Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Hillary Tears Up: Help or Hindrance?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) near-tearful response to a question posed yesterday afternoon quickly became the talk of the campaign -- thank you Drudge Report -- on the eve of the critical New Hampshire primary today.

The "Clinton choke-up" -- for lack of a better word -- led all three national newscasts last night and is sure to be on the minds of many a New Hampshire voter when they head to the polls today.

Is all the attention on Clinton's emotional side a good thing, a bad thing or a total non-factor in the today's contest? Seeking answers, The Fix sought out an informal panel of unaffiliated female Democratic operatives to gauge their opinions.

The results? A split verdict.

Some argued that the moment should help to humanize Clinton, a task her campaign has failed to do in the race so far. Remember how Clinton was the "most famous person no one really knows"? That slogan, which kicked off her campaign for president, seemed to suggest that her campaign's inner circle understood a major flaw in her candidacy that needed to be corrected. Voters -- men and women alike -- believed Clinton was experienced and tough, but most didn't know what she was really like.

Despite that early sloganeering, Clinton's campaign focused almost exclusively on her credentials to lead the country and her deep resume rather than allowing voters inside the bubble to see Clinton, well, unplugged. Clinton's emotional response yesterday at the Portsmouth diner was a rare moment when the veil lifts and voters see how much effort and time Clinton is putting into this campaign.

Clinton seemed to admit as much in an interview with Fox News Channel's Major Garrett later in the day. "We have gone through years of male political figures who have done everything from cry to scream who have been our presidents," she said. "And you know, I am who I am. I think people have followed me, watched me -- they know that I am cool under fire and they know that I am tough. They know that I can make decisions. But I also want them to know I'm a real person."

Jennifer Burton, a Democratic media consultant, called the event a "real moment" for Clinton, but added that it was "one she could have used three months ago." In other words -- too little, too late for Clinton's chances today.

Other women in The Fix's informal poll said the moment is more likely to hurt than help Clinton, adding to the sense that her campaign is spiraling out of control and even the candidate seems to have lost her grip on her emotions.

Anna Bennett, a longtime Democratic pollster, speculated that reaction to Clinton near tears was subject to a gender gap; "Women seemed to respond more positively and empathically while I heard no fewer than five men say 'Margaret Thatcher never cried' and that it was a sign of weakness," said Bennett.

Asked about Clinton's show of emotion, former senator John Edwards (N.C.) said he wouldn't talk about it but then launched into an answer that included this phrase: "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being president of the United States is also a very tough business." His campaign insisted that he had been using those words for weeks on the campaign trail and that they were not meant in any way as a slight against Clinton. They also noted that after being fully briefed on the incident, Edwards offered words of empathy for Clinton at a later event in Bedford, noting how "grueling" the campaign trail could be.

So, in the final analysis, which is it? Help or hindrance?

We tend to believe that it could help Clinton at the margins in New Hampshire, especially among women who might have been wavering on supporting her. An admission like this one by Clinton, that it is extremely hard to run for president as a woman, should help other women identify a bit more with the New York senator, and that is a good thing for her chances.

That does not mean, however, that we believe this "moment" alone will put Clinton in the winner's circle tonight. The problem for Clinton is that even if she can carry women, which she was unable to do in Iowa, she still faces a candidate in Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) whose ceiling is far higher than hers thanks to his tremendous appeal among independent voters and his demonstrated ability to bring thousands of new people into the process.

If Clinton does wind up winning the nomination -- a huge "if" given Obama's strengths not just in New Hampshire but Nevada and South Carolina -- we could well look back at that Portsmouth diner and say "That's where the turnaround began." Of course, if she is unable to overcome Obama's huge burst of momentum either in New Hampshire or beyond, this incident will just be chalked up to one of the first visible signs of how wrong everything had gone.

Always remember: The winners write the history books.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 8, 2008; 8:10 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fix Fans' Iowa Predictions Revisited
Next: Prediction Time! New Hampshire Edition

Comments

Hillary did not cry, maybe some cross-eyed
Republicans saw it that way. Anyway, I hope she doesn't win. She might though.

How many times have you seen Mitt Romney cry on television? Plenty more times than you've ever seen a woman cry.

Posted by: Lodi_1 | January 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Well, the tears won ... women in NH voted 57% for HC.

Please don't cry, Barack; if you feel like it, ask Michelle to do it for you.

Posted by: gvergara54 | January 9, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes a goofy remark such as "Who does your hair?" at a moment during a serious discussion, when you are extremely frustrated, angry, and in Hillary's case, feeling that you are in danger of losing something you feel is rightfullly yours, can throw you off balance so much so, that all your so carefully crafted defenses leave you vulnerable to the emotional turmoil you feel inside.

That said, I am certainly no supporter of Hillary's. She can dish it out with the best of them and usually has a stinging reply to any criticism, but she has reached a point of exhaustion. The human body can only stand so much stress. Despite the fact that she doesn't look old or unable to keep up with the schedule, you aren't as able to withstand the constant bombardment of constant stressful
situations. I was able to take things much better when I was younger and had to work full time and raise three children on my own with all the stress of financial insecurity. I couldn't handle it now.

A president has to be able to handle stress that I can't imagine and they have to be able to keep a strong outward appearence no matter what happens. She is strong and can be ruthless and calculating as long as things are going her way.

As to this whirlwind of change surrounding Obama, it is turning into something akin to the rush for the latest new product everyone wants. I was initially impressed and he can give a good speech, especially the one at the Democratic Convention,but there is a lot more to being president than being able to put the right words together.
I have been looking at his voting record. In the Illinois Senate, he consistently voted "present" to avoid conflict. See below.....

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature -- to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted "present," effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the "present' votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.


Lawmakers and other Illinois officials said the present vote was devised to enable lawmakers to recuse themselves from voting on bills that present personal conflicts. It can also be used in the routine day-to-day wrangling in the legislature.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?ex=1355806800&en=8385d348acbab84e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&

I found this in the WP. He has done the same in the US Senate and has missed many votes. If he runs the most important job in the world this way to avoid conflict, avoid politically sensitive issues, and do as he is told, we will not be any better off than we are now. All this soaring rhetoric about "change" and no red or blue and all us working together is just the same old stuff wrapped up in a different package.

He is new, popular, and extremely liberal. We have an extreme administration now that only sees things their way. We will just be going from one extreme to another.
Unfortunately, we don't have much to choose from on either side and the novelty of someone young and popular
with a fascinating background and celebrity status is all it takes to create a fan base and following. It's fun and exciting, people feed off each other's enthusiasm, and it's like a rock concert.

Posted by: RedRose1 | January 8, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

'claudia -- I must say hearing about your garden and your fear of large insects makes it very hard to call you vile.'

well, thank you mike. i do love my garden, especially the spring bulbs. i have it all planted in blue and white, with a lot of different kinds of flowers, so it blooms for months. i especially like snowdrops, which poke their little heads up in earliest spring, through the snow, as a sign that life is returning to the earth.

call it corny, but it makes me feel connected to the animating force of life.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"The Iraq War was/is for Oil/Money PERIOD. I KNOW this and everyone else with half a brain KNOWS it as well."

If you want a really good dose of reality, read: "Thicker Than Oil: America's Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia" by Rachel Bronson. ISBN # 0-19-516743-0

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

The Iraq War was/is for Oil/Money PERIOD. I KNOW this and everyone else with half a brain KNOWS it as well.

Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

it'll hurt her - it could've been a sincere moment, but then she launches into an veiled anti-Obama tirade soon after the choking starts, so it's hard to tell if she's passionate or breaking down because she really believed this was her year.

you may be misreading women voters by lumping them all together in the same basket; there could be a split in perception amongst those voters based more so on class. additionally, women are naturally inclined to desire security and stability - for a candidate to break down like that, it takes away from that.

professional, credentialed, middle-class professional women will identify more with it and may lean Clinton's way - the pressures of their lifestyle are identifiable in this (it's clear that's the only part of the female demographic you're talking to); blue-collar, working-classs, paycheck-to-paycheck women (the demographic we can wager you're not talking to) will not - they'll definitely see it as weakness.

Posted by: wrathofmugen | January 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The problem is what she cried about: her personal disappointment. She's been Bombs-Away! for a dozen years now, killing men women and children and she thought it was a personal credit and made her look tough. But when her feelings are hurt, she tears up. Poor.

Posted by: Malia2 | January 8, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

you win I lose. Clinton is great and is standing for democratic ideals. Obama has zero shot. Sorry to try and bring sight to the blind and reality to the willfully ignorant.

Now I'm like bush supporters over simplafying everything. Ok clinton supports. Whatever you say. time will tell. And I will either be a prophet or a liar. time will tell I guess. Watch the news and the results. time will tell who is right. People here stop the verbal combat long ago, here, because it is impossible for you to beat me. But you can try. You can propogate. And the 49ers are going to win the superbowl. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Tiem will show your faces. Time will tell if the clinton supporters are in with the gop or not. I've made my case, and I stand by it. If I'm wrong tell my how and why

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Mike, I'm sure you are right.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Rufus,
Read what Im writing first before you spout off. I dont think the media is solely in the tank with Obama, i think they will push anybody or any concept that drums up expectations and sells ads... my example is how this media driven hype could work against Obama.

To insinuate that a vote for anybody but Obama is a vote for Bush is Rove-ian. it puts everything into a simple, "if not my guy, then the worse guy" logic used in the 2004 election against Kerry (if you vote against Bush then the terrorists win)Any of the democratic candidates is better than Bush.

Sen. Obama can and most likely will win on his own merits, inspiring rhetoric and a top level campaign organization... not with twisted, over-simplified logic.

Since you are clearly not new to blogs, you should know that responding to posts without reading them reflects poorly.

Be wary of the media, in the past, present, and future, they can support or derail your candidate, and not always based on the facts, but always based on the most tantilizing story.

Also be wary of pundits (bloggers) that dont read what you're saying and try frame their opinions with condescending, poorly constructed diatribes...

Posted by: perkinsneurology | January 8, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"It was unthinkable this morning...

suppose that... HRC walked away tonight?"

still unthinkable.

she's got cash in the bank, the Clinton name, and a lifelong ambition.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

71F in Austin.

Jim, boko, bsimon; I think the indie surge is SO big that BHO will be helped immensely, McC will be helped, RP will be helped, and MH will be helped. The NH news sources are freely throwing around 500k turnout, maybe 270k-230k D over R. 90k "new or indie" Ds and 60k "new or indie" Rs.

This will be an interesting vote count tonight.

It was unthinkable this morning - but suppose that rather than going with an RG strategy of Stupendous Tuesday HRC walked away tonight?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

strange weather in Wisconsin -- really foggy, summer-like thunderstorms. After near-record setting snow in December, we get this crazy stuff.

Posted by: rpy1 | January 8, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

claudia -- I must say hearing about your garden and your fear of large insects makes it very hard to call you vile.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

is that warm for florida in the winter? i've only been there a few times.. but i thought it was always warm. which makes me sometimes want to live there. except for the bugs. man the bugs are big.

78 sounds perfect...

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"darling of the world and daughter of destiny.!!!!!"

Good line. Darling of the world and daughter of destiny. I like it. did yoou think of that yourself? If so. Nice

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Dear akber_kassam,

you are a nut.!!!!!

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

JimD -
Assuming the NH turnout rewards Obama & McCain, how does that impact the GOP race? If the GOP mentality had been that they were up against HRC, does their candidate preference change when faced with BHO? Does McCain become the 'obvious' GOP nominee as the most likely to compete among the swing voters that Obama is apparently drawing - to the primaries of all things - in record numbers? Or does Giuliani try to pick up on this as a 'moderate' (though he is moderate on nothing - extreme on foreign policy, extreme on fiscal policy, extreme on social policy)?

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris Cillizza,
Washington Post.

I sincerely believe that only Sen. Hillary
Clinton is appropriate to become our next and first female president of the United States of America.

Sh's a woman of candor and humor and directness, who's comfortable with responsibility and know how to lead our great country in to the right direction. She really understands personal values and responsibility of the people of this greatest nation. She will put all on the line to defend the principles and value that make United States the greatest nation.

America is beautiful and blessed. The ultimate test of our greatness is the way we treat every human being, but specially the weakest and most defenseless, but we need a leader like Sen. Hillary Clinton, she attractive female, intelligent, educated, experienced and darling of the world and daughter of destiny.!!!!!

Posted by: akber_kassam | January 8, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Dont buy the hype, youre voting for your party's nominee and eventually you're voting for president, you arent betting on the superbowl... if you vote for the candidate that you think will do the best job and s/he doesnt win so be it...


Posted by: perkinsneurology | January 8, 2008 02:57 PM
"

you must be new here. go check the archeives. Months back. I've been supporting obama when the media was drooling over clinon and rudy. I supported obama when do so would get you banned from blogs, like paul now. Check the acrhieves. My old name was rufus1133. BEfore you try and paint the media as in the tank for obama. that only happened the last couple weeks. Even before iowa they were still saying "Iowa means nothing." BLah blah blah.

you are new here, I forgive you. Please know what you are talking about before propogating. I hope the media is in the tank for obama now. We could use the help. But when did this change occur? Even olberman was pushing clinton. It occured after iowa. So don't try and twist it. the media didn't make obama. Quite the contrary. they fought him and edwards every step of the way. only now do they start reporting real news because they don't want their credbility to slip. To late for that.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

drindl

Well it is 78 degrees here

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't anyone remember that Hillary's 'tears' were in reply to the question, "Who does your hair?", after a pregnant pause?

Posted by: unicorn2 | January 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

TO continue my comments above, I believe that McCain's resurgence is hurting Giuliani. If Giuliani could run against Romney and Huckabee, I think he could win a lot of primaries with somewhere between 35 and 40% of the vote. I think a lot of McCain's supporters would have gone to Giuliani if McCain had remained dead.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

jimd -- you are right. i meant to say that we have been in Iraq longer than we were in WW2, but didn't phrase it well.

anyone else getting freak winter weather? it was 10 a week ago here, today it's 65, supposd to go to 68. lovely but messing up my garden.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Mike

I don't see how Thompson salvages anything in South Carolina give the Huckaboom. He is not picking up much support anywhere as far as I can tell. I do see a path to the nomination for McCain. Romney, if he finishes a close second in NH, might be able to pull something out on Tsunami Tuesday given his resources. Giuliani is in big trouble. His Florida lead has disappeared and McCain is picking up some of his support. With McCain, Huckabee and, perhaps, Romney having viable campaigns there is not much room for someone who sat out the early contests.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

so sabotage barack and take your ball and go home. the moderates, liek biden clinton difi) are now moderate republcains. Whien cry and complain if they dont' get everything exactly how they want.

compromise. that is the key word here. let me ask this. If the vote was tomorrow and you had obama agaisnt george bush, who would you choose? If you say obama, then please quit sabotaging him clinton supporters and moderates. Because if we get ANY of the repbuclains (short or paul and huck) we're getting more of the same. think on that before following down the clinton sabotage track and trying to personally destroy a good man fighting for his country

Krishnamurti,
Where in my posting to you come up with me trying to sabotage Obama?... if you actually read it I was commenting on media perception twisting outcome, to support this premise I mentioned a way that Sen. Obama could actually be hurt by spinning down a less than hyped prediction.

In the end, I simply suggested that voters, act on their own personal, autonomous views of the candiates (democracy in action?)and to be wary of media fueled hype.

Take your time vote for who you think is best. Dont jump onto to any band-wagons.

If everyone did this then there's a great chance Obama would be the nominee and an eventual legendary President, but lets not jump so fast that we end up with Candidate Kerry... who couldn't beat the most incompetent President is American history...

Dont buy the hype, youre voting for your party's nominee and eventually you're voting for president, you arent betting on the superbowl... if you vote for the candidate that you think will do the best job and s/he doesnt win so be it...

Posted by: perkinsneurology | January 8, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I think Thompson is more of a wildcard than either Huckabee or Giuliani.

If he starts picking up votes in, and after, SC, there's no telling how far he can go.

Whereas, Rudy and Huck both have paths to the nom.

Finally, I agree with the Rudy anomoly - he has no more foreign policy experience than Obama. I just happen to agree with his ideas more.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I see you rich lowery :). I haven't forgot about you.

"Liberal Fascism
A conservative slur no longer.

By Rich Lowry

Editor's note: This column is available exclusively through King Features Syndicate. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact: kfsreprint@hearstsc.com, or phone 800-708-7311, ext 246).

The f-bomb of American politics is the word "fascist," routinely hurled by the left at conservatives. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater were smeared as incipient fascists, and George W. Bush now receives the honor, along with practically anyone to the right of Rosie O'Donnell on a college campus

"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjBiYzdhODQwNmE0MTc5Y2M0NmM2ZGY4MWRhMTkxYjA=

r

u

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Mark, bokonon

There are reports of a tsunami of a turnout in New Hampshire and a run on Democratic ballots that threatens to exhaust the supply.

This looks very good for Obama and disasterous for Clinton.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

As a young man who as never voted before this time, I'm cacusing and voting this time, as I am finally represented by two candidates, and in the diagnosis also paul (just not his persrciption), a gree with everything bokonon13 just said.

Iowa was a filter. A gauge if you will. Now that the old folk see the young are out in full force, we may fiannly get a vote that represents the american people. Unless they gop/moderate dem's cheat again, that is. Witht eh number we are bringing, I don't know how thye could cheat.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

drindl

World War II began in September 1939 and ended in August 1945. That is ALL of WWII. The US, of course, entered on Dec 7, 1941. SO it is correct to say we have been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII but it is inaccurate to say we have been in Iraq longer than all of WWII.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Blarg said:

"Giuliani is a wild card, because people believe he has foreign policy credentials for no apparent reason."

That story is the "emperor's new clothes", isn't it?

Or maybe Alice realizing...they were nothing but a deck of cards.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse


Hillary tearing up! What a shame. Her husband (Bill) was trying to let down Obama saying being a President is a very very tough job.
Starting weeping even the nomation hasnt started yet is the sign of weakness. How does she expect to tackle major problems if elected. Is she going to tear from day one, as she said the job will start from day one!
I can sense out now if she is elected, she is going to weep for all 4 years in Office. I cant imagine George Bush tearing up. It has been a rough ride for him since the war started. If he had been tearing up, I do not think he could have more tears by now.

Posted by: fridamulindayahoocouk | January 8, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Mark, in re: your 2:15 post - I agree that voter participation among young people has been traditionally low, but I think that's changing. I think it started to change around 2004, and will be a real factor this fall. I read sth that said that for the 1st time, the percentages of Iowa caucus-goers who were under 30 and over 60 (or some similar age range) were the same. Of course I credit Obama, but - at least in Boston, so maybe not a representative sample - even John "No Soul" Kerry drew a higher-than-expected turnout among young voters in 04.

But bsimon is right - my generation (bsimon's, too) came of age in an environment that discouraged activism and involvement and encourage consumerism and conformity. We were never overtly threatened by the draft, and many of us felt government was a million miles away from real life - impossible to have any input, and thus pointless to try. I am glad that this generation has a different idea, and I think that the advent of the Internet, coupled with the tumultuous poltical news of the past 15-20 years, is the reason. (or at least one of the reasons.)

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 8, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

So saying "we've been in Iraq longer than WWII" is a rediculous statement. I know you know better.'

Mike, we've already been in Iraq longer than ALL of WWII.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: I still can't figure out what voting bloc Fred Thompson appeals to, besides people who watch too much TV. But I'd definitely say that the rise of Huckabee hurt him the most. He claimed to be the one true conservative in the race. Now that there's a conservative alternative who's willing to actually campaign and who has the kind of resume that can make a credible president, it's bad news for Thompson.

As for domestic policy, I'm not sure that's going to be a problem in terms of running mates. Yes, domestic issues are going to be big in the general election, but all of the candidates have credible experience on domestic policy. Domestic policy experience is easier to get, after all, and everyone has detailed plans on their domestic policies. (At least, all the Democrats do.) Nobody needs a VP to give their ticket domestic policy credentials.

As far as the Democrats are concerned, it depends who the Republican is. If McCain is the Republican nominee, the Democrats will need a VP with foreign/military experience to counter him. If the Republicans run Huckabee or Romney, they don't have any foreign experience either, so it's a wash. Giuliani is a wild card, because people believe he has foreign policy credentials for no apparent reason.

Posted by: Blarg | January 8, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"We are supposed to believe that Hillary, a female Democrat and a Clinton, cannot have an honest, teary moment, but those very rare times George Bush has teared up (at VA facilities, talking with vets he sent to war that are horrifically maimed for life) are genuine? Nope. Hillary haters can't have it both ways.

Posted by: kla92ttr86 | January 8, 2008 02:17 PM
"

they can if hillary haters are also george bush haters. Anyone who bashes bush yet supporters hillary are hypocrites.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"Young people have chosen to ignore government at every level for many years"

I feel you and agree. But why would you silence and bann those like me, as oreilly rush and fox did to my movement early, then come out and say this now?

As to why young people did not vote previous. I can only speak for myself. I was not represented previous. Even in the last election, to me you had republcains running agaisnt themselves. So which republcain was I going to vote for? Neither.

that is why young people don't vote, and your seeing records being smashed now. Because we are represented. Don't blame young people for not voting. Blame you party for not putting out candidates young people could get behind. that is just me.

I still don't undrstand how you could silence young people and call them traitors one day. then after they start to win say they are valued member sof the political community, and respected voting americans. I don't get it. By the look in the polls most americans do not get it.

The democrats will eventually be corrupt and go down the same path as the gop. Teh differance is, my movement will stand with the coutnry, agaisnt any party. Where as the moderates and republcians have shown they are unable or unwilling to do that.

The future is today. That Iowa vote is going to go down in histroy. They will be writing about that many years from now as a turning point. Like rosa parks for you.

But I still don't get what has changed. I haven't changed? Obama and his movement hasn't cahnged. Clinton now is changing. I just wish you people would go back to the arhcieves and see how you treated independant thinkers then. And find out what cahnged. It would be very benifetial to find out from you people what cahgned and why? Were you betting on racism? I don't get it at all. I like it. But forgive my skepticism.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Lastly, in scanning all the comments about running mates, I think the foreign policy / military angle is going to be overshadowed by the economy and domestic concerns by the time the candidates are selecting running mates. Obviously, the foreign policy problems we have today won't be gone by then, but they will be on the back burner for voters, due to the ongoing slump/stall in the housing market, etc.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

mark in austin writes
"Many of us who are of your parents' generation were involved at every civic level in political discourse when we were young. I participated in an integration sit-in at a Houston lunch counter before I could even vote."


I think that youths in the 60s had a lot more interest in politics because their asses were on the line, quite literally, with the draft. But then, I wasn't there, being a 1970 baby.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

We are supposed to believe that Hillary, a female Democrat and a Clinton, cannot have an honest, teary moment, but those very rare times George Bush has teared up (at VA facilities, talking with vets he sent to war that are horrifically maimed for life) are genuine? Nope. Hillary haters can't have it both ways.

Posted by: kla92ttr86 | January 8, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

On the Predictions thread, one commenter says:

"Fred Thomspson could not get any traction in New Hampshire and left early; he should do quite well in South Carolina. But, his candidacy is going nowhere unless he pulls a win in SC."

I've also seen predictions & polls indicating that Huck is doing well in SC. Is there room for both Huck & Thompson in the south - or do they appeal to the same voting blocs?

Seems like for the GOP, if McCain is going to stay in, he has to not only win today, but in MI as well & convert those victories into donations. Then he has to convince the fiscal conservatives that he's the best guy running; that Romney is forever tainted as unable to win, that Giuliani's so-called '50 state appeal' is smoke and mirrors and/or wishful thinking, that Thompson only has regional appeal and that Huckabee only has evangelical appeal. If Romney can keep the race close today & beat McCain in Michigan, he's more suited to appeal to the fiscal conservatives on Feb 5. Huckabee is still a big wildcard; I wouldn't be surprised if he does better than expected today thanks to the FairTax, which should appeal to New Hampshirites.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, I think all Americans above the age of 18 should be interested and involved voters, not just for Prez, but in every election. Voting has been declining. Young people have chosen to ignore government at every level for many years.

Many of us who are of your parents' generation were involved at every civic level in political discourse when we were young. I participated in an integration sit-in at a Houston lunch counter before I could even vote.

I may not agree with who young folks support, but I can still be glad for any sign of life in the Republic - for it will surely die if no one gives a darn.

And for your information, BHO continues to intrigue me and I may end up supporting him, depending on who the R candidate is, and depending on who BHO gathers around him as his foreign policy advisers.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I'll take no response as your respone. this is why freedom is better .This is why what fox does is treason. They are propogandists for profit herding and misleading the elderly. they had become God's in their own universes. No more. But make no mistake nothing changed. the american people are the same. jones effect is all that changed. go back and read teh achieves before iowa. go back a month before that even. Look at where these people were, and where they are now. What changed? Obama? Clinton? Fox?

No.None of that changed. so what did?

ALL PRAISE TO THE ONE TRUE GOD. That's all I'm going to say on that. MAy Gods will be done.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

tHANK YOU FOR THAT MARK. No tlet me ask a question, I beg for an answer.

What changed? Why were young people's votes wrong and should be silenced 4 months ago. How their should be treason charges put against us. But now it's a good thing that we are fighting for this country.

OTHER THAN YOUR PERSPECTIVE, what changed? Did I or those like me change? Did the country/world change? Or did you and those liek you change? If you changed, why?

I don't think this quetion is out of line. Enlighten me. I'm trying to understand you people, yet cannot. Enlighten me

You had me banned a couple months ago. You people liked my passion but not my opinion. Why have you know come around? jones effect? Do you need others to think for you, or do you think and speak your own words? If you do not speak your own words, are you free? If you are not free who commands your mind and will? If not the right-wing propogandists, then who is to blame? Why am I wrong from trying to remove then, thus freeing those like you?

r

u

f

u

s

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I want to offer a kind thought about BHO.

Since 1992, I have been complaining bitterly that "young people" had no interest in civics, government, and politics, and no belief that they could make a difference.

Obama and to a lesser but notable extent, Ron Paul, seem to have changed this fact on the ground, and that would be a good thing, if true, and if sustained.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

Fair points about McCain, although I'm not sure they preclude labeling him a neoconservative. In my view, he's simply a far more competent one than most. The key for me, really, is his continued insistance that invading Iraq was the right decision irrespective of whether they had WMD. To argue, as he has, that the nebulous goal of "spreading democracy" was sufficient for us to go into Iraq strikes me as the empitome of the neoconservative worldview.

Again, i credit him for being realistic about what our military commitment in Iraq would look like and for advocating a competent military strategy to achieve our military goals. I fault him, however, for the substance of his cost benefit analysis both before we went in and now. Although i readily concede that now, at least, reasonable minds can certainly differ. For a looong time I was of the opinion that we needed to stay to fix what we broke.

Posted by: _Colin | January 8, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Mike said: My final point is this - I don't know if wars should be viewed in a cost-benefit analysis paradigm or not. Certainly, concepts of right and wrong, moral and immoral, should play a role - not just time spent, dollars used, and bodies brought home.

Mike, I appreciate your raising this aspect of the war. IMHO, invading Iraq was a mistake from the start, made worse by ineptitude.

The focus of many candidates is ending the war and bringing our troops home. Fine - we need to do both. But where does that leave the Iraqi people if their government doesn't step up to the plate? Having toppled their government, albeit a brutal one, don't we have a moral responsibility to them?

The arrogance that we could succeed on the cheap will only be magnified if we leave chaos behind.

Kudos to Obama - his plan recognizes this humanitarian crisis (thanks, bokonon, for the link)- but I'm still concerned that presidential leadership alone may not be enough to bring all parties together. That's why I think in spite of his leadership potential, a little more experience on the world stage is a must. Like Bush, he's going to need a stellar team - unlike Bush, I think he's wise enough to pick better advisors.

Posted by: -pamela | January 8, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"And yes, I am a little bitter about Biden dropping out..

Posted by: perkinsneurology | January 8, 2008 01:39 PM
"

so sabotage barack and take your ball and go home. the moderates, liek biden clinton difi) are now moderate republcains. Whien cry and complain if they dont' get everything exactly how they want.

compromise. that is the key word here. let me ask this. If the vote was tomorrow and you had obama agaisnt george bush, who would you choose? If you say obama, then please quit sabotaging him clinton supporters and moderates. Because if we get ANY of the repbuclains (short or paul and huck) we're getting more of the same. think on that before following down the clinton sabotage track and trying to personally destroy a good man fighting for his country

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Well Jim, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about how history could have turned out if things were different.

We both acknowledge the surge has pacified things for now, and both hope for continuted political progress.

You see throwing men at a losing cause as immoral, while I see failure to fight for a just cause as equally wrong. Thankfully, the two are not always mutually exclusive, so we have room for agreement. Thanks for your thoughts (and, since I haven't said so recently, for your service to this great nation).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

The press manipulation in this campaign is amazing (deference to rslip), but their chosen candidate (except Ailes at Fox who has clearly annoted Guilani) is sensationalism... they like to drive up the story, any story to make it a story... they want you to watch, they want you to talk about it... HRC's verklempt hiccup wasn't much of anything, but the thought of her morphing into the youtube brittanyspears guy is just too tantilizing. It may actually work in HRC's favor in NH... most pundits are running with the Barack is inevitable line, becuase it and he are interesting, if he wins NH, but by less than say 5 pts, then HRC pulls a WJC and claims victory out of nowhere (Comeback Kid , take two)... the press liked the comeback kid angle in 1992, but he came in a distant second to ailing Tsongas.

In the end, its the number of delegates... if you live in SC, FLA, NV,MI, or Feb-Five States vote for who you want to be president... this isn't High School, this really isnt a personality contest.

And yes, I am a little bitter about Biden dropping out..

Posted by: perkinsneurology | January 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"A true leader speaks to the heart and soul of a People. A true leader can motivate a People to undertake unpopular steps to achieve a worthy goal. A true leader does not necessarily wallow in the details but looks to the horizon and creates an environment for a People to soar."

Well said AdrickHenry. The differance between the parties to me is. one party (democrat) would give americans all the tools they need to succed. Like in a job. you want the people that represent your compant to have all the info and be as prepared as possible. Also, paying them more will lift moral and make them work hard as they are content.

How does that contrast to the gop form of governence? Every man/women for themselves. you get none of the info or tools you need to succeded. Figure it out on your own. Re-invent the wheel. Learn what you have to do through years and years or experiance then you'll know. If I tell you you won't learn.

Those are teh differances in a nutshell for working people. If I ran a business/country. I would want the best employees I could get. As they represent me. they should be fully trained, at my expense, because only I know what they will have to do in their positions. they should be paid as much as possible, as happy employee's work harder.

this is why the gop is done. Authoritarians that want to tell you how to live, but not follow their own rules. People that only care about stockpilling wealth, screw the employee's/ americans. People not training or giving info, because that puts them at risk. So instead teh sabotage the business to ACT busy.

This is the differances between the parties. One is for sabotage everyone for themselves and sabotage the greater good.

The other is the democrats.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Correction: I know Lincoln was a Republican. I should've just said, "liberal thinkers".

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 8, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the comparison of Obama to Abe Lincoln is all that accurate; Obama and JFK is more fitting.

Both were/are 1st term senators, liberal democrats and superb orators. Both about the same age at the time of becoming president.

But there's something more...

They are Leaders in the true sense of the word.

A true leader speaks to the heart and soul of a People. A true leader can motivate a People to undertake unpopular steps to achieve a worthy goal. A true leader does not necessarily wallow in the details but looks to the horizon and creates an environment for a People to soar.

Of all the candidates only Obama possesses this ethereal quality. The others may be good men (and HRC) with high intelligence and a firm grasp of the issues, but only Obama offers this country a New Horizon.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 8, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Mike

I don't think we had a reasonable prospect of achieving our political aims in Vietnam. I don't believe it was worth it and for every Viet vet who feels betrayed there is a Viet vet who came home totally against the war. I question the morality of continuing to spend lives and treasure in a venture not working out against something less than a direct threat to our national interest.

As for the bottom up progress in Iraq, potentially some of the progress is illusory and entails Sunni and Shiite militia waiting out the surge to begin fighting each other again. There is definite evidence that at least some of the Shiite militias are doing that. The Sunni sheiks allied with us against al Qaeda are quite likely to use the weapons we have given them against the Shiite dominated government. (Although, I believe we were right to enlist their aid and arm them - we just need to be aware of the potential consequences.)

As for neighborhoods setting aside hatreds, there is far less of that than there is conflict being removed from neighborhoods because they have been ethnically cleansed. There are far fewer mixed neighborhoods today than when we invaded.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"I take exception with your Vietnam paragraph, which claims we had no reasonable hope of success. Absent obvious media bias, Hollywood, University professors (which, to this day, hate America), and other demonstrations at home, we would have won. Our enemies within gave our enemies abroad the will to fight. It's documented!

I think Vietnam vets who feel betrayed do so rightly."

So who is to blame for the failure. Like now, imcompetance and criminality by your party are to blame. I know you people love to point the finger. But this is not communist china. We are a nation governed by the american people. If the american people are not being represented, like every time a r is elected president, then they have no recourse but to protest of vote the bums out.

This generation is climbing on the backs of the flower children. Tehy are our guides. I just wish more were in leadership positions now. they won, they should be runnign the country now. Were are they now? did they become what they fought and won against?

Put the blame where it should be. Not on the american people for demanding accountability, liek now. But the blame where it should be. Your criminal leadership (gop)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Jim

I appreciate your long response. Maybe we were/are talking past eachother to a certain degree.

I take exception with your Vietnam paragraph, which claims we had no reasonable hope of success. Absent obvious media bias, Hollywood, University professors (which, to this day, hate America), and other demonstrations at home, we would have won. Our enemies within gave our enemies abroad the will to fight. It's documented!

I think Vietnam vets who feel betrayed do so rightly.

Iraq:

We can all agree the surge will be for nothing if we don't get some political results soon.

My hunch is we are getting them, but not the manner in which we expected. Rather than top-down, where political leaders reconcile, rejoin the government, divide the oil, and govern, we are seeing bottom-up, where neighborhoods are banning together, setting aside hatreds, fighting terrorists, and rebuilding infrastructure.

This is much more difficult to measure.

And also easier to dismiss, if you were so inclined (Say, a rufus or drindl, who just don't WANT the war to work).

My final point is this - I don't know if wars should be viewed in a cost-benefit analysis paradigm or not. Certainly, concepts of right and wrong, moral and immoral, should play a role - not just time spent, dollars used, and bodies brought home.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

not that you are a fascist/propogandist ethanquern. I'm speaking in generalities. :)

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

ok. Great point ethanquern. Now. let's see if your words and your mental fortitude add up with reality. that is the great thing about this. It is measurable with time.

But what is a blogger/newsperson with no crediblity due to incorrect analisys? A propogandist? if they are professing fascist principles, are they then fascist propogandists?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"Has a young face with an appealing speaking style really become the most important, and inspirational, thing in presidential politics?"

To say those are the 'most important' is overstating the facts. It would be more accurate to say they have surpassed bellicose fearmongering in presidential politics.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I like a President whose public persona is more like Vladimir Putin--intelligent, unemotional, articulate, totally self-confident, projecting strength, vision and determination.

On the other hand, it is my opinion that women in particular will empathize with such an "emotional" moment (whether spontaneous or contrived is for them to decide). This will likely be of assistance--how much remains undetermined given the two possible views of the moment.

Regarless, as I am not going to vote for Ms. Clinton, she should not lose any sleep over my comments.

Posted by: gvergara54 | January 8, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Jim don't you think that's overly simplistic?

WWI - not a "direct threat"
WWII - Germany not a "direct threat""

Huh????? I did say that WWII was a direct threat. WWI is much more complicated and I have studied it rather extensively. We won the war and lost the peace. A European stalemate without US involvement might have produced a more stable settlement and been better for future world peace. Germany developed some war aims during WWI that would have been very detrimental to our national interest if achieved. The consequences of WWI led directly to WWII and the Soviet Revolution. On balance, it was in our national interest to intervene but the threat was nowhere near as serious as WWII.

Vietnam was not about Soviet expansionism. Ho Chi Minh sought US assistance after WWII. He was an admirer of Jefferson - although he was in no way a democrat (small d). We could have reached an accomodation with them instead we provided logistical support to return French troops there after the war - when the French did not have the capability to do it themselves. The South Vietnamese government could not command the support of the population. As General Petraeus wrote in the Army Counter-Insurgency manual, "you do not defeat an insurgency by killing all the insurgents, you defeat an insurgency by persuading the population to withdraw support from the insurgents." We had no coherent strategy to do that and no realistic prospect of success. Although we won all the battles, we lost the war because we could not achieve our political objectives and we had no realsitic prospect of doing so with hundreds of thousands of US troops. As Clauswitz so famously wrote - "war is the continuation of politics by other means."

I would have continued aid to the South Vietnames government, however. Left to mostly their own devices, they might have been able to hold off the North. This was not about Soviet expansionism and subsequent events have borne this out. Vietnam was just not worth it on any basic level of cost-benefit analysis.

Afghanistan was directly about Soviet expansion and we were right to arm the resistance. Yes, there were unintended consequences- it proved a training ground for the jihadists. However, on a cost-benefit analysis, it was well worth it.

Iraq is not worth it on a cost-benefit analysis. However, we must achieve a political settlement there. I simply see no political action comprable to the surge. The Pentagon says the surge is unsustainable. Have we achieved the political objectives of the surge? It certainly doesn't appear so.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's change from arrogance to emotional shows that her amibition to become the first female president won't become a reality. She was so certain that this was her time and that she would "inherit" the presidency based on her name recognition. She lost sight of the fact that the presidency is not an inherited position it is an elected position, people are elected based on their ability to lead. She said at her emotional outbreak that she is passionate about America, that she sees it slipping backwards. Well, what has she done in her 35 years of so-called experience to shore up America and prevent it from slipping backwards. She see us slipping backwards now, but we've been slipping backwards for some time now - time that she's been in elected office and she hasn't done anything to prevent or stop the slippage or even suggested that we needed to change the way we do business. It's too late for Hillary.

We need someone like Obama, a fresh face who early in his career has identified the issue of change and is not afraid to speak up about changing things. He hasn't been in long enough to be mermerized or tainted by the old way of doing business. We need a leader who shows good judgement, sees the problems with our government and isn't afraid to deliver both the bad and good news.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 8, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Days like today force me to dust off some old media conspiracy theories because I can't POSSIBLY understand how so many rational human beings can act so IRRATIONALLY!

Lost in all the hoopla is the fact that Obama beat Clinton by all of ONE delegate in Iowa. For some inexplicable arcane reason, she got one more than Edwards who was touted as "came in second."

At the end of the day, the only thing that counts toward the nomination is the number of delegates a candidate has at the convention. So after all the hype of Iowa and New Hampshire has faded, the true battles will be fought in the big states with lots of delegates like CA and NY, where Clinton stands to do well.

Besides which, after all the harping on Hillary, I'm finding more and more reasons to support her. I hope she makes it to CA because I really want to chance to vote for her. And I was NO fan of Hillary's in the beginning!

Posted by: ethanquern | January 8, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"...the audacity of Obama is that he announced he was running for President [after] one year in the Senate"

And yet some are finally 'proud to be Americans again'.

Has a young face with an appealing speaking style really become the most important, and inspirational, thing in presidential politics?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

brigittepj writes
" Obama has shown time and time again in the debates that he doesn't have a clue about foreign policy. "

Brigitte, with all due respect, I think it is you that has no clue about foreign policy. Senator Obama has been remarkably consistent, accurate and correct with his foreign policy pronouncements. For instance; what do you do when you have intel that places OBL somewhere specific in Pakistan and the Pakistani gov't doesn't act? You take him out. That's not naive, its the right call. It was then and is - more so - today.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"Sounds like this is more about his ego than about the American people. If he was not so hell-bent on being President, he could have used his very formidable gift by now to inspire young African Americans the way Martin Luther King did. But no, Obama's campaign is not about people, it's about Obama. Like he says, you can make history by electing him. "

Personal attack and a lie

"He wrote a book called "the Audacity of Hope", but the audacity of Obama is that he announced he was running for President with one year in the Senate under his belt. Lets see, prior to that he had a term in the Illinois legislature and before that he was a "grassroots organizer"? What exactly is that, and how does it qualify you to be President? "

Personal attack

should I go on. Must I outline why your whole post is an attack. If hillary is a democrat, how does attacking teh future of her party help her and her party/country?

Talk about how great hillary is. Detail why she is better than obama. But to do the gop's work for them. i think you see what that has done to her. Do you not agree? If not why? you have the burder here to prove your point as your candidate is sinking.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

As a Democrat, I recognize that the military strategy of the surge is sound and, along with the Anbar treaty, has yielded improvement in the overall security situation in Iraq.

However, where is the political progress? General Petreus himself has said that the overall solution in Iraq must be political, not military. The Pentagon knows for fact that the surge is logistically unsustainable. If the U.S. doesn't use its clout to push for political progress in Iraq soon, the whole house of cards collapses.

If that ends up the case, we would have to consider the surge another failed strategy. Not a military one, but rather a diplomatic one.

Posted by: cam8 | January 8, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"Having drawn those important distinctions, I think the success of the surge is being frittered away day-by-day by the political vacuum that is Iraq. In this respect, I know that L. Graham agrees, and thus I think McC agrees. Obviously, he will trumpet the success of the surge because it is a good talking point, it is true, and it reminds that he was on the professional side of that debate from the beginning."

We won mark? YEah. Great news. Stop the presses. We won and our soldiers are coming home. WHOOOAA.

There is not success. The iraq government is not a functioning body in any sense. they stopped the government months ago. I don't even know if they are up running again. But we should stay? Like mccain says for 100 years. Please do run on that. And where, pray tell, are you going to get the troops for this war that is going to be ramped up with a gop victory? Robots? The draft?

good luck with that platform. you don't have the troops for what you want, without a draft. Good luck trying to reinstitute the draft right now. The propoganda that "the surge is working", is just that. If it is working tha tmeans we are closer to getting out. Is that the sace? Thent he surge is not working. It wil not work. Even if we partition the country their will be blood shed for decades. Like obama says there are no good solutions now for the iraqis and middle east.

time to start thinking about what is good for our country for a cahnge. Like every other government in every other country on the planet. Iraq and permentant war is not in our best interests. You still have not got that message from the american people gop? What will it take? how many more elections?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't attacking or discrediting Obama, just merely stating facts. Please tell me what I said that wasn't true. I spent 24 years serving this country in the Army and I care deeply about its future. It's not about some popularity contest.

Posted by: brigittepj | January 8, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike,


Hardly. I'm talking about World War 1. We didn't fight the Nazis in the first war. If world war one sought to prevent Pan-Germanism, I'd argue it didn't work. Germany sought to dominate Europe and now they do. So don't attack me. And don't lump two wars together for your own convenience.

Posted by: legan00 | January 8, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

colin, my neocon discussion at 12:30P was with you.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Boko, I defer to JimD and Mike on Clark, although you know I share JimD's views, [including the negatives about Cohen as SecDef].

I have no idea if JB will endorse, but I think that BHO would be a far more likely recipient than HRC.

I agree with you about what neoconservatism IS, but not who they ARE. No one was more critical of Wolfie and Rummy than McCain. The neocon "strategy" of American benevolent hegemony spreading democracy where it has never been - the Wilsonian legacy - is not McCain's view.

That the invasion of Iraq is consistent with the neocon position is obvious, but its not definitive. McCain thought the neocon dream of liberation on a shoestring, a wing, and a prayer was delusional. He backed the professional military assessment because he is a military R, and that was not the neocon position. A general got canned for speaking the military assessment. The surge was a professional tactic, not a neocon idea.

Having drawn those important distinctions, I think the success of the surge is being frittered away day-by-day by the political vacuum that is Iraq. In this respect, I know that L. Graham agrees, and thus I think McC agrees. Obviously, he will trumpet the success of the surge because it is a good talking point, it is true, and it reminds that he was on the professional side of that debate from the beginning.

To be fair, I have thought that McC's rhetoric has been periodically "Red Meat" belligerent. But he was a strong supporter of the Powell Doctrine and I think one aspect of that doctrine is that the Prez must actually have the will of the nation behind any military effort that is not obviously and clearly defensive.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

lie spin and discredit. You cannot combat the facts. So do what you can do. Lie spin and discredit. Read the acrhieves, then run your mouths

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

hILARY SUPPORTERS WOULD BE BETTER OFF talking about what she will do and how she is better, than attackign and discrediting obama. She shows her face by doing that. It will turn demcorats that were supporting her away. Those that already do suppor thim will solidify.

On second thought. Keep up what your doing clinton supporters. Your stadegy is working very well. Keep doing what your doing.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"I think they are both prisoners of their own delusions."

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

In WWII germany wasn't a direct threat? Germany's sworn allies declared war against the US and bombed Pearl Harbor. That seems direct enough to me.

Certainly a million times more direct than invading Iraq, which was governed by a terrible, but secular, dictator after muslim extremists attacked us. But that's cool, now we know that we don't even need to be threatened to use force. The elusive goal of "spreading democracy" is apparently worth the cost is blood and treasure.

Posted by: _Colin | January 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Germany now dominates the European Union and is the largest, most prosperous country on that continent."

Legan00 - I believe we fought the Nazis, not the German economy. Your point is twisted beyond reason.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

claudia -- both WW's were going on well before we entered.

So saying "we've been in Iraq longer than WWII" is a rediculous statement. I know you know better.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I do not consider McCain or Huckabee to be real conservatives and I will not vote for RINO's. If we are going to have a lib in the WH, might as well get the real product. Plus I think McCain is a borderline nut job, who has some real problems with anger. Angry old white man will get creamed by Obama because McCain cannot even get the base of his party.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 8, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Despite all the animosity I see here for Hillary Clinton, this race is not over. Yes, Obama is riding a tide of popularity that frankly, given his record, plays more like American Idol than a Presidential election.

You'd have to go all the way back to Abraham Lincoln to find someone with so little experience running for president. I'm sorry, but this isn't the mid 1800s and we're not fighting a domestic war. We live in a global world today where people everywhere are trying to kill us. Obama has shown time and time again in the debates that he doesn't have a clue about foreign policy. His answers have been vapidly stupid and, in some cases, downright dangerous. Oh, but he'll have advisors you say?. Yeah, so does George Bush.

Of the three leading Dems, I've tuned out John Edwards because his message of going to Washington and taking on the lobbyists and special interests is just downright idiotic. Lobbyists don't lobby the White House, they lobby Congress, and until we get some campaign finance laws passed, they will continue to do so. What he also fails to tell you is they have a Constitutional right to petition Congress. Duh! Also, his message of being a champion for the little people rings hollow when he's made himself filthy rich by taking large chunks of the little peoples awards for pain and suffering.

Barack Obama is a very gifted speaker, but, by any sense of reality, does not have the experience to be President. He has never won a debate and, as stated before, is clueless about foreign policy. As for his message, have we all forgotten that the last naive guy who was going to change Washington and unite the country is sitting in the White House? It all rings even more hollow when you're a sitting member of the Senate, who by the way, has not been any sort of maverick since he got there.

He wrote a book called "the Audacity of Hope", but the audacity of Obama is that he announced he was running for President with one year in the Senate under his belt. Lets see, prior to that he had a term in the Illinois legislature and before that he was a "grassroots organizer"? What exactly is that, and how does it qualify you to be President?

Sounds like this is more about his ego than about the American people. If he was not so hell-bent on being President, he could have used his very formidable gift by now to inspire young African Americans the way Martin Luther King did. But no, Obama's campaign is not about people, it's about Obama. Like he says, you can make history by electing him.

The American sheeple need to wake up. Obama talks about kicking the tires and raising the hood. Well I did, and the engine was missing. He's also going around spouting Bill Clinton's line from 1992 about the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. What he leaves out is that Bill Clinton had eight years as a governor under his belt when he said it. Where I come from, people like Obama are called con-artists. He's a darn good one, I must say, because he has a lot of people fooled.

So, all this just might make you want to take another look at Hillary Clinton. She's not out there spouting empty rhetoric on which she can't deliver and she's got the experience and knowledge to do the job competenly.

If you really looked at that clip yesterday with unbiased eyes, her show of emotion yesterday reflected her passion for trying to change what has gone wrong with this country. Unlike John Edwards and Barack Obama, when she finished law school, she went to work for a non-profit, the Children's Defense Fund. That's real character.

Posted by: brigittepj | January 8, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Wow, it sounds like most of the readers of this blog have pretty much concluded Obama has a lock on the nomination - I'm still a bit wary of the power of the Clinton machine in the larger states voting on Feb. 5.

Having said that, it would seem to me that Obama's choice of a VP candidate will depend on what's in the news later this summer. If the war is the big news - and McCain seems the likely R candidate, I would think he'd choose someone w/ foreign policy experience - sort of a Cheney to Bush type of pick (similar in resume only - I'd expect better quality). But if the economy tanks and there are questions about executive experience, I'd look for him to pick a governor. A hispanic governor - but with an anglo name - from the west - would that help, especially if the R is a senator from the west?

Posted by: -pamela | January 8, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"The difference is that WWI (to a certain extent) and WWII, most definitely, were waged against direct threats to our national security. Vietnam and Iraq were/are not."

Jim don't you think that's overly simplistic?

WWI - not a "direct threat"
WWII - Germany not a "direct threat"

Our success in our war against the Soviets in Afghanistan proved how, and why, we had to stop their expansion. Vietnam was a military success and I know you know it.

If we can pull it off in Iraq, that will be a major win against our Islamists enemies. I agree: We do need political reconciliation. But we also need patience.

It doesn't help to make overly simplistic, false comparisons.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Luger as Obama's VP would make a pretty powerful statement. Senator Luber is quite conservative accross the board, so I don't know that he would ever agree to take a VP slot on a Democratic ticket. But he would certainly be an asset in such a role for either party, as he's a hugely decent man would values real bipartisanship and civility.

Posted by: _Colin | January 8, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"Mike

so rufus says the GOP supports Clinton because she can be beaten and lylepink says the GOP supports Obama because they fear Clinton. I think they are both prisoners of their own delusions.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 12:08
"

right. I'm a prinsoner of my own delusion. look at the archeives. Look at the polls. Look at what I've been saying here for months. Unlike you jim, who is rarely right. If anyone wants to see who is livin gin a dylusion, all they have to do is read the acrhieves.

this way people can see where your propogandists minds where at. And after the elcetions we see where your minds and reality have gaps. Unlike me and my posts.:) look at the acrheives. You people were living in a dream land. Without those like me you would be happy their in wonderland. But what if reality is not wonderland? It's not.

The map is not the terrirtory. Fox news is not the media. This site is not reality. Your gop minds are not reality. you people are living in the 60's. Your four decades behind. Get with the program or get left in the dust. I want to help you people join reality. Why ealse would I waste my time here all these months? For me? No. It's for you old folks. I'm been trying to get you involved. What do I get for my troubles? Getting attacked daily then banned. Why would I do this if I didn't love my country and you people. Unlike the gop, I feel we are all americans .Teh only thing stopping you peopel from joining the rest of the world is between the ears. Stop the sabotage. Join the country again. join reality. Traitors and sabotuers belong in jail

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

jimd52,


Read "Search for Order: 1877 - 1920." Your assertion that the first world war was a crucial test to America's national security is hardly accurate. Look no further than the intense opposition from American labor, immigrants, socialists during WW1. If Pan-Germanism was the threat, we lost. Germany now dominates the European Union and is the largest, most prosperous country on that continent. Had Britain and the U.S. avoided the first world war, it's wholly possible that Hitler's ascendance could have been prevented. The war and Germany's terribly managed Post-War economy legitimated the Hitlers in Germany. Also read: "The Pity of war." by Niall Ferguson.

Free Debs

Posted by: legan00 | January 8, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

'See the difference?'

What exactly, did we gain from Vietnam? What did it change?

This is WWI:
'US tries to stay neutral but when Germany starts unrestricted submarine warfare which threatens US commercial shipping, the US enters the war on April 6th 1917.'

11/11/1918 Armistice Day-WW I ends (at 11 AM on Western Front).'

We were in WW! -- one year.

World War I only led to WW2. That however, was a war in which we faced a genuinely dangerous enemy -- a military titan which threatened the world. So I consider that justified.

Iraq bears no resemblance to any of them but Vietnam, with which it is closely related. We would still be there, if the country did not simply get tired of children dying for nothing.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"rufus,

"the gop's dirty sabotage work for them"

I'm confused though bud.

Aren't you the one who constantly says the GOP supports Clinton (because she can be beaten)?

Which is it?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 12:03
"

Read your post to me again and the answer will come to you

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Mike

so rufus says the GOP supports Clinton because she can be beaten and lylepink says the GOP supports Obama because they fear Clinton. I think they are both prisoners of their own delusions.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Put Webb and Hagel in a steel cage. Whoever comes out alive, there's your VP!

Seriously, though, Biden is my suggestion.

A few other thoughts about the position though:

Since this is not an "experience" election, I don't think you go with a governor.

Second, I think Obama should avoid electoral considerations completely. This is a bottom up movement. The VP will help him govern, not get elected. (I mean in the state by state calculus. Biden will help reassure voters generally in the foreign affairs arena.)

Finally, I think he should depart from conventional wisdom and name his VP as soon as possible. They need to get out and work hard to elect democratic candidates for Congress. The convention is too far away. So what if it takes away the only surprise the convention holds anymore. Time's awastin'.

Posted by: optimyst | January 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

well said legan00.

Remember when journalist creed was, "do not become the story"? And their strived for credibility? It was their life blood right? When did this change? When did propoganda as news coverage become permissable. That is why I came to this pirticular site. I didn't want people getting pointing here by olberman to get mislead. But this issue is bigger than cc.

It goes to the core of this country. We are a self-government. In a self government the american people need all the real news we can get, with as little of the lies spin and cheerleading we can get. Young people get real news. Internet savy people get the real news. Who is that not? Old people. The old people are getting lied to and mislead. What woudl the moderates or gop be without those old people being lied to?

Time to free the slave. Time to cut chains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave


This is bigger than cc. And the issue you and others here raise is the most important aspect of saving our country. Not freedom of the press. But the press presenting real facts news and facts to the americna people. How is fox still on the air? Rush? Imus get's pulled for a couple racail insults. How is fox and rush and hannity still on the air? how many deaths are on their hands?

r

u

f

u

s

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

New Hampshire, 2008 Predictions:

-Democrats:

1. Barack Obama - 43%
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton - 33%
3. John Edwards - 18%
4. Bill Richardson - 4%
5. Dennis Kucinich - 2%

-Republicans:

1. John McCain - 33%
2. Mitt Romney - 30%
3. Mike Huckabee - 13%
4. Ron Paul - 11%
5. Rudy Guiliani - 10%
*Others - 3%

Post-New Hampshire, 2008 Predictions:
-Barack Obama: A resounding victory in N.H. will effectively crown Obama the Democratic nominee. "Granite State Remains Hopeful."
-Hillary Clinton: She must recalibrate her strategy, and her message. She will likely retain solid support from the Democratic establishment, but I don't think she has the time or the gravitas to achieve the nomination. Besides which, now she looks like a weaker candidate. Obama has us looking toward the general election all ready. Correction: Obama has convinced us that we will reclaim this country not for Democrats, but for working men & women not too cynical to be a bit daring while in the voting booths. Finally a candidate that understands being daring is an asset. And that it frightens Washington. Republicans will soon go for Obama's knees, but at their own peril.
-John McCain: Likely to pick up the nomination if he wins in Michigan, too. I like his chances. Unlikely he defeats Obama, but at least an Obama-McCain race will be civil.
-Mitt Romney: I still reserve the possibility that he can win this thing. But how? Mitt needs to start running to the middle and touting his successes as a centrist Republican. Stop running against Mondale in '84, start running in 2008.


In light of Obama's ascendance, I must say that it actually feels great to be an American again. I'm excited.

Eugene Debs '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 8, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"we asked the same questions during WWI and WWII.

We asked them more forcefully in Vietnam.

See the difference"

The difference is that WWI (to a certain extent) and WWII, most definitely, were waged against direct threats to our national security. Vietnam and Iraq were/are not. Unfortunately, we must find a path to stability in Iraq since it is our moral responsibility to try and fix the problem we created. I believe that path is largely political.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

rufus,

"the gop's dirty sabotage work for them"

I'm confused though bud.

Aren't you the one who constantly says the GOP supports Clinton (because she can be beaten)?

Which is it?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

bokonon

Most military people do have a great deal of respect for any 4 star officer. Some will be against him for being a Democrat. Some of his former senior colleagues do not like him. He had a very bad personal relationship with SecDef Cohen and Joint Chiefs Chairman Shelton. Part of the problem was that Clark as NATO commander was not compeletely under DOD control. He also had a direct line to the White House and that was deeply resented. It is not unusual at the higher ranks for there to be intense personal rivalries. He was forced out early in order to make room for a favorite of Cohen's - AF General Ralston, who was unconfirmable as AF Chief of Staff - to be NATO Commander.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

This whole "Help or Hindrance?" narrative, Chris, is an insult to Americans with greater than an 8th grade education. We all know you've been supporting Hillary this whole time and trying to influence our votes, but at this point you're on the verge of compromising your journalistic integrity. No big deal if you love Hillary, but try to include that in your commentary, so that your position with the WashingtonPost amounts to more than just HillaryClinton.com Again, no big deal if she's your gal, but at least address the fact that your article is intended to be utterly subjective. There's a clear line between analysis and advocacy. I know I'm not the first to cry foul, so just be more careful, Chris. You all but dismissed the "Obama Surging in the Polls?" yesterday. Journalism first, preference second.

Eugene Debs '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 8, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Her tears are due to what she is becoming, and as a result were here poll numbers are. the clintons have been in desperation mode for weeks. It must be hard for your whole life and carrer to be flashing before you eyes in such a short time.

With that said, what they are doing is what I said they woud do. the gop's dirty sabotage work for them. Fear the yale plan. It's "your either with us or against us". That us is fascism. She is done. She needs to step down before she does any more damge to her parties nominee and her country

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

bok - I admire his service and think he has something tangible to add to any of the 1-term-senator's campaigns. He certainly did some great things.

He is also in love with his legacy, but if that precluded anyone from P/VP, only sleepwalking FDT would be left.

Overall, a net gain.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

bsimon

It's possible that an Obama ticket could open up the South, but I would hate for them to choose a running mate based on the hope that the D's could win the South this time. The Southwest was really close in 2004, and with Richardson (or someone else who would play well in the SW), I think it could be even more so.

I should admit, though, that my immediate reaction after 2004's loss was to say that the next nominee had to be from *anywhere* but the east coast.

Posted by: rpy1 | January 8, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Claudia asks "How many years, how many bodies, how many trillions of US taxpayrs dollars will that be?"

Yes but Claudia, we asked the same questions during WWI and WWII.

We asked them more forcefully in Vietnam.

See the difference?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Thanks JimD. He (Webb) does seem to be a prickly fellow, and he and Obama would have not much in common. What do military/ex-military folks think of Wes Clark? (a question also for USMC MIke, if he sees this, and anyone else who wants to chime in)

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 8, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Should it come down to McCain versus Obama, we would have first Senator versus Senator election in history.

Only two sitting Senators have been elected - Harding and Kennedy. Neither ran against a sitting Senator.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

Also meant to add that Lugar is one of the most respected Senators and I personally admire the man a great deal.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes

Lugar is 75, he would be a good Secretary of State but not for VP.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I have to agree with Colin. I think all R candidates will have same foreign policy as Bush--except RP. All will continue status quo in Iraq, all will want to attack Iran. It's about the Straits of Hormuz and the need/desire [depending on how you look at it] to control it.

But it's the number one issue for oil multinnationals.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Yea agree that Luger would be a good choice, moderate republican with strong national security experience. He's boring as hell but Obama got the charisma so that's okay. I doubt though Luger could put Indiana in play, its a very Red state and dems may balk with a republican on the ticket.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 8, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

bsimon

I think at least some states in the South might be more winnable for the Dems with Obama. It would especially be the case if the evangelicals are dissatisfied with the Republican ticket. Should they be so dissatisfied as to run a third party, obama will win many Southern states.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

'When Baghdad Intl' Airport is as accessable (and freequently visited) as Frankfurt or Tokyo.'

How many years, how many bodies, how many trillions of US taxpayrs dollars will that be? 5 years and a trillion and 4000 lives and we've barely started -- the airport is now more dangerous than it ever has been.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"The media is so anti-Hillary it is a wonder she has the strength and ability to withstand these onslaughts."

The more that the Clinton campaign & its supporters tell themselves this, the less likely they are to recover from early losses. The cold, unwelcome fact is that Senator Clinton's message is not connecting with voters. She may be smart, talented, capable, and a host of other good things, but she's not connecting with voters. Perhaps if she and her team are as talented as they'd like us to believe they can figure out why their message isn't resonating with voters and figure out a way to rectify the situation. Blaming the media is a weak excuse, that, if anything, is indicative of what a weak President she'd be. Kinda like W - nothings ever his fault.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I have it on good word Hillary is in front of the mirror with Bill right now, getting lessons on the lip biting.

As the bumper sticker says, "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made".

Posted by: filmex | January 8, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

bokonon

You captured the biggest problem with that ticket - "Then again, they're both first term Senators... "

I also think that Webb is a bit too much of a loose cannon for a VP. I don't know that the military has much of an opinion on him although he did far better in heavily military precincts than Dems usually do.

Having been an active duty officer when Webb was Secretary of the Navy, many of us thought his resignation over the retirement of some obsolete frigates was a bit much. I really think it had more to do with personality conflicts between Webb and SecDef Carlucci. That is one more reason why I don't think Webb is an appropriate VP - doesn't play well with others.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"I think the Dems should drop the South, though."

The West may be more fertile ground for the right Democrat. However, with Obama, does the race angle open up the south?

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

RSLIP: I would like to add--Hillary is in a very good position to win the Dem nomination on 5 February, and if you happen to be in one of these states, I hope you will support her.

Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Mark, do you think Biden will endorse anyone? And what do you think of Jim Webb? Also, I don't think Obama would hesitate to name the person he thought was best suited for the position (VP, DOD, whatever) regardless of party. Although both either were or have become symbolic of partisanship in their respective parties, both Bill Clinton and W filled some posts with members of the opposing party. Also, did you see the piece about "post-partisan Obama" in yesterday's Post?

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 8, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

What about the elephant?

Let's be real... Hillary Rodham the divorced woman who has made peace with her ex-husband might have won this nomination and election. Hillary Clinton cannot, and will not. Having that marriage back in the White House is viscerally unacceptable to at least half the country and reasonably so. If our problems are to be solved and we are to end the screaming idiots of left and right screaming past one another on meaningless talk shows, and solve the very serious problems we have, the culture and morality wars of the 90s have to join those of the 60s in the dustbin of history. This from a progressive centrist who thought Bill did a good job and that his indiscretions, moronic as they were, should have been kept private. If Hillary stayed married for political reasons, she deserves not to be elected. If she stayed married for personal reasons, she should have realized there could (would!) be a serious political price to pay. Dynasty is itself an issue, but in this particular case, it is unacceptable. It will not happen. She needs to recognize this and move on, for her sake as well as that of her party and her country. That day is done. This is the end of an era, and good riddance.

Give me Obama, I will even accept Romney. While the latter may stand for nothing, we desperately need a cool, well-spoken centrist to actually fix things rather than believing in them or shouting about them or complaining about them. All these people we are paying, and paying attention, to need to be served notice: do something! get to work or get out of Dodge and off the TV screen. And do it now. Period.

Posted by: greg.panfile | January 8, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

There's no crying in Politics! She should have learned that lesson from Elizabeth Dole's campaign. Does it make her appear human? No. Tears were meant for the national humiliation she suffered when her husband was President. Not when she's trying to become President herself. She didn't cry then so why cry now?

Posted by: donna.renfro | January 8, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

RSLIP: I have been saying essentially the same thing for months now. I can only hope my faith in the American public will not be lost because of so few having so much power. The media is so anti-Hillary it is a wonder she has the strength and ability to withstand these onslaughts.

Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon -

Well that we can both agree on.

If GWB could "sell" as effectively as others...

Regardless,

I think history will judge him differently than Claudia does now.

When Baghdad Intl' Airport is as accessable (and freequently visited) as Frankfurt or Tokyo.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

One response to Blarg on an Obama/Edwards ticket -- I agree about the idea that Edwards doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons, but one place I think he would make sense is that he would be good on domestic issues. I see Obama's focus as being more foreign policy, which is one reason I think that someone like Biden (while a good pick) would be unlikely.

I think the Dems should drop the South, though. I'd be fine with Richardson -- it'd be a strong anti-war ticket.

Posted by: rpy1 | January 8, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Mark -- Astute observations, as always, but I would quibble with your implicit conflation of neocon and the unitary executive theory. I grant you that McCain does not endorse the latter, but I would suggest that he nonetheless does fall into the neoconservative camp.

In a strict sense, neoconservatives are really just unreconstructed wilsonian utopians. Which is to say, they embrace the use of US military power without regard to specific US national interests. For example, they -- and McCain -- continue to argue that our entry into Iraq was justified purely to spread democracy. Such a view is clearly at odds with international realists like the pros who manned the first Bush administration.

Candidly, if McCain's foreign policy views didn't place him in the neoconservative camp I would truly be excited about his candidacy. Absent my concerns about his overly hawkish approach to foreign policy an Obama v McCain GE would truly be a win-win proposition.

Posted by: _Colin | January 8, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Blarg, JimD

what do you think of Jim Webb from VA as a potential VP pick for Obama? do you think the 2 would be able to work together? I'm not sure, but if that were possible, it might be an unbeatable ticket. Might be, I'm not sure - but it would give Obama a Southern presence, reach out to the military vote, and continue to establish Obama's bipartisan cred. Then again, they're both first term Senators...

USMC MIke, how is Webb thought of among active duty military?

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 8, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

"Blarg -- isn't this a common criticism of Bush and Cheney? "

The criticism is not that Cheney has been tasked with doing real work. The criticism is that there is no visibility into the work that Bush & Cheney are doing.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

She's worked hard for a long time to be president, she's endured personal torment, been demonized by the right and dismissed by the left, she's put together a formidable staff and what looked until recently like a bulldozer strategy. And yet she's losing, there's nothing she can do to budge her numbers upward, and she's finding that an awful lot of people have respected and sometimes feared her, but that few people actually genuinely like her.

That's pretty heavy, even for someone as driven as she is. I'd cry too. It's touching that her mom and her daughter have been with her, not to give speeches, but just to support her. Good for them. In the end, maybe this will humanize her a little and she'll go back to the Senate and be a principled, dedicated liberal stalwart for years to come. Teddy Kennedy in a pantsuit. That's a legacy worth striving for.

Posted by: novamatt | January 8, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

mark in austin writes
" I do not know if BHO shares my view that bipartisanship is necessary for foreign policy, military policy, and security policy, as opposed to domestic policy, where my guess is he would be a conventional D, albeit with a good "ear"."

The campaign rhetoric implies he's open to the possibility. I believe he would make efforts at creating a bipartisan cabinet.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"And I like the idea of assigning the VP a specific area to focus on. Give him something to do besides attend state functions and wait for the president to die."

But Blarg -- isn't this a common criticism of Bush and Cheney?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Boko, I am sure JB would do whatever he thought was best for the country, but I think Obama might consider several ahead of JB.

1] The Ds have a slim majority in both Houses - why pick a senior and powerful Committee chair when he will be needed by a D Admin right where he is?
The counter-argument would rely on a firmly held belief that Ds would strengthen their hold on the Senate and JB would be an active VP in the primary role - like LBJ was for JFK.

2] Picking Wes Clark makes more sense as a sop to the Clintons, but more important, because he was a 4 star who commanded NATO forces and engaged personally in diplomacy.

3] If then president-elect Obama is serious about "reaching out", Powell, Lugar, and Richard Clarke are among the many possibles [who are registered Rs] for key foreign policy/national security positions. On the other hand, I do not know if BHO shares my view that bipartisanship is necessary for foreign policy, military policy, and security policy, as opposed to domestic policy, where my guess is he would be a conventional D, albeit with a good "ear".
------------------------
note: There are some Ds who are foreign policy pros who McC might pick, mirroring my point no. 3. I think here of Holbrooke, but as NSAdvisor, not SOS - he is often right but he is a complete one man show according to my friends at State.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"I also think that no war with Iran is forthcoming, despite neocon efforts, and that neocons have lost much of their influence in their currently chosen party."

Mark, I think you're observation is proven true by the Huckaboom.

It was not too long ago that political analysts were writing about how the R party had 'finally evolved' from its traditional family, guns, life stances.

Huckabee's success proves how true that is not. A Huckabee v. Rudy showdown would finally prove the neocons no longer control the party.

Not saying that's good or bad.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

The last Presidential candidate to cry in public in New Hampshire was Ed Muskie. It should be clear to the media and all the political pundits that the voters of New Hampshire do not take kindly to any show of emotion from their potential political leaders. Hilary Clinton's showmanship doomed her to a third place finish in NH.

Posted by: lavinsr | January 8, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Biden is the only senator that would be a good choice for Obama's VP. I'd like to see a governor or military figure also. And I like the idea of assigning the VP a specific area to focus on. Give him something to do besides attend state functions and wait for the president to die.

Of course, the worst possible choice for Obama's VP is the one I see mentioned the most: John Edwards. He didn't help Kerry at all in 2004, his 2008 campaign is unimpressive, and he has the same weaknesses as Obama. He adds nothing to the ticket. Let's hope Obama has more sense than the many people who call for Obama/Edwards '08.

Posted by: Blarg | January 8, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

I really think that Obama needs someone with national security experience on the ticket. My personal choice would be Wesley Clark because he would be consistent with the change message in that Clark is not part of the Washington establishment. Biden would be a great choice also. Richardson would be except I doubt a double minority ticket and he has performed quite poorly in the campaign.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 8, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

gdpor8311 writes
"America is turning the page.

The real question is this. Where is Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young and the rest of the black leadership today?"

They are on the prior page, with the other remnants of the 60s.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Oh no, did someone mention Lincoln?

Wasn't he the guy that used WORDS to build his shindig.

Careful, words might just be Obama's secret weapon. Maybe the guy's into something magic.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Boko: Obama needs to be pick a governor of a swing state and I believe Ted Strickland from Ohio will probably get the nod if there is no skeltons in his closet. The fact that he has supported Clinton is also important because once you become the apparent nominee, you need to heal the wounds to take on the Republicans. Obama will have to take some of Clinton's team for a strong unified party.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 8, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Mark, do you think Biden will make an endorsement at some point? and do you think he is interested in being anyone's VP?

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 8, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

There is nothing wrong with tears. Sadly the comments HRC made in the piece really showed here weakness. She kept talking about how she has so many "ideas" for the country. She misses the point that thinking politics is about filling in feature function in some sort of product offering.

What made Lincoln great was not a list of ideas. It was moral stature, commitment to doing the right thing and the ability to remind America about the "greater angels" within them. No not a list of feature functions.

HRC Is done. The reason the Clinton White House did not inhale and did not have sex............. Point being Obama has something they lost by their own largess.

America is turning the page.

The real question is this. Where is Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young and the rest of the black leadership today?

Posted by: gdpor8311 | January 8, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

USMC Mike, if you're curious about Obama's positions, check this out: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ Granted, it's his campaign website, but it's all been released to the press, and discussed by Obama himself at his appearances.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 8, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I felt pity for her as I watched it. And there never was a vote cast out of pity. People will vote for a crook before they will vote for someone who seems weak.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | January 8, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Whether Hillary's tears were "real" or not, it should be remembered that the previous day, when saying what she said about the girl who died of cancer (I think?) she was sharp and sarcastic. That would have been a more appropriate moment for tears.

gordie_foote, I have been feeling the loss of the good Dr. Gonzo all year. Fear & Loathing On The Campaign Trail 2008 - ?

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 8, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I love the fire and brimstone scenario offered by Claudialong. Possible, not probable.

On the subject of SUBSTANCE, this race is as wacky and spacey as I can remember.

HOPE, CHANGE, UNIFY, TRANSFORM THE WORLD!!!

The guy is selling us hot air and people are voting with their feet.

Mrs. Experience aka the "Real Me" has changed brand, slogan, TV venue(last night she was interviewed by a Hollywood TV tabloid rag) that... where was I? Oh, yeah, the "vision thing".

This stampede is for poetry over prose, aspirations over wonky laundry lists, new versus old.

This certifyable loony race is to spot character over phoniness.

Reality is winning, so far.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I agree with almost everyone this morning.

I would not have said it as baldly [boldly] as bhoomes, but having heard HRC's "moment" on the car radio, I reacted negatively to her WORDS, which sounded a condescending vision of her entitlement and our witless, callous disregard.

Mike properly called JRE on his first response, and I echo his nostalgia for the JB campaign that is no more.

All of you properly called the campaigns for their mere sloganeering. "Change"? Indeed.

I disagree with drindl on her broad stroke characterization of Rs as Bushies. I think that only RG and WMR have succumbed to the neocon influence. MH, McC, RP, and probably FDT are not in the "unitary executive" fold.

McC is a, perhaps the, long time voice for open government, and I would accuse only RG of being a probable secrecy freak among the Rs.

I think drindl was painting with a broad brush because she believes the Rs, except for RP, would mire us in the ME for the duration.

I also think that no war with Iran is forthcoming, despite neocon efforts, and that neocons have lost much of their influence in their currently chosen party.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I do not think it will matter at all if she cried or not in the primary. It may become a symbol of the election slipping away, but who is to say she is completely gone? We all dismissed McCain's chances in August and now he looks as likely as any. I just saw Chuck Todd talking to Tim R, he sounded so pumped to be in the midst of an ever-changing landscape. Tim flat-out asked him if he was having a good time, Todd laughed and said it was the time of his life.
I wonder if the tears will be seen as a glimpse into the "real" Hillary or seen as a calculated move to garner support. Personally I do not think it was a calculated move on her part. But, who knows? Are tears a last ditch weapon to fend off disaster?
Ladies, I wouldn't suggest that method has ever been used by a female before. No, that never happens. But I cannot say for certain that it did or did not happen with Hillary. This is partly why I cannot qualify it as a help or a hindrance. I do not think it will matter in NH, perhaps there will be some distinct jump in numbers after the tears, but we won't know for a few hours.

Posted by: cactusflinthead | January 8, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The Wall Street Journal has some bad news for the Clinton campaign...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119976546847474153.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today

"The all-important Culinary Workers union in Nevada, the next state to vote on Jan. 19, is considering backing Sen. Obama a day after a New Hampshire win, say some high-ranking Democrats. The support of the state's largest union by far would virtually hand him a victory in the labor-dominated caucuses there, Democrats say. And the Clinton campaign is considering effectively ceding South Carolina, which votes a week later."

Could the Clinton campaign have any reasonable hope of resurgence on Feb 5 if they 'cede' the SC vote to Obama and lose in IA, NH & NV? That seems as implausible as it does for Giuliani to do the same thing.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I have to agree with the earlier poster about the timing of her tears. We've known her for some time and even when her husband's betrayal was front page news for months on end, we didn't get so much as a sniffle. She has always been strong.

Now the sniffle oddly makes her seem even more cold and calculating.

Posted by: kara.haas | January 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

For the record, I had intended to vote for Sen Biden if he had stayed in the race...a nice level-headed experienced guy who the press virtually ignored. Sen. Biden would have wiped the floor with any Republican now running....The media control of this election has been more biased than any year in my memory Rslip in Western Pa,

Posted by: rslip | January 8, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

How do you interpret Hillary's tearful emotional moment?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1469

.

Posted by: PollM | January 8, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I watched the "edited" clip of Sen. Clinton's emotional response to a nice caring question by a New Hampshire voter and SHE DID NOT CRY OR EVEN TEAR UP , she did however respond with a slight choke-up in her voice. Once again the media made more out of a minor Clinton news bite than they do for any other candidate. I can't believe the Anti-Clinton Bias of the news media...At all of the Democratic debates so far, Sen. Clinton got the worse grilling by the moderators of any of the candidates. Russert spent more than half of his time in one debate trying gotcha questions against Hillary and tossed puffballs at Obama and Edwards. Questions to the other candidates like Biden and Richardson were intended to show them in a positive light. Chris Matthews has opened his HARDBALL program every day for months bashing Hillory for at least 40% of his program. The PILLORY HILLARY crowd has been working in overdrive to raise her negatives with the American public, and In my 60 plus years on this planet, I've never seen the venom of the media used in this fashion....When this is over and America is the worse for it by having lesser lights to pick between I hope these same members of the PILLORY HILLARY crowd can beg whatever GOD they pray to for forgiveness. Rslip in Western Pa

Posted by: rslip | January 8, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The public has known Hillary since 1992 - 16 years, and the first time she's [chosen to] sob in public is after a humiliating third place in Iowa and a campaign sinking rapidly in New Hampshire...how can anyone even question whether this was staged?

At least she didn't quite do a Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco (nor were the stakes quite so high in this case).

This isn't about whether women politicians can show emotion - it's entirely about the conversation and rehearsals I'm 100% certain went on in the Clinton campaign after some staffer suggested she blub in public. Cynical, cynical, cynical. And disreputable.

Posted by: adamcgray | January 8, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I do hope Hillary's "I Have a Stream (of Tears)" speech has no effect on voters.

One display of emotion during a grueling campaign? Does that really show us anything meaningful about whether she's fit for the job of President?

Once she becomes or fails to become President, I will enjoy using this little episode to make fun of her.

Howard Dean's scream speech is much the same. He would be awful for America to have as president, and if he had lacked the emotion or whatever to have screamed when he did, that wouldn't change anything.

Posted by: angrydoug1 | January 8, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

'Not saying the GOP candidates have all the answers, but what exactly has Obama offered?'

what has ANYONE offered? which GOP candidate will do anything different than bush is doing? they talk about change in wahsington, and then their rhetoric is EXACTLY the same as bush's. what answers?!!!

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

I doubt the display of emotion will have a significant impact on today's results. I suppose some pundits or even some campaigns might try to make that implication, but there's really no way to prove it one way or the other.

What I'm thinking now is that the Clinton campaign should dig deeper into this unintended display of the Senator's inner thoughts and figure out what they stand for. I found her unguarded comments to be more telling about why she's running than anything in her official releases or stump speeches. The perception I have is that she thinks she has the best ideas, the best plans for how to improve America. While I don't agree, she might be able to revive her campaign by making this case more explicitly.

Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

"what a bunch of trivial crap this all is anyway. the economy is failing, we had 1000 kids killed in iraq last year, our most strategic financial, national security and technology assets are being bought outright by foreign governments, we're teetering on the brink of yet another war -- only this time it will be the real thing --and this is what we focus on? for christ's sake, people, wake up."

You know claudia, I think you might have a point.

I don't particularly care if she cried or not. John Edwards looks like the fool, but either way, no one is talking about anything. Except Biden, who has no chance.

Not saying the GOP candidates have all the answers, but what exactly has Obama offered?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

"The second occasion was when she left Downing Street for the last time as Prime Minister... She held her compusure until she got into the car but then teared up.

...[most important part] I never observed Mrs. Thatcher break down over any political matter"

both women cried over exactly the same circumstances -- not being able to hold the office they wanted.

what a bunch of trivial crap this all is anyway. the economy is failing, we had 1000 kids killed in iraq last year, our most strategic financial, national security and technology assets are being bought outright by foreign governments, we're teetering on the brink of yet another war -- only this time it will be the real thing --and this is what we focus on? for christ's sake, people, wake up.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Whether or not her tears were genuine, misses the point. It was what she said and it was disgusting to watch. Basically only I can save this country and nobody cares as much as me. Please, take your fat narcisstic ass and go away with some dignity.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 8, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Crocodile tears, Hillary that was so Hollywood, any woman can tell it was fake tears, because we all know how to fake it, she just took it to the public, u go girl keep faking it

Posted by: forjarigirlonly | January 8, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

even at the same time, judge. cool. i wonder if the election will be affected by a little stage-managed upcoming visit to the ME by bushie -- to warn the world 'how dangerous iran is'. and strangely, just before he leaves, an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin -- oops, I mean the Straits of Hormuz, impeccably timed, demnstrates that. strangely, there were no photographs of the incident...

this map shows why war with iran is inevitable before the end of next year -- i'm calling October Surprise. if the US invades iran in october, whom do you think it will benefit... let me guess. it won't be obama.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/Pages/AOR%2520files/AOR%2520Map.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/Pages/AOR%2520page.htm&h=570&w=520&sz=63&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=i6Uh1rDAo5q4KM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgulf%2Bof%2Bhormuz%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D30%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Well Blarg I guess you missed my point.

From your article:

"I can recall two occasions when Lady (then Mrs.) Thatcher was seen to cry in her prime ministership. The first was when her son Mark was missing in Africa on a car rally... while making a public appearance when his fate was unknown, Mrs. T briefly teared up and for a moment could not continue.


The second occasion was when she left Downing Street for the last time as Prime Minister... She held her compusure until she got into the car but then teared up.

...[most important part] I never observed Mrs. Thatcher break down over any political matter"

We of course just witnessed this with HRC.

Hence, the comparison of the two still holds true. Thanks for the article which proves my point.

On a different note, I thought it was sort of callous of John Edwards to immediately attack her the way he did. I was taught that you don't hit women, and it just struck me as inappropriate, even if the tears were fake.

The angry man act is clearly his last, most desperate, act.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

As was said earlier, I think this was HRC's realization that she has lost - it just happened to come at an opportune time so as not to show the truth behind the tears.

I have said since before HRC announced her plans to run for office, that when it came down to it - and it was time to actually vote, not just talk - people would not back a woman president. I think her latest debate performance she came across angry and a bit on the hysterical side, instead of passionate. Couple that with her newest "choke-up" and you have the stereotypical woman who has a hard time controlling her emotions.

Posted by: soccrmom6 | January 8, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I'll have to take back that Ibogaine allegation. I forgot that Hunter S. Thompson made that up to get back at Muskie.

Posted by: gordie_foote | January 8, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I'll ahve to take back that Ibogaine allegation. Forgot that Hunter S. Thompson made that up to get back at Muskie.

Posted by: gordie_foote | January 8, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Actually Margaret Thatcher did cry when she was forced out of office in an internal coup.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/28/newsid_2527000/2527953.stm

If Obama or Edwards had done this, they would have been derided as Muskie was in 1972. Muskie was the establishment frontrunner in 72 but when he cryed during a press conference after articles attacking his wife, his lead evaporated and he was forced to leave the race. This was later discovered to be due to the Ibogaine drug he was taking.

Posted by: gordie_foote | January 8, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's choking up was part of this final, stunning, bitter realization that the Democratic Party is at last ending the Clinton era and is passing the torch.

Elections are always about the future, not the past, so Hillary only represented a return to the '90s. Her theme -- "experience counts" -- fell on deaf ears. Plus, the Clinton campaign's only hope was that everyone would buy their inevitability argument. That gamble backfired. Hillary never really had a chance against a politician as gifted as Obama, who some describe as a "once in a generation" candidate. Ironically, Obama might be Bill Clinton's natural heir. Obama is running as a Clinton Democrat (New Democrat, Centrist Democrat, whatever).

If Jonathan Alter (Newsweek) is correct, Obama will be our next president. I hope I am wrong about the Republicans' ongoing success in exploiting racism, fear and doubt. I remain skeptical at this moment, but I'll set my skepticism aside and join the Obama crusade if he's the nominee. Perhaps Americans are so sick of the Republicans that even Barack Hussein Obama can be elected. Perhaps the Republican Party is truly disintegrating, to which I say, "Good riddance!" (Oh, but they'll be back, you know.)

Posted by: harlemboy | January 8, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Hillary wasn't crying because she cared about the presidency; she was crying beacuse Bill told her that Joe Gibbs was going to resign from the Redskins!!!!!

Posted by: cel1ery | January 8, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Blarg | January 8, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Gee, light_bearer,

I guess you didn't notice you have just taken the trouble, time and serious thought to post a comment on a blog called "THE FIX".

What would you call yourself for doing that?

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

"No, I don't believe they were synthetic tears. Certainly she's invested a LOT in this endeavor and in spite of everything appears to be losing. I'd cry too and I'm your prototypical emotionally stunted guy."

Everyone has a breaking point.

I'd be upset if I saw my life-long dreams slipping away, when not too long ago I thought I had them locked up.

I just hope a woman crying doesn't translate to woman sympathy votes.

Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher crying?

Several weeks ago Peggy Noonan compared the two in WSJ. Humorous read
(obviously b/c I don't support HRC - do I need to disclose that anymore?).

Posted by: USMC_Mike | January 8, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Rasmussen money sharks are not moved by "real me" tears:

"One measure highlighting the magnitude of the changed dynamics can be found in data from the Rasmussen Markets. Closing prices the day before Iowa implied that Clinton had a 65% chance of winning the nomination and Obama was given a 29% chance. At 9:00 a.m. Eastern on the day before New Hampshire, those numbers have reversed--Obama is given a 63% chance of winning while Clinton's prospects have dwindled to 34% (current prices: Obama 100.0%, Clinton 0.0%)."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

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

I would feel pity except for the fact that she has been a national political figure since pre 1992 and knows what she is getting into. This has been what her and Bill have been planning since his second term and now that she isn't getting what she is entitled to she's playing the sympathy card. With Hillary it's always about her. With Obama the emphasis is on us as a people.

Posted by: cbcpapa | January 8, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

As usual, Drindl, we are on the same page.

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

I haven't actually hunted down footage (I don't get the same thrill other political junkies apparently do from watching a woman cry) but was she sobbing or did she tear up a little? If her eyes watered up a bit who the hell should care. I don't like Clinton and I hope Obama wins a game ending victory in NH but this coverage is obscene.

Posted by: light_bearer | January 8, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

"...near-tearful response to a question posed yesterday afternoon quickly became the talk of the campaign -- thank you Drudge Report..."

Yeah, thanks a lot, Drudge for dredging that up. Heaven forbid you should focus on the issues or something.

No, I don't believe they were synthetic tears. Certainly she's invested a LOT in this endeavor and in spite of everything appears to be losing. I'd cry too and I'm your prototypical emotionally stunted guy.

Addressing CC's point, no, I don't think it will make any difference at all. It'll be neither help nor hindrance as Obama's IA bounce makes it's way across NH.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 8, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

'thank you Drudge Report ' NOT. when will this gutter gossip stop being looked at as somehow legit? pathetic.

if john mccain got tears is in his eyes -- what would people say? 'ronald reagan never cried' -- oops actually he did. look, they're human, the candidates have emotions! they're exhausted. what a surprise.

obama leading the entire field so far in NH, getting more votes than anyone, bout a third more than mccain.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

A little of both. It's always a good thing when Hillary shows a human side - especially on the trail. But it undercus her argument that she is "ready" to lead. Emotional breakdowns don't go over well in the White House...

http://political-buzz.com/2008/01/07/more-on-hillarys-emotional-moment/

Posted by: parkerfl | January 8, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

"intropection" = introspection

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Did you count the seconds it took Hillary to pounce on Obama. In my youtube clip she takes 63 to 65 seconds after her watery act of intropection to say "there are people that are not ready", or something.

If you like her, you'll like her more. If you do not like her, there will be hell to pay.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

In real life I'm sure Hilary does show emotion (throwing ash trays anyone?). But on the campaign trail it's all synthetic. A cackle instead of a laugh and crocodile tears. Can't wait for tonight's "comeback kid" reprise.

Posted by: tobetv | January 8, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company