Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Teaches Politics 101


Clinton, with Chelsea in tow, busing her way to victory. (Getty).

By Dan Balz
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Hillary Clinton's stunning victory here on Tuesday night was another powerful reminder of something that is taught in Politics 101: Campaigns matter.

In the five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton ran a campaign. Barack Obama rode a wave. Everyone -- myself included -- believed the wave would not crest before Tuesday's balloting. Clinton, determined as ever, set out to do something to stop it.

VIDEO | The Post's Dan Balz on New Hampshire Primary Surprise

Clinton was tentative in the first hours on the ground after her loss in Iowa. Her advisers were confused and shaken by the results in Iowa. Friday was a day of taking stock and trying out new lines but without much to show for it.

By Saturday night and the only debate between Iowa and New Hampshire, she was more certain of what she wanted to say. There was lots of focus afterward on the moment when her voice rose in apparent anger; there was not enough attention, post-debate, to the way she had framed the choice for voters in New Hampshire.

"Words are not actions," she said. "And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action."

By Sunday and Monday, Clinton was focused on drawing contrasts with Obama. By then the comparison was less artful but more understandable: "Where's the beef?" And on Monday, her normally tough façade cracked under the strain of the campaign and a human side of America's Iron Lady crept into view.

Clinton said Tuesday night that she had found her own voice during her five days in New Hampshire. Many may have assumed she was referring to the moment in the diner on Monday when her voice cracked with emotion. But she may just have correctly meant that she had found a more effective way to talk about why she wanted to be president.

In Iowa, the closing argument was: "Pick me because I'm experienced." In New Hampshire, it was: "Pick me because I care so deeply about what has happened to this country and to you, the voters struggling every day with the problems of finding affordable health care or paying the mortgage or financing college tuition."

"I don't think tearing up/showing emotion was the crucial thing, so much as what she said when she had that brief moment of attention," Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin wrote in an e-mail this morning. "It was the first time she gave a personal sense of mission to her candidacy. Generally in the last few days, she connected herself more to people's concerns and hopes."

Obama's campaign, in retrospect, was as much an extended victory party after Iowa as it was a campaign focused on New Hampshire voters. It wasn't that Obama was oblivious to the contrasts Clinton was drawing. But he was asking New Hampshire voters to ratify what happened in Iowa, a decision that might have effectively ended the Democratic nomination battle.

That was not enough for what Clinton rightly knew about New Hampshire's stubbornly independent-minded electorate.

Were there signs we all missed? I look back at the last few days and think about what I overlooked. On Saturday morning, I was there for Obama's enormous rally at Nashua South High School, where the lines stretched seemingly forever before the doors opened. I was more impressed with the lines than I was with my conversations that morning with a number of those who had come to hear Obama.

Some were like David Batchelder, who said he was impressed with Obama's hopeful message and had decided to support him over John Edwards.

A number of others were still clearly undecided and still shopping. "He's got a new message," said Bob Gosselin, an independent voter. "Whether he's got enough experience to pull it off is the question."

Ken Cody, also undecided, had set out early that morning from the New Hampshire seacoast to see Obama, but also was interested in Clinton. Cody said he was impressed with Clinton's policy expertise and experience but credited Obama with having leadership skills that she did not show.

"That's the balancing act," he said. "He creates a lot of excitement, but I don't think people have had a chance to look under the covers. That's a little scary to me."

In short, there was evidence, for anyone willing to pay attention to it, that even in the middle of a boisterous Obama rally, some voters were still shopping - and perhaps more voters that anyone realized.

Another overlooked factor was the strength of Clinton's support among women. In Iowa, Obama won the women's vote. Final polls in New Hampshire suggested he would do the same on Tuesday, which was evidence enough that Clinton could not win.

No one has a good explanation for why there was such a disparity between those polls and the final results, which showed Clinton easily winning the female vote. With women comprising about 57 percent of the electorate, Clinton owed her victory to the gender gap.

Another factor: that Clinton was performing well and drawing crowds that, if not quite as large and enthusiastic as Obama's, were nonetheless often impressive. For voters still listening, and there apparently were many, Clinton was talking directly to them.

Finally, there were attacks against Obama, through direct mail as well as from the candidate. The Obama team may have underestimated those attacks.

So there are plenty of lessons for everyone from Tuesday's Democratic results. The important question is what lessons the candidates will take away.

Obama looked beaten when he came on stage Tuesday night. As the crowd chanted, "Yes we can," Michelle Obama, full of life, picked up the chant and looked directly at her husband, who stood with slumped shoulders and a slightly distant look on his face. It was as if she were trying to pump energy and confidence back into his candidacy.

Defeat may serve to strengthen him -- and remind him that each election is new, each electorate is there to be persuaded.

Clinton's lesson is one she and her husband have absorbed before: Never give up, keep fighting, block out all talk to the contrary. But there is a danger for her campaign if she and her advisers regard Iowa as just a place that did not particularly like her and that the campaign they were running was sufficient.

The Democratic race is now unpredictable. Clinton and Obama are two strong but strikingly different candidates. Both campaigns have the resources to wage the battle on a level playing field as they point to what could be a showdown on Feb. 5.

Iowa and New Hampshire voters have come down on different sides in the first two contests. Democratic voters in upcoming states have a clear choice and a difficult one.

Perhaps everyone watching and interpreting the campaign will give these voters the attention and the credit they deserve, rather than assuming what they will do. There are likely to be more surprises ahead.

By Washington Post editors  |  January 9, 2008; 12:25 PM ET
Categories:  Dan Balz's Take , Hillary Rodham Clinton , Primaries , The Democrats  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's Fundraising Strong
Next: On N.H. Jaunt, Fenty Stumped for Obama

Comments

Hillary is extremely good.

Let's hope we get a chance to have her as our President.

Posted by: svreader | January 9, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pr8mrh

>

Sure you are welcome to comment. But if I were British then I would have taken the time to vote out W's sycophant, Blair, long before he stepped down. In other words, you might try cleaning your own house first before telling someone else that they need to clean their home.

Posted by: brwntrt | January 9, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

I worked for Hillary in Keene NH this weekend. She won for three reasons. The Debate Performance, and she finally has the right message and is being herself. Finally we had the harder working organization in Northern NH. She pulled in over 6433 votes in Cheshire County where we canvassed. We concentrated on getting women out to vote. Anyone who hates Hillary has never met her. I'll leave it at that.
Onto Super Tuesday. :)

Posted by: denvgray | January 9, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Guys, I watched this alleged crying and her voice only hitched slightly. It was nice to see a bit of that human side, because not everyone sees it, but there's far too big a deal being made of it. It's just the female equivalent of a man getting angry. I'm tired of hearing about women being called less tough or less rational just because they have an internal vs external response. Get a grip.

Posted by: digtalcomp | January 9, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I trust Hillary. I think she has explained what she plans to do in detail. I know that she has the track record and I have seen the evidence of what she has done. She isn't just talking about change as a general concept or as an ideology. Rather she is specific in that she listens to the needs of people who are struggling day to day with finances, health care, and education, and she has highly detailed specific plans, backed up by years of practice. This paves the way for her to make specific changes in crucial areas. The main thing is I know that she truly cares about American families and she certainly cares about women. Her rhetoric matches her behavior and her sincerity comes through. I don't care whether a president is male or female but it is nice to think that someone might have a better understanding of women's needs. I am a woman and I want to have a president who understands what it is like to be a woman in the 21st century. There is no other candidate who can say that he knows what that is like.

Posted by: martisavignali | January 9, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Why is Chris Mattews and the other so-called pundits asking themselves and others how did Hillary turn certain defeat into a win? Actually the answer is that it was Obama who turned victory into defeat by his arrogant attitude ('If I win here, I think I will be the next president of the United Statess') and his foolish comparison of himself to Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy. All I can say is "Mr. Obama, you are not John F. Kennedy, and you will never be Dr. Martin Luther King!"

Posted by: paynecarriere | January 9, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I think it's typical for voters to go with the same old thing. The younger generation of voters needs to step-up and let their voice be heard for once. Hillary keeps talking about experience and that words are not the same as action. Well, we have continued to put experienced people in office and they have continued to drive this country into the ground, so what do we have to lose by electing Obama.

Posted by: kloomis29 | January 9, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama for president -- in 2016. I'm really afraid of putting someone so inexperienced at national (or even state) policy-making into the most important job in the nation. Let him learn on the job as vice president.

Posted by: webg | January 9, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Enough with phony politicians and wannabe Dear Leaders. These people place their career goals far higher than our needs. I am voting for principled and responsible federal government - Ron Paul 2008.

Posted by: patrick4 | January 9, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Don't know if I have any right to be commenting on the wonderful primary system as I am British. We don't have such a clear and transparent system for choosing who represents us in major elections, our candidates are chosen in back rooms by their parties. If I'm permitted to comment on what I've seen of the Primary season so far this year, it is that I don't see how Hillary can possibly win a General Election, she appears to be too cynical, too divisive, too weighed down by the baggage of the past. In short she is a Republican dream, she has enough of a history to fuel endless attack ads and will inspire the Republican base against her. On the opposite side of the aisle, she only appears to be mildly enthusing democrats, if at all. I wish that people could disconnect Bill from Hillary, if you like Hillary, vote for for Hillary, if you liked Bill, that isn't a reason to vote for Hillary, it is a reason to examine what she actually means to you and to look at other candidates.

There is a lot of hope outside the US that Americans will see the promise of an Obama Presidency as a means of repairing the reputation of your nation after 8 years of Bush, by making a clean start.

Hillary on the other hand appears to be cyncially manipulating the media, through Kleenexgate, choking back the almost certainly fake tears, through to the lowering of expectations which make the fairly narrow NH win sound like a landslide.

Posted by: pr8mrh | January 9, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

The only reason she cried in NH was because she realized that she was in real danger of losing the nomination, and her single-minded lifelong ambition was falling out from under her, and her decision to stay with Bill despite his philandering was not going to pay off and she was realizing that she had mortgaged her dignity, character, and ideals all for naught and would have nothing left to show for it.

Posted by: cakehydrant | January 9, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Who will save this nation?

Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton?

Google Trend's Report:
http://ronpaul.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=27

Posted by: davidmwe | January 9, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

OMG. PUKE. I am a white single female and it is embarrassing if females motivation for voting Hillary is because she was emotional and they felt sorry for her or just because she's a woman. Hillary is the phoniest, most manipulative person I've seen. When she doesn't get her way she throws an angry tantrum like at the NH debate or she cries. I think it's disgusting that she thinks she's entitled to the presidency because her last name is Clinton and she's been married to a president. 35 years experience is BS. She became Senator because of her husband's name and she could careless about New Yorker's. To her it's all about power and winning the presidency. This election is personal to her because it's the Clinton's fight against the Republicans and saying haha, we're still here. her husband was governor, NOT HER, her husband was president, NOT HER. What are her accomplishments? THe one thing he put her in charge of during the White House... healthcare.....she FAILED. GET RID OF BUSH AND CLINTONS!!!!!!!! OBAMA 08. A man who leads by uniting the people not all about me me me as Hillary is. Read his history, read his accomplishments. His accomplishments and success have come from his intelligence, hard work and determination and not because of his last name but despite it!

Posted by: vflex | January 9, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

OMG. PUKE. I am female and it is embarrassing if females motivation for voting Hillary is because she was emotional and they felt sorry or just because she's a woman. Hillary is the phoniest, most manipulative person I've seen. When she doesn't get her way she throws an angry tantrum like at the NH debate or she cries. I think it's disgusting that she thinks she's entitled to the presidency because her last name is Clinton and she's been married to a president. 35 years experience is BS. She became Senator because of her husband's name and she could careless about New Yorker's. To her it's all about power and winning the presidency. This election is personal to her because it's the Clinton's fight against the Republicans and saying haha, we're still here. her husband was governor, NOT HER, her husband was president, NOT HER. What are her accomplishments? THe one thing he put her in charge of during the White House... healthcare.....she FAILED. GET RID OF BUSH AND CLINTONS!!!!!!!! OBAMA 08. A man who leads by uniting the people not all about me me me as Hillary is. Read his history, read his accomplishments. His accomplishments and success have come from his intelligence, hard work and determination and not because of his last name but despite it!

Posted by: vflex | January 9, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

OMG. PUKE. I am female and it is embarrassing if females motivation for voting Hillary is because she was emotional and they felt sorry or just because she's a woman. Hillary is the phoniest, most manipulative person I've seen. When she doesn't get her way she throws an angry tantrum like at the NH debate or she cries. I think it's disgusting that she thinks she's entitled to the presidency because her last name is Clinton and she's been married to a president. 35 years experience is BS. She became Senator because of her husband's name and she could careless about New Yorker's. To her it's all about power and winning the presidency. This election is personal to her because it's the Clinton's fight against the Republicans and saying haha, we're still here. her husband was governor, NOT HER, her husband was president, NOT HER. What are her accomplishments? THe one thing he put her in charge of during the White House... healthcare.....she FAILED. GET RID OF BUSH AND CLINTONS!!!!!!!! OBAMA 08. A man who leads by uniting the people not all about me me me as Hillary is. Read his history, read his accomplishments. They came from hard work and determination and not because of his last name but despite it!

Posted by: vflex | January 9, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I like the Guy running against the Clintons!
What was that name? Hussein?-No, he got hung!
Osama? Noooo Don't think it was him!

Barak? Noooo Way! The Jews have too much influence already! Might as vote for Lieberman!

Oh shoot! Guess I'll just vote for that Guy with the great background and good family!

He PROMISES to ENFORCE our EXISTING Labor Laws! That will mean better wages, less Social Services Theft, ENGLISH spoken here!(Exept in Travel Industries), and more opportunities for Americans to have American jobs!

Posted by: rat-the | January 9, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

If anyone listened to the debates, and then the pundits' view of who won, or who crashed, then you know how the tv news media treats this as entertainment. ABC was horrible, with steph. noting that Clinton raised her voice - BAD! That was basically his analysis. To put an analysis of a whole debate into a one minute time frame by using a few punchy words is a sad commentary of what our news media is all about....

Posted by: moose123 | January 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Politics 101 - Voter Fraud

Posted by: US-Citizen | January 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"If SEXIST Nepotism gets Hillary nominated..."

'Sexist nepotism'...please speak English. You sound rather lamebrained.

"I'm voting against the Democrats for the first time ever."

You're a liar. No true Democrat would vote for any of the religiously-deluded, Bush ass kissing Republican liars after what we've been through with our Worst. President. Ever.

Since the people vote in the president, your idiocy regarding a monarchy makes me certain you're one of those that simply hates the Clintons.

Why do you think Republican voters have been urged to switch party affiliations in the primaries and vote for Obama?

Because as great as Obama *could be*, he doesn't yet have any EXPERIENCE. Republicans could chew Obama up and spit him out, especially someone like John McCain, war hero and political coward.

The Repubs are scared crapless with the idea of Hillary running against ANY of their Constitutionally-ignorant candidates.

"America is a Democracy = Not a Monarchy"

At least you got one thing right. George Bush has acted like a monarch since he got into office. Hillary will be changing that.

Posted by: 2229 | January 9, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Balz Sack:

Apparently the only people to whom primaries and elections do not matter are the press and the pundits who treat these elections like a board game and horse race.

Will you people please stop coronating candidates based on Iowa and NH and let them run?

The irresponsible reporting on the primaries does nothing but disenfranchise voters.

I don't know how you people sleep at night. You are subverting democracy, and the news media are supposed to be the 4th Estate, the watchdogs of government.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | January 9, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey dyk21005, are you a trust funder or does your boss know what you do all day at work? The column you pasted up here would be sooo profound if it weren't for the fact that Hillary is a political figure solely as a result of the awful compromise she made with herself: staying married to Bill in order to use her victim status for long term political gain. I know lots and lots of feminists and none of them would have stayed married to Bill Clinton, no way. He treated her like pond scum and she stayed on. Now she is the candidate of femminism?

Hey misogyny is as real as any other form of bigotry, but how can Hillary Clinton repect herself. Would you if you were her?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone thought about clinton wins being a republican strategy to ensure that she become the democratic nominee? In a state where republicans can register as independents and vote democratic, this could be a way to give Clinton a win so they can face her in November to tear her apart. I am sure the republicans must be nervous going up against Obama but are already have their play book ready for Clinton. How else could you explain last night polls.

Posted by: amthomas40 | January 9, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

True that Obama does not have enough experience but Clinton does not have any more experience than he does. 35 years of experience? Come on! They both lack the executive experience that is needed to run US and the world. By making these two inexperienced candidates their frontrunners, the democrats give the republicans a chance that they have not dreamed about. We are all about change but at the end of the day you would not hire somebody even as a senior manager in a company if he/she has only a couple of years of real management experience.

Posted by: DroppedPass | January 9, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is right in that "words are not actions", but her relationship with the military is proof of her actions.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/hillary-the-military-industrial-complex/

Posted by: Trumbull | January 9, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

There are two thoroughbreds in this race... Along with Barack's ablity to connect/convey a heartfelt message, you cannot discount the ability of Hillary's brain to store and deliver information. Prior to NH I thought how could I be so far off from the picture the media/press was painting? I'm truly undecided.... unable to see Obama as the clear choice over Clinton or even my son's favorite Edwards. Obama's Iowa speech moved me to tears, the eloquence, the picture of his beautiful wife and daughters... yet all the points made by Clinton in the debate are true. She's been examined to the point of political autopsy and she's still standing informed, intelligent, articulate, heartfelt and strong. I'd trust her to debate not only the Republican nominee, but anyone in or out of politics in this country. She simply knows her stuff, all angles, all names, entire conflict history, beliefs... She doesn't have the smooth speech delivery of Obama, yet Obama is not as concise or clear in a debate. Clinton has outlined and answered a question from three angles in the time Obama is still Uhhhging. Also, Obama hasn't faced the Republican fire so we cannot know who he will be in the face of it. I loved him in Iowa and then overnight, watching him in NH, he looked like someone trying to step into too big of shoes - he seemed to lose his focus. Overnight, his message changed in that it became about creating history - he forgot that he is still in the interview process as Clinton forgot in Iowa.

Posted by: dschantz | January 9, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

quandry87

Personal integrity matters more than the accomplishments of your husband.

Why did Hillary not divorce Bill?

Tell me why, one real reason apart from the one that is so perfectly obvious.

I have been waiting for a D with personal integrity for a long time.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I was saddened by how the press attacked Hillary, and was thrilled by the strength of the New Hampshire voters to overcome that attack. I wish I lived in New Hampshire. She is still in the race, and she will still make the best president of the United States.

Posted by: lorihebel | January 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON MAKES HISTORY FOR ALL WOMAN OF EVERY RACE. A TRUE EXAMPLE OF UNITING PEOPLE AND NOT DIVIDING THEM BY RACE. Obama camp needs to start taking lessons from the experienced candidates!
Hillary Clinton makes History the First Woman to Win New Hampshire Primary
Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women .Why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what. I'm supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. If you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama. But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex. What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys' club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations. What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't. What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama's dependence on the old -- for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy -- while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo. What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age. This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It's time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: "I'm supporting her because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman."


Posted by: dyck21005 | January 9, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Would one of you Obama supporting idiots please care to tell me WHY Barack Obama would make a good president, instead of (1) bashing Hillary, (2) bashing Hillary, (3) bashing Hillary and (4) tell me Obama is good without any justification.

Posted by: quandary87 | January 9, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I am another one who see a large amount of bias against Clinton in the press. But this article is much better than most in getting back to a realistic assessment of where we are. It may turn out that Obama's results with a small set of Iowa voters were the crest of his surge. It may turn out that New Hampshire was the exception. Or it may turn out that the contest will go on until the convention. But we will not find the answer in the press. We will get a better idea when a large number of voters get to record their choice on Feb. 5.

Posted by: dnjake | January 9, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

kaykay0979

Please do some research. Obama cam on the national scene @ the DNC a few years back. The Senator sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an; his name is Ellison.

Posted by: isupreme | January 9, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

A woman poised to be in power can easily be criticized for being strong or weak. The problem is with our perceptions of what women should be, not with the woman.

Hillary for President!!!

Sen. Obama, a little less conversation a lot more action please.

Posted by: jack9 | January 9, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I only care about one thing: who will be the best president? And, that is what I will vote on.

Posted by: Fountainhead | January 9, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I don't know which is more interesting--the campaign results or the comments from the spectators.

Politics is alive and well in the U.S.A.

Posted by: bpatrick53 | January 9, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

rat-the - LOL is right. too bad da bruddah gotta talk stink about growing up in hawaii . . .nah, even if he neva, i still would vote for Hillary!

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Posted by: saqk1961 | January 9, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Supposing the exit polls were right and the count was wrong. The american system and programs used are economical with the truth when collating results. Up Obama.

Posted by: daig | January 9, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

1) First of all, Senator Clinton (if we're going to call her "Hillary," then the others should be John (M), Barack, John (E), Bill, etc) did not "tear up"...she had a moment of more personal reflection. At least get that fact straight (and yes, watch the video). Whether you believe it was genuine or not is up to you, but at least begin with an accurate description and proceed from there.

2) Do you think for a second that the "preacher" oratorical style (similar to the "trial lawyer" intonation) is not *learned* and *practiced* to garner---yes, folks, an emotional response? Please.

3) The drubbing women politicians get in this country both for being "too emotional" or "cold and unfeeling" is ridiculous. She was asked a personal question, not one about a matter of policy, so I for one would expect a less than steely and rehearsed response.

Focusing on one exchange that lasted all of 90 seconds is preposterous...could it possibly be that voters simply chose the candidate with the proven record of service, of achievements, of potential to lead well and effectively? Gasp.

Posted by: bloomsday_37 | January 9, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm Sooo "sniff", Happy for Billary "sob", I could CRY!

LOL! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | January 9, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Why was Clinton's victory so "stunning". Wasn't she expected to win here for about the last 2 years? Didn't she pour a ton of money into New Hampshire? Likewise why has McCain "risen from the ashes"? Isn't he a senator that's on TV like... oh, every day?

The media has the attention span of a 1 year old and the way it tries to grab at the dramatic story is so painful, it's hard to even read these newspapers.

Posted by: bsatoris | January 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

i can't fathom why obama has so much hype around his campaign. doesn't anyone remember why we ever even heard his name???
when he was sworn in as Senator (his first and only term) he used the Koran instead of the Bible. He goes to a christian church and the only reason why he got any attention was because of his choice. the idea that someone with about a year more of political history than me under their belt taking the highest elected post our country has to offer is offensive.

Posted by: kaykay0979 | January 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

New Hampshire is only 'stubbornly independent' to beltway journalists. The fact that the oldest faces in the race won showed that party line outweighs independence in New Hampshire. Might as well call it Old Hampshire.

The political lesson is that it pays to be beholden to special interests and the insiders in your party. Obama and Edwards were virtually blacked out by the mainstream media the day before the NH primaries, with Hillary being given wall-to-wall coverage the entire day.

From now on, states will have two main choices in these primaries... go the way of Iowa and the outsiders, or go the way of New Hampshire and the insiders. Most states are going to opt the Iowa route, with Hillary only winning in states where the establishment-Democratic machine is strong.

Posted by: errinfamilia | January 9, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama reminds me of the Peter Sellers movie "Being There" -- too little experience, just a lot of nice things to say. It's easy to imagine what he would think if elected President (What the heck do I do now?)

Hillary has the experience and the leadership. It's too bad that many people are intimidated by a strong woman.

Posted by: mom11 | January 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has all the advantages of an experienced politician, compared with the young and relatively inexperienced one. She certainly has more gravitas than Obama, who is rather a "rock star". Not that Obama is bad, either. Maybe next time around? Hillary has definitely shown that she can take personal pressure of publicity. Brave, though and principled...just the stuff good presidents are made of.

Posted by: paupa | January 9, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Substance triumphed over style. We do not need anymore "elect me, I'll do this". We need "elect me, I can do this because I did this." Hope is good, but you need bread to back it up.

Posted by: seog | January 9, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse


Hillary supporters -- the central problem is this:

Hillary's reason for doing what she does, is to help others. The very thought that brought her tears.

I have deep personal admiration for her (and your) ethic.

If Hillary were running for President of Denmark or somesuch, her caring soul would resonate with the national soul.

If we want to be respectful of our countrymen, we listen to them.

Some 50%, or more, of our fellow Americans (repubs and many indies) favor a notion of self-reliance over notions of mutual help.

A respectful vision of America respects this diversity of view.

But Obama is a more tolerant man, more profoundly accepting of his fellow Americans.

Hillary for President of the United Way, where we can all agree that do-gooderism is, and should be, the central ethic.

Obama for President of the United States.


Posted by: tdn0024 | January 9, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

LOL!
tomlll-What would want to bet Sean Hannity listens to the Eagles? ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | January 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Can't Dems just be excited? I am so happy that we have this historic race to watch unfold over the next few months.

I truly think that this tight race will result in the Dems having the BEST candidate, whomever he/she may be represent our party and win back the White House from those wolves hiding in republican clothing.

The Republicans haven't a prayer, no matter if its Edwards, Clinton, or Obama as the nominee.

70% Voter Turn OUT! That's the story for the press!

Posted by: sonicpixie417 | January 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Shame on you, Dan! Calling the results of the New Hampshire primary a "stunning victory" for Clinton is a huge disservice to electoral politics in this nation. Hillary did not "WIN" the NH Primary. She and Obama TIED with 9 delegates each. Obama won in 6 of 10 counties with Hillary barely pulling out a win in one of the most populated to give her a slight edge in the popular vote. However, as history shows, the popular vote really means nothing! The fact is both Obama and Hillary each picked up 9 delegates each on the NH road to the Democratic Convention. IT WAS A TIE! 9 EACH. This is not a loss for Barak Obama.

Posted by: pasifikawv | January 9, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm an aging rocker who will never listen to country.

Country music is what inbred redneck racist Repuke rubes listen to. It is stupid music.

Posted by: TomIII | January 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is top notch.

She's going to be a GREAT President.

Posted by: svreader | January 9, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Clinton was leading in the NH polls until Obama's Iowa victory, then for *a few days* Obama led in the polls. In the end, it was a dead heat, allowing for the ballot change effect that has been documented.
So Obama overcame months of Clinton lead to get where he did in NH. There is a stunning victory here, but it isn't Hillary's.

Posted by: lellsworth3 | January 9, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

All this proves is how STUPID the Corporate Media are.

Fire them all, especially the nencons, and hire some young journalists who still believe in journalistic ethics.

Corporate media deserve to go bankrupt.

Posted by: TomIII | January 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Look at the comments above. The ones against Hillary are full of emotional vitriol. By and large, the reasoned and serious comments are for Hillary.
"Gut feel" emotional voting has given us 8 years of disaster. We need a careful, reasoned examination of the ISSUES. Whether you "like" her or her "machine" is irrelevant. She's the best qualified.
To the media: Why this obsessive naval gazing - and unashamed female bashing? Our US newscasts pale in comparison to the fact-based, worldwide breadth of foreign coverage like Once in Mexico, CBC in Canada, BBC in England, French, German, Spanish news etc.

Posted by: sestuff | January 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Folks, wake up! When Edwards brings his Socialist followers into Barack Hussein's Camp, the Clinton Moderates are doomed!

Like aged Rockers, they are going to wake up and find they are now "Country"!

Welcome to the Big Tent!

Posted by: rat-the | January 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Is rigging the Diebold voting machines also part of Politics 101? I don't know that the voting machines were tampered with, however shouldn't someone be looking into whether the voting results are valid and accurate?

Posted by: johnc_80 | January 9, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"But he was asking New Hampshire voters to ratify what happened in Iowa, a decision that might have effectively ended the Democratic nomination battle."

Will you guys ever learn? You declared it all over after Iowa, now you've done it again? What is it with the press and this desire to declare the primary season over? This is a long haul, people - get used to it.

Posted by: petekwando | January 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are to be congratulated on their surprising victory in New Hampshire. While I agree strongly that change is needed, it is also hard to accomplish, and the Clintons have certainly shown that to be the case in this election. Given the preceding polls, I was surprised by the results. I am not surprised, however, that Sen. Obama's campaign, representing as it clearly does an effort to hijack the Democratic Party from the control of its entrenched interest groups, is in for some tough sledding. Nevertheless, no one in the Republican Party is trying something similar; if frustrated Democrats, Republicans and Independents want a politics that facilitates change in an inclusive way, from the White House to the school board, then the campaign of this 46-year-old one term Senator with the funny name and the foreign background is all that is available. Senator Clinton has stated, "I AM change." Her husband, the former president, has denounced "fairy tales." I can only reply that when I'm in the pew communing with I AM and listening to fairy tales this Sunday, neither of the Clintons will come to mind. But I will pray for my country to work together for a better day.

Posted by: thewolf1 | January 9, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Experience?? That strikes me as something very thin to campaign on, especially considering you're currently in the ONLY ELECTED position you have ever had (riding hubby's coattails). Being married to Bill damn sure doesn't equate "experience" !! Hillary didn't even have a security clearance while 1st Lady.
Ready to lead on Day1; lead what, an investigation into Bill's philandering ways. Remember in '93 when she was reforming Health Care, yeah right. The only change Hillary represents jingles in your pocket !!!!

Posted by: isupreme | January 9, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The past few days i could not even bring myself to watch MSNBC OR CNN! I dont know what happened to these journalists, but i think oprah threw a little too much $$ in their direction. These people are not blabbering idiots. They are senior political advisors, professional pollsters, and experienced news anchors who have been around the block a few times, and seen a few things. But the way they have been treating Hillary is completely disgusting. I dont think they sayd 1 positive thing about her for the past week. And when Bill Clinton accuses them of it they call it rediculous and "suicide for his wife's campaign". Well look what HAPPENED! HAH! The people arent stupid enough to listen to Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzers scripted drudge downs, or Candie Crowley talk bad about the candidate that WE ALL KNOW she supports. Do you think that we didnt notice that?? Well the American people arent that easily decieved. "Work together with republicans!" "Bi- Partisan!!" YOU RETARDS. Do you actually think the republicans would let us instate universal health care? or even have a part in it? not a chance. No not this day, Hillary will be the next president. And 1 last thing: We ALL find it suspicious that alot of republicans are speaking out pro-Obama. U wont slip that by us either.

Posted by: aarond12 | January 9, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The only way for Hillary to beat Obama is to convince Americans that they are NOT voting for Bill Clinton when they vote for her. I don't know how she does that, but she has to.

I was wavering between Hillary and Barack until Bill had his 'how dare he (Obama)' tirade.

Bill's recent high poll numbers came as a result of Bill C. looking, well, presidential since he left office.

Let Bill get above the fray, let Hillary be Hillary, and she might just pull this thing off.

Posted by: WiltonManorsSteve | January 9, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

YES, to borrow Tom Brady's recent pet-phrase, "Well done is better than well said". If you want your candidate elected, then, volunteer, get out there, and SHOW support - don't just give us chin music. I'm sure most contuributors here won't even bother to vote.

Posted by: dah1963 | January 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

You say Hillary Clinton is teaching Politics 101. She needs to take a class in Diplomacy 101. Take a look at the top story on the front page of a Russian newspaper, entitled "Clinton: Putin has no soul." http://www.sptimes.ru/

Posted by: dmsafford | January 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

saqk1961-LOL! Da Happa Haole thought he could ride waves!

Forget even Town-side! Da guy needs to go to Kailua Shore-break!

-PrawnDog! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | January 9, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The writer grossly overanalyzes and overcredits Clinton. In the secrecy of the voting booth one thing likely stood out to New Hampshire voters -- black.

Posted by: llrllr | January 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Politics 101 HA!!

You mean How to screw up MSM 101

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | January 9, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Hillary & her "experience" is way to scary for me! I hope to GOD we are smart enough not to be sucked into Clintonesque politics.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/trekdom/16D9E49A0F7E45B2A97427663D5D592A/hillary-clinton-doomsday-machi.aspx

Posted by: ellavador | January 9, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

The Trump Card

Like many Americans getting ready for work today, I rubbed the sleep out of my eyes, dragged myself out of bed and turned on the radio. The lead story on the morning news was the winners of the New Hampshire primary. As I listened to the commentary regarding Mrs. Clinton's victory, I was amazed at the subliminal, yet persuasive, messages used to sway voters, particularly female voters. I listened to how Senator Clinton compared herself to Senator Obama and I found her message to imply a double standard. Senator Clinton wants female voters to support her because she is a woman, who represents change. Many female voters cast their ballots for Hillary because she represents a shift from the good-ole-boy business as usual Washington politicians. In short women will vote for her because of her gender.

I find this to be hypocritical and yet typical of the Democratic Party. I find it hypocritical because it is acceptable for me as a woman to vote for Senator Clinton because she is a female but I would be wrong to vote for Senator Obama because he was African-American. It is amazing that in the 21st Century when an African-American candidate can win the Iowa Caucus that the fear factor would still be used. The Clinton campaign has used words like "inexperienced and unknown" to describe Senator Obama's bid for the nomination. Women should not vote for him because they don't know where he stands on women's issues.

If the label "the great unknown" is applied to Senator Obama, then it should be applied to Senator Clinton. When Bill Clinton was president, my neighborhood did not look any different than it does today. There was no new development and the rate of crime was the same, if not worse, than it is today. The Democratic Party is no longer the party of Roosevelt, Truman or Kennedy. The Democratic Party courts the middle-class vote while ignoring the legacy of African-American civil rights leader Fannie Lou Hammer, a strong, sincere, and dedicated leader who was "sick and tired of being sick and tired". Ms. Hammer founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP). In 1964, the MFDP challenged the all-white Mississippi delegation to the Democratic National Convention. As a result of her speech, two delegates of the MFDP were given speaking rights at the convention and the other members were seated as honorable guests.

Today, the Democratic Party turns a deaf ear to voices like Obama's. It continues to ignore the plight of the poor and African-Americans (in particular) because no matter what is said and done, African-Americans will ultimately support the party's nomination. The government will create more social programs and, in turn, African-Americans will tow the party line. The Democratic Party believes that African-Americans will support someone like Mrs. Clinton or Senator Edwards line because we are lost children that need guidance and we, like Senator Obama, are inexperienced in the body-politic. To coin senator's Obamas response in Iowa regarding this experience, we must be seasoned, stewed and have all the hope drained out of us.

During an interview in New Hampshire, a woman asked Mrs. Clinton, how does she keep it all together. When Mrs. Clinton gave an emotional response, I felt her response, betrayed the image she has so hard to create. While many women feel that her response dispelled the myth that she is cold, I felt it reinforced an age-old stereotype. When all is said and done, if a woman cannot get her way, she will resort to tears.


Like many American's I am tried of the double-talk, buzz words and endless/emplty promises. As a woman of color, I am tired of the party Democratic Party telling candidates like Senator Obama to rally the disillusioned but take a back seat it his white counterparts.

The more things change the more they stay the same.


Benita Johnson
Pittsburgh, PA

Posted by: benita_johnson2000 | January 9, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Your comment "Clinton owed her victory to the gender gap." was as sexist as they get. No wonder you got it wrong.

Sure, a larger percentage of women voted for her than men, but that alone is zero evidence that gender won the contest for her. The equation has two sides. Some men didn't vote for her because she is female, and some women voted for her for the same reason. But it's the sum total of these two groups which determines whether it was decided on gender. And you provide zero evidence of this which leaves only your sexism to base your opinion on.

Could it be - gasp - that she won on her message of experience and commitment to our great country? If she were a male with the same message, I dare say HE would have won just as well. If so, then the inescapable conclusion is that she won -despite- her gender, not because of it.

Your sexism is blinding you.

Posted by: WP11231 | January 9, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

What a stupid thing to say stunning victory. She had a 12-17 point lead 1-2 weeks ago and barely won last night. NH is the Clinton's playground. I think results are simple the people lied about who they were going to vote for because they always like to pull a surprise and will not do what Iowa does, it's always been this way.
Obama should be very happy today for coming in so close and losing will make him a better candidate. People are to wrapped up in polls. I think the polls are misleading us about the GOP in 08. They are trying to make you believe that the dems are going to take it all and I don't
think for a second that is going to happen.

Posted by: sque1 | January 9, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

One hopes that the media learns and remembers for the longhaul the right lessons from this debacle, though there is very scant evidence of such behavior in their record. Chris Matthews and Tim Russert in particular should realize that it is not their job to bring down Sen. Clinton and they aren't omniscient. Media in general should do some soul-searching on why they have so quickly gotten on the "Barack is God" bandwagon and engaged in the shameful mass hysteria for the spactacle of the whole world. Frankly, it's been disgusting to watch these guys over the last couple of weeks, salivating over the Clinton campaign's "troubles" and celebrating and congratulating each other that she lost Iowa !

Posted by: ee_maata | January 9, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

p.s.

expect this: whoever wins, will be the wrong one--it is our manifest destiny

Posted by: ramardeus1 | January 9, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

it's pretty simple. this country voted an actor (someone who makes a career of an identity crisis) into office--mr. reagan--then, later, succumbs to the goons and henchmen who orchestrated the theft of an election backing the idiot son of a war monger (g. bush) what else can we expect? the general un-washed public are uneducated and this country is condemned. certainly we are not role models in this world, and in the next ? . . . there may be heavy reckoning to pay

Posted by: ramardeus1 | January 9, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

balz, I hope the HRC camp gives you a tip afterwards. obama's speech was clear-headed, steady, welcoming to the continuing challenge, and inspiring to his NH supporters. like everyone has said, this was not a stunning victory. HRC has a vast political machine w/ a large cast of characters. if you told any obama supporter a month ago that he would win Iowa convincingly, w/ a third for HRC and the strongest of 2nd place showings in NH; the obama supporters would be--and are-- ecstatic. factor into that an ex-president who jumped in ( in the most negative fashion) w/ both feet and took untrue dirty shots at obama- which ultimately reduces bills standing. essentially, the clinton camp had to cravenly "go downtown " to survive. this only exemplifies, how unprecedented the HRC campaign is in a negative way - for a first world nation. simply said i believe it is un-american and nonprogressive to have 4 consecutive presidents from 2 immediate families, worst still the prospect of 2 consecutive co-presidencies. americans need to think soberly about this possibility.
we know the press is undisciplined in coverage, pontificating and too willing to dictate a story rather than cover them as they emerge. msnbc's chris matthews particularly is all over the lot. one has to wonder if his past alcoholism, malaria, or other health problems have diminished his judgment.
i believe the polls were not as bad as we think. voters who were decided stuck to their choice, and the large amount of undecided ,including many woman, broke to clinton late- not so much for her- but as a way to extend the campaign. as an obama supporter i never wanted it to end quickly-i want all voters to think and reason out their votes. if they do people cannot deny that this is a special moment in time- and that we should vote to get a grasp of our democratic republic; or we meekly cede it to those who stand up for the multinational corporate interests instead of the american people.

Posted by: jacade | January 9, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"on intelligence, hillary wins. on a lifetime record of working for americans, hillary wins. on EXPERIENCE, hillary wins."

On intelligence, running the harvard law review trumps yale law. On a lifetime record of working for Americans, while HRC was first spouse, BHO was working on the south side of Chicago. Yes, Senator Clinton has attended more state dinners than Senator Obama. The question becomes which experience is more relevant to making the most effective decisions as President.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

For those of you that believes Hillary "cracked" her voince on purpose - you're idiots. . .

Posted by: saqk1961 | January 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I think the lesson really is that you can take all the polls that you want, but there is only ONE that counts! The media was shocked in Iowa and New Hampshire, truth is the media is biased. There results are obtained using previous results. This is anyones race right now, 2 states down 48 to go!! Ok not anyones, but Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all have a lot of oppurtunity still left in this race.
While I am inspired by Obama and will vote for him, Clintons record is exraordinary and for the media to put her off like she is no one, is foolish. Also don't be surprised if Edwards makes a comeback, a lot of unions are backing him, this was huge for Bill Clinton in his first election.

Bottom line, everybody chill out! If your favorite, like mine, didn't win in New Hampshire there is still a whole slew of delegates left. If your favorite is not one of these 3, hopefully you can find someone here who shares a simular view, because most likely your people will drop out very soon!

Lastly, to the people who say if its Clinton and Mccain at the end they will vote Mccain. (Because it is not Obama) While Obama and Clinton have some differant routes to the same point of view, they still share a simular point of view, If you really believe in the change that Obama is talking about you would NEVER cast a vote for any of the republican canadites, and you would still vote because you WOULD NEVER want them in. These people, expecially Mccain are wanting the polar opposite of Obama and so proclaimed you.

Peace be with all of you, and enjoy the political process there is none like it in the world, and no matter how much the media would like to control it, this is the one thing that is yours, this process is your American Right!

Posted by: kgorgei | January 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

If "Obama looked beaten when he came on stage" then I really question whether he is ready for the job. And I really liked his message of change.

It's easy to be upbeat and enthusiastic when things are going your way. But the true test of character is to be upbeat and enthusiastic when events have dealt you a setback.

And if he really tries to implement his message, there will be no end to setbacks he will encounter. If he gets all dejected anytime he meets a setback, I'm sorry to say, we'll just end up with the same ol' status quo.

Posted by: WP11231 | January 9, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I don't vote for democrats (and certainly not republicans). I won't be voting for Hillary, because she is, by my standards, basically a moderate Republican. But SO is Obama. Their positions are nearly identical. And Hillary's healthcare plan is more inclusive and acceptable than his. The idea that Obama is some progressive democrat's option to Hillary is a joke. Because I already know that my guys are not going to be president I necessarily take an interest in the democratic primaries. I am a realist, after all. And all I have to say is that Obama's namby-pamby, non-partisan, 'can't-we-all-just-get-along, governing by pleasant-amiability method, is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The conservative/neocon/religious-right/corporatists will eat him alive. In the real world, I'll take cold calculating competence over warm and fuzzy ineptitude any day.

P.S. Objectively speaking (since I'm not voting for her or Obama) the press coverage of Hillary has been a disgrace. You guys are nearly swooning over Obama while you can say nothing about Clinton without some mean and mocking implication or remark. Feeding the mob, as usual.

Posted by: Splatter | January 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Since it came up (zukermand's comment), yes I was raised Republican. I actually voted for Clinton twice though, so I think it's fair to say I'm an independent.

The bottom line is I lost enormous respect for the Clintons because of their tactics in NH. Had they kept to presenting their ideas I would have had more respect for them, maybe even been swayed by them. But when you use fear tactics like cracking your voice at the thought of your country going backward, the likely result of your not becoming President, how is that not Bush with Estrogen? How is fear mongering wrong from the male frame but heart felt concern from the female frame?

About change:
How many times has Obama presented his change in Washington as taking on lobbyists? How many times has Hillary said lobbyists aren't the problem? But on this nothing was said in NH - instead the People's response to this stance was a "free ride," a "fairy tale," they chose to hear fluff instead of the substance. The change Obama talks about regarding Washington is specific and yet she paints it in vagueries. Where is Hillary's track record on ethics and transparent government? This is specifically the change that Americans have been craving: more voice, less special interests and lobbyists, but on this she has been silent and disregarded what it is people (especially NON-DEMOCRATS) listening to Obama are believing in for our country.

That aside I believe in voting for principled leaders. I am not a democrat so I am not jumping ship by voting for McCain. I am an independent. I am just as likely to vote democrat as I am to vote republican - my family was not happy when I voted for Bill, TWICE. So for those of you who live in red and blue states, all I can say is: it's a free country - I will vote my conscience, not a party.

Obama and McCain are the two most principled, electable people I've seen on the campaign trail. But hey, who's to say I speak for all independents?

Best to you Democrats! I hope you'll learn to speak to America and not just to yourselves. Maybe read more Lakoffe.

Posted by: vitt | January 9, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Funny how a lot of people seem to be forgetting that Obama is HALF WHITE. I grew up in Hawaii and graduated the same year as Barack at another private school 3 miles from him. It's a shame that he has portrayed his early years in Hawaii as someone who "struggled with being black". That is so untrue and his classmates and basketball teammates will probably agree. If any of you think Hillary is using the gender card then you would agree that Barack is using the race card. And I disagree, msdillo - a vote for anyone other that Hillary Clinton is a vote for WHOEVER wins the Republican nomination - and one of those votes will definitely be mine.

Posted by: saqk1961 | January 9, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

To Dan and all the other Pundits:

You spend way, way more time talking about
yourselves and what you think will happen or did happen than about the issues or even what the candidates say about the issues.

The lesson in New Hampshire and Iowa for you pundits is that it doesn't matter what you think.

There is no lesson for the rest of us.

Posted by: farmer1 | January 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

My hunch is that the polls weren't wrong. Rather, they drove the results. I think a lot of independent voters saw Obama's double-digit lead in the runup to the primary and figured "well, it's a done deal--Obama doesn't need my vote, but it looks like McCain might."

If it's the case that registered Democrats favor Clinton nationwide, then she stands to do well in closed-party primary states where independents can't participate and will most likely be able to seize the nomination fairly early. Unfortunately for her, that same fact could come back to bite her in the general election if a large percentage of the independents with whom she has a high disapproval rating decide to cast an ABH (anyone but Hillary) ballot.

It's going to be an interesting election, that's for sure.

Posted by: ablackstormy | January 9, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Totally right about MSNBC piling on. So she should go after them.

Listen to some of the defensive venom coming out of the Clinton camp of late: terrorists are watching this election, fairytale, MLK LBJ e.g.

Hillary will have no more soul to sell come Super Tuesday.

Posted by: larsenist | January 9, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Stunning victory? Politics 101? The press predicted a tidal wave and was wrong. That was all that happened.

At the end of the day, Barack Obama walked away with the same number of delegates as the 'Inevitable Clinton Machine' in an uptight, all-white, backwoods, conservative state.

North Carolina will be much more of a test.

Posted by: don1one | January 9, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Clinton took criticism from Obama for her vote on Iran as a terrorist state.
Obama did not vote, he was off campaigning. He could have returned to vote but decided that it was politically beneficial not to do so: another "present" vote.
This is change? This is a new direction? I don't think so!
I will be voting for Hillary Clinto.

Posted by: FredCDobbs | January 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The election was a close one, and reasonably should have been expected to be a close one. The problem is not that the media rode the wave with Obama per se. If the weekend polls were accurate gauges of voter choices on the eve of the election, then what else were they to conclude but that Obama was about to achieve a stunning victory? The problem is, first, that the weekend polls may well have been inaccurate at the time they were conducted (and based on what happened between the final polls and the actual voting, that is a reasonable hypothesis), and, second, that the media accepted the results of the polls as accurate unequivocally and uncritically, without analysis of how or by whom they were conducted, or what questions were and were not asked, or what influence the remaining very high percentage of undecided voters might have, or what assumptions were made about which party' primary the independent voters would choose to participate in, or what the level of absentee balloting, already concluded before the Obama "wave" began, was, or what sampling methods were used to conduct the polling, or what the margin of error was. That was the problem with the reporting -- no one asked, are the polls right, how do we know whether the polls are right, and how do we assess whether the polls are right? The Washington Post itself ran an op ed piece (after Iowa, I believe) by a couple of professional pollsters who warned against the uncritical acceptance of poll results as the election approached. The job for the media now is not only to determine what factors influenced the voters' choices, but whether the polls were flawed such that they gave inaccurate answers of the voters' choices at the time they were conducted. And to apply a more critical eye in the future.

Posted by: JChoukasBradley | January 9, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I have been a political junkie since the early 60's and I have never seen the press pile on a candidate the way they did on Hillary. It got to the point where I couldn't watch MSNBC, where I seriously wondered if it was corporate policy to disparage her.

I found Hillary's win immensely satisfying.

Posted by: bschratwieser | January 9, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I am not a Hillary fan. I do not buy her "experience", which the press seems to buy, hook, line and sinker. If experience matters, they should have voted for Biden, Dodd, McCain or Richardson. I don't trust her to follow through if she becomes president unless it is to her political advantage to do so. However, that is not why I'm backing Obama. If Hillary is the nominee, we will have another Republican president and I can't stand the thought of that. She does not pull independents, much less moderate Republicans. Many Democrats don't like her and would vote for a moderate Republican over her. The vote in Iowa was telling - a conservative state by Democratic standards and it represents the many red states in the middle of the country. Yet Obama won there by a comfortable margin because of young people and independents. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a Republican president in November.

Posted by: msdillo | January 9, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the poster who said the big losers were the pollsters, not Sen. Obama. A week ago, a 2-3% loss to Sen. Clinton in New Hampshire for Obama would have been regarded as a setback for Clinton. She and the ex-pres have a history in NH, the active support of most of the NH Democrat office holders and the NH unions. I thought his concession last night was far more gracious than Clinton's in Iowa, and was an example of the "new" type of politics Sen. Obama is espousing. Obviously, the race will be close, but I believe Clinton's true manipulative, calculating personality will ultimately reveal itself to voters. But if she wins, the nomination, I would still vote for her, becasue she is certainly far more progressive than any of the Republican candidates, especially Sen. McCain who despite his so-called straight talk would keep us in Iraq for a generation.

Posted by: cdonham | January 9, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Politically, I'm closer to Obama but I like the old girl. She knows what's she's doing. She finally proved that she can do warm and fuzzy and do it better than anyone else.

Posted by: stroxal | January 9, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

So pleased to see H.Clinton won last night. She won because she is smart, warm, conscientious, knowledgeable, hardworking and voters see that. There's just too much propaganda and rock star wave around Obama, untested, shallow, using rhectoric to hide lack of experience and to a degree arrogance. Go, go Hilary...

Posted by: Cook1 | January 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

This was the plan all along .Well executed by the Clinton braintrust and furthered by the Media useful idiots and deliberately skewed polls.

Posted by: QPFLYER | January 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

If SEXIST Nepotism gets Hillary nominated I'm voting against the Democrats for the first time ever.

America is a Democracy = Not a Monarchy

Posted by: PulSamsara | January 9, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I continue to be amazed by the emotion and focus on height, rhetoric, tears, and nonvalue added commentary I read above. More over, the threats ..."I will not vote if.." only show the lack of serious that is neeeded/required for this election. What happened to reason and measured judgement in so significant a choice?

I watch the debates. Particularly the last one -- before NH. My considered opinion is that John Edwards is passionate and "very personally" committed, but I also hear,"I'm gonna take on the (fill in the blank).. and fight fight fight..etc. The next President is going to be have to be calm, sober in thought, and consensus builder across the elements of power for this nation vs a divider with angst over his dad having to "work hard in a mill".
Oh, and when Edwards started the tactic, "men and Obama are for change; I agree with Obama; people are attacking me and Obama.." -- I thought to myself, "man, this is a Presidential election... think for yourself, stand up for yourself, and stop the boot lickin...". He lost me right there... this election or the next.

Richardson lists his resume everytime out. Yes he is experienced, but in no way does he have a plan or understand the issues with the kind of depth we need. He is a good man and deserves to be on the stage, but not in the oval office.

Obama is exciting, charismatic, smart, and is very presidential. I do not think he, once again has the breadth of experience to understand the breadth of the issues... and listen closely to his "answers" ... they specifically answer the question asked, without understanding the implications of his assertions, nor how how the issues interact with each other. Reference his answer on ending the war...
I find myself asking myself post his comments ..."and then what?" He is Presidential material for the next Presidential election.

Hilliary, atleast on the democratic side, is the best of this field. First lady (Arkansas and US), work on Fulbright campaign, experienced failure in fighting for health care, Law School grad with experience, went through national embarassment with class, senator from New York with real accomplishment to her record.
Listen to the answers -- brought up the war, but out the right way ... while keeping Al Queda on the run; economy tied to global warming, tied to opportunity with an understanding of the complexity..; did the reality check when holding the others to account of their stated "accomplishments" -- that frankly did not exist. Folks, like her or dont like her ... that is irrelevant.
Hillary won NH not due to tears or machine on the ground. She won it because she finally held folks to account for their words, and gave us an alternative with her words.
She will win again ... dont be surprized.
CW

Posted by: carl.williamson | January 9, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Politics 101: The only poll that counts is the one in the election booth.

New Hampshire people acted on the polls as if they were set in stone. Some didn't both to vote, particularly if the lines were long. Obama was going to win in a landslide anyway, right? Others thought they could vote tactically, have their cake and eat it too. They really disliked Romney and realized if McCain didn't win in NH, he would be toast. Women in particular didn't want to see another woman lose in DOUBLE-DIGITS - even those whose first choice was really Obama.

Experience is a hard teacher, but better New Hampshire than California or another state with lots of delegates.

Posted by: TomJx | January 9, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting how negative & personal some of Obama's supporters are on loosing NH... seems they can't handle the CHANGE (which is his mantra), that occured there.

Watching him upon losing NH, vis-a-vis the other candidates (both Democrat & Republican), gave me an inkling of his lack of experience and tenure. Yes, it does matter. Politics are rough, been nasty since it began. Unfair things are going to be said and that's the nature of the beast. Buck up and take the heat (or get a job as a lobbyist).

This election is NOT about race or gender. It is ALL about who will be ALL of this country's next President. Period. So folks, quit putting your personal agendas in this!

To the media. Your job it to report the facts. Not try to make them. So sit back, relax and REPORT the news. Pay attention, learn from EXPERIENCE and let the voters decide, OK?

Posted by: Jaxon1 | January 9, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It seems that most reporters do little research and only pick up the latest rumor, bandwagon opinion and publish it.
Or, have they been made to feel so good by the inspirational speechifying by the pied piper that they have lost their ability to ask hard questions?

Posted by: readlife | January 9, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

on intelligence, hillary wins. on a lifetime record of working for americans, hillary wins. on EXPERIENCE, hillary wins.

on oratorical skills, obama wins.
obama for preacher of the year!

hillary clinton for president!!

Posted by: mikel1 | January 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

'Politics 101'?!?

Between Balz and Cillizza, you guys are gonna run out of hyperbole before February.

I will concede the 'politics 101' argument if the Clinton campaign proves it can deliver consistent victories in states in which they don't have the kind of machine they have in New Hampshire. 28 hours ago even the Clinton campaign thought they were going to be in for a rough night. If the results caught them off guard, how on earth can you print a headline today congratulating them on their political savvy? I won't say they got lucky, but I will say they don't appear to know what they're doing that works. We'll learn more over the next couple weeks, when we can see which campaigns modify their message & which don't. Perhaps the Clinton campaign thinks they've finally hit on a message (after many tries) that connects. Perhaps they're even right.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Well I have to agree with the posts made by bazeballfanz and by mildbrew ........she is absolutely every thing you all said and then some ..... I am still undecided as far as who I am voting for however I know who I will not vote for and Hillary is one also I am still not sure about the Republicans either ....I am just sick of news of Clintons , Bush, Britney, Lindsey and Brad and Angie .....Please can the news people find some new news ????? Honestly I just wish people would research the candidates more and their records not what they say but what they did or did not vote for their attendance in the senate , their problems and their cronies .........and also the person them self .......

Posted by: drs_bnsn | January 9, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

NH sealed the deal. the next president will be a democrat. intelligence, a lifetime of working on issues important to americans and yes, EXPERIENCE won the day. hillary clinton for president!

P.S. obama for snake oil salesman of the year!

Posted by: mikel1 | January 9, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Sen Obama's more vociferous supporters here sound remarkably like Republicans in tone and substance. I wonder why that is.

Posted by: zukermand | January 9, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Notice how bazeballfan and mildew's main criticism about Hillary is that she's a manipulating, cunning woman. If she were a "deceitful" "power craving" man she would be called politically savvy and ambitious. It's sad that just as some people are not willing to vote for Obama because he's black, there are others who are as equally not willing to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. We need to ask better of each other.

Posted by: swkyle | January 9, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

It seems Michelle Obama may be Barack's secret weapon, to keep him on the straight and narrow path, despite adversity. Barack needs to keep the movement's mood on an even keel despite periodic adversity and Michelle needs to be there to keep Barack on an even keel, as well. I haven't fully appreciated her, up until now.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | January 9, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Too bad she had to cry to get the sympathy vote from woman. I will never vote for the woman. She is a manipulating, cold, calloused, deceitful, scandalous - woman! Craving power! She is so fake and two-faced - thinks this is owed to her and Bill. I have even changed my view of former President Clinton, his remarks about Obama being a 'fairytale'! I hope my fairytale comes true and Senator Obama wins the nomination - otherwise I vote republican!

Posted by: bazeballfanz | January 9, 2008 12:59 PM

It's comments and thinking like this that proves you're a moron. How do you know all of these traits about Hillary? Personal?What the MSM tells you? Watch Faux News do we? Listen to rush limpaugh?

How can any SANE person vote for a repub just for spite? You deserve another bushwack for your president,but my country and I don't.

PS: I would like to see how you(bazeballfanz)know about all of the nasty things you said about Hillary.

No talking points please.
Solid proof will suffice.

Posted by: jime2000 | January 9, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Notice how bazeballfan and mildew's main criticism about Hillary is that she's a manipulating, cunning woman. If she were a "deceitful" "power craving" man she would be called politically savvy and ambitious. It's sad that just as some people are not willing to vote for Obama because he's black, there are others who are as equally not willing to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. We need to ask better of each other.

Posted by: swkyle | January 9, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I thank for this Author's effort in NH. Though, his effort always mislead the readers!

In my humble opinion, plase take a look at John Eward, A LOT OF HIS VOTES GONE TO OBAMA!!! SEE ANY SCRIFICE-HIT OR Obama just take vote out of Eward?

The most ambitious and aggressive John, he may team up with obama as Obama-Eward ticket.


Lee see!!

Posted by: taichilo | January 9, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"America's Iron Lady"? Gimme a break, Balz. Sounds like you have a crush on her.

Posted by: guest1 | January 9, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

At this point, all of the geniuses in the mainstream media, mainly in television news, need to summon the courage to tell their audiences that there are a few important issues to be discussed and a few important facts to be collected before permitting a public coronation of any candidate based on dynasty, momentum, charisma or, God save us all, likeability.Cable news pundits may have successfully predicted John McCain's victory in New Hampshire, but they sure had a lot of explaining to do around 10:30 p.m., once The Associated Press and MSNBC projected victory for Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The polls were so wrong. So off," MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said. Perhaps exaggerating slightly, Olbermann added, "Two cable news networks actually predicted this outcome after Sen. Obama conceded." Chris Matthews, co-anchoring the evening broadcast on MSNBC, told Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson an hour later, "I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again."

It was that kind of night for the punditocracy. So how do the media come back after being so far off? "I think the people are going to make some judgments about us," Brokaw said. It is quite possible that voters, who were barraged in the past days with reports about how Obama was cruising to a double-digit victory, already have.


pundits were irresponsible in predicting Obama would win by 15 points or more just two days ago. There should be an investigation into that. Did these pundits have some hidden agendas? FOX NEWS and MSNBC

pundants and media should stop trying to control what our society thinks and how we vote and stick to reporting facts. It's sickening to hear all the endless chatter about polls and projections.

A major result of this election season so far is to demonstrate how damaging an unfiltered, unbroken media stream can be. Faced with filling endless space, journalists write endless nonsense... it is deeply harmful to efforts to elect the best possible leaders."

What arrested obama's surge is the fact that a lot of people can see whose side the press is on. The favoritism is sickening. No one wants a candidate shoved down thei

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 9, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama admits campaign/PAC donation linksBad news for the Barack Obama camp and his politics of hope clean-guy image.The Washington Post reveals today that there was, indeed, close coordination between the Illinois senator's presidential campaign and his leadership PAC, Hopefund, in deciding which local, state and federal politicians around the country were to receive thousands of dollars in contributions from Obama's PAC.Such coordination appears to be forbidden under Federal Election Commission rules because it, in effect, would give a candidate another, less regulated financial fund to influence the outcome of his own campaign. But Obama officials express confidence they violated no rules. The Post's John Solomon reported the other day that Obama's Hopefund had distributed money in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to people like New Hampshire state Sen. Jacayln Cilley, who got $1,000 from Obama last summer. Six days later the Democrat in the nation's first primary state announced her endorsement of his candidacy because she said she believed in him.Likewise, Obama's PAC gave $9,000 to U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, who was New Hampshire's first congressional member to endorse Obama. In the earlier story Obama spokesmen denied any connection between the PAC and Democratic presidential campaign.But today's piece alters that account and says the PAC has distributed $180,000 to groups and candidates in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa and another $150,000 to similar destinations in states with primary balloting through mid-February.Bob Bauer, private counsel for both Obama's campaign and PAC, named names of those from the campaign who'd help select the PAC's recipients and professed confidence the Obama entities had met all FEC regulations.But Scott Thomas, a Democrat and former FEC chairman, says: "He is clearly pushing the envelope."

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 9, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse


Think about action rather than words.
Volunteer for a campaign and meet new friends.

Posted by: hhkeller | January 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand vitt's vitriol against Senator Clinton: it sounds almost personal. Does this person know the Senator personally? Has she done something really bad to this person? But then, I don't understand why so many people have such a visceral negative reaction to the Clintons in the first place. They are both political animals who play politics very well. And, frankly, a political campaign is precisely that: politics.

As an aside, perhaps one of the reasons for the Clinton victory in NH is as simple as the fact that the pollsters--the experts--touted in all their glory that Senator Obama had New Hampshire in the bag. With that certitude, independent voters would have been "freed up" to vote for McCain. So much for pollsters. . . . Much of America seems to be able to continue to think for itself and vote accordingly. Very refreshing after eight years of the Unenlightenment. Whether Clinton ultimately gets the nomination or Obama ultimately gets the nomination, my vote is with the Democratic nominee: we must escape the stupidity and ineptitude represented by this existing Republican Administration.

Posted by: smcg67301 | January 9, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

This is a good example of the fiendish press. Initially it was Hillary Clinton, the moment Obama picked up then it was Obama, and a race to present him as the candidate. Instead of concentrating on his rather wonderful and uplifting speeches, how about providing us an analysis of how he would govern, or his policies versus Clinton's. I expected better of Chirs Matthews and Tim Russert who are now hiding under the race card, Obama lost because of race. No, Obama lost because the people of New Hampshire, especially the women decided to go for substance over just speech. What experience does Obama have, a lawyer who has had two years or four years as a state senator and a couple of years as a US Senator. Has he had any experience governing, taking major decisions. Even Geroge Bush had experience running a team and a state. Let Obama come back and take the Presidency in eight years time, but I will be sorry to see him President of a country like USA a leader of the free world because I can challenge anyone that we will fall into a worse abyss then we are in now. He does not have Bill clinton's sharp mind or experience governing, nor the political savvy to make it in Washington. All he has is his oratory, as the saying goes 'Where's the beef' ? If he becomes the President he will not last for more than four years and the Republicans will have a field day tearing him apart.

Posted by: malapalit | January 9, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

****I hope my fairytale comes true and Senator Obama wins the nomination - otherwise I vote republican! *****

Translation: If I don't get what I want I'll have a little tantrum, then take my ball and run home and pout. Vote Republican? Go ahead; you sound you'll get along famously with George W. Bush...he's a spoiled, entitled brat also.

Posted by: Jerryvov | January 9, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

A class in Politics 101?

Apparently, some (children) in the media were left behind.

And some may still be judging from the "wisdom" dispensed regarding Sister Hillary's "stunning victory" in New Hampshire.

(Not to be confused with Brother Obama's "decisive victory" in Iowa. Forgive me if I chuckle over the relative percentages of these great victories or the even more howling actual number of votes of these two political tsunamis. For God's sake by now each must have 170,000 votes. I think it's pretty clear there's no need for an election in November. The people have spoken).

Is it the pressure to say something, anything to fill the air time or occupy the column inches?

Like those who work in the SETI project, I continue to search for signs of intelligent life in the punditocracy.

Posted by: R49Thomas | January 9, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Excellent analysis. Hillary's not my favorite in the field, but anyone who knows politics understood immediately last night that she must have done something right (and formidable) to turn around what looked to be devastating poll numbers in the final 24 hours of the race.

I got on a flight in California with the polls still open and landed with Hillary declared the winner. At the California airport watching the news, I thought (1) the media is throwing her under the bus; (2) the "crying" incident was way overblown, little more than a catch in her voice; (3) she didn't seem to be campaigning like a beaten candidate; (4) her crowds seemed to be large, impressive and enthusiastic.

The result surprised me, but I think the boys (and girls) on the bus got carried away. After burying her alive, the press was enjoying dancing on her grave. Now that she's emerged, Lazarus-like, to take up her campaign and walk, I wonder if the talking heads will develop a little more humility? Somehow, I doubt it.

Posted by: blaneyboy | January 9, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary panicked after Iowa, then broke down and cried in front of the NH crowd, literally begging them to help her, which WASP could watch a fellow WASP be obliterated by a unknown slick talking black man with a name like Obama..hah!

Yep! They sure taught us a lesson, and these idiots will elect this cunning old hag who wants nothing but power and always follows the winds of politics and where they blow, she voted to give a maniac Bush authorization to go to war as well as her vote on declaring Iranian military a terrorist org.

Then she blames Bush for war mongering blah blah blah!

Damn this woman is cunning and shrewd.

Posted by: mildbrew | January 9, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Too bad she had to cry to get the sympathy vote from woman. I will never vote for the woman. She is a manipulating, cold, calloused, deceitful, scandalous - woman! Craving power! She is so fake and two-faced - thinks this is owed to her and Bill. I have even changed my view of former President Clinton, his remarks about Obama being a 'fairytale'! I hope my fairytale comes true and Senator Obama wins the nomination - otherwise I vote republican!

Posted by: bazeballfanz | January 9, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

The reason the press blew it with exit polls is simple enough...reporters interviewed mainly young, enthusiastic, articulate voters, many of whom went for Obama. Maybe the middle-aged & older voters weren't as sexy as the young folk but they were solidly behind Hillary's candidacy and they delivered the vote. The media, as always, is ratings-obssessed and paid the price ending up looking follish and out-of-it....which they were.

Posted by: Jerryvov | January 9, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The polls predicted the outcome correctly. If you have compare the number of counties that Clinton and Obama have majorities the ratio is in the order of 8:1. But in the places where Clinton was leading the difference was significant. The pollsters try to have even sample distribution across all counties but the polling observed was very uneven and hence the problem with the polls. There is no analysis done as why and where this happened which can be a good answer for the future results.

Posted by: JustAHuman | January 9, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Stunning? The only people who were stunned by it were you media morons. Clinton is the front runner, has been the front runner, has the most money, has the most super delegates and is leading in the national polls. So why is it stunning that she won in NH? The national media is a national disgrace.

Posted by: barbnc | January 9, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Besides running a campaign, I think part of Clinton's victory is due to Iowa in a distinctive way. After watching her come in 3rd, Clinton's supporters in NH saw that her victory was not inevitable. Accordingly:

a. Supporters were reinvigorated to pass the word.
b. Independents and those not thinking about voting, but leaning towards Clinton got the message that their vote could count; thus coming to the polls and giving her their support.

Posted by: jlm062002 | January 9, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I am completely turned off from the Clintons after what I saw from them in NH. Hillary and Bill's attacks on Barack like Bill's statement, "I can't make Hillary younger, taller and male." Or Hillary invoking images of a jive talking African-American man who is all rhetoric and no substance, calling voters decision after a hard fought campaign a free ride. As if Americans voting in the Primaries were unmoved by the ideas Barack put forth. If Clinton wins the nomination I will vote for McCain, and if McCain doesn't win the nomination I will not vote. McCain at least has the decency to not go after one's own. I am an independent and it was Obama that brought me into the Democratic party and I have never heard Republicans talk about one another in the way that Hillary spoke of Barack. She is not a team player and that she would "choke up" over the thought that the country would go backwards if she wasn't President was the feminine version of Bush fear tactics. I have never been so disgusted by a democratic candidate.

Posted by: vitt | January 9, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

You can't see it can you? Obama did not lose last night, the press did. The savage, sexist press that Clinton got which culminated in the nasty NYPost front cover, Dana Milbanks' "Fired Up, Ready to Bore" and Chris Matthews ongoing jihad against the Clintons was what turned the tide. I'm an Obama supporter, but I've told my husband that the shameful treatment that Hillary has gotten in the press has made me want to vote for her just to stick it to you guys.

I should have known that you would never actually figure it out.

Posted by: boldbooks | January 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company