isn't steadfast nor strong enough to handle national security, the economy, a volatile Congress, and - heaven forbid - an enemy.
Bill Paddock
Tulsa, OK

Posted by: billpaddock | January 7, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Hilary crying? Has FOXnews got a hold of this yet?

Bad move, Hilary.

Posted by: errinfamilia | January 7, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is very human and the press has not shown us her true nature. She is a wonderful, compassionate person in person.

I hope she does not give up even if she does not win in New Hampshire. There are many more primaries yet to win!!

Posted by: pwoodhull | January 7, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how she would answer if asked why she chose NY over Arkansas to run from.

We know her position on abortion, should we ask her position on adultery?

Posted by: SJobs | January 7, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I still plan to vote for Hillary and I admire her hugely. If she is not the nominee -- it will be our country's loss.

Obama is a young and brilliant, but all he offers is a beautiful dream. That's a good start, but won't help him much in the General or if he should be elected President.

Posted by: bghgh | January 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I'm also wondering if Anne E. Kornblut is an Obama plant ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone asked Marianne Pernold Young if she's a Clinton plant?

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company