baseballlibertarian - Tumblr blog

[baseballlibertarian]

Los Angeles Debate

Before I begin, please let me ask a favor. And the request comes in the form of a demand, maybe even an order.

Take a moment to ponder and savor the majestic historical break-through this debate represents. Longer. Longer. Let it soak in. Just take a moment longer.

OK.

Now, ask yourself this question: when you first became politically aware did you ever imagine a presidential debate of this magnitude and importance involving a woman and an African-American man?

I was born in 1962 and can tell you I first became politically aware when Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated. I didn’t know what it all meant, but I knew it was serious and sad. Like everyone, I was afraid our country had been changed forever and for the worse. I can’t help tonight but think back to the vague sense of dread I had about politics then and reflect tonight so many years later on the true nature of persistence and possibility.

I’ve watched politics as a journalist, I have come to understand the power of symbols and how symbols often obscure agendas. But sometimes symbols shatter old notions, accepted truths, and calcified conventions.

Tonight’s debate — whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or an independent — stands as a landmark in a nation that justifiably commands the attention and fascination of the world.

With Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama as the two remaining Democratic candidates for the presidency, the world sees the embodiment of core American traits of freedom, tolerance, diversity, grit and, yes, audacity.

This is not an endorsement of either candidate. It’s an acknowledgment that their rise to dominance in the Democratic Party breaks the mold in ways few could have imagined as recently as two years ago. When America, the most imaginative nation on Earth, surprises itself we must catch our breath, marvel at ourselves and indulge in a small blush of pride.

I can tell you the reason I am rhapsodizing about this moment. Here in the press room outside the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, many in press row are bored. On a typical debate scale, this encounter is not an edge-of-your-seat affair. The debate is certainly calmer and more substantive than the Myrtle Beach knife fight. That’s to be expected, because politicians are normatively cautious and any two politicians taking part in something THAT’S NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE are even more prone to proceed with care.

And so Clinton and Obama did.

And yet, the debate was not without its high points.

I won’t grade the debate or the performances because tonight the larger issue is the event itself and what it represents. History will record the tableau, not the transcript.

Clinton and Obama dissected each other’s health care plans carefully and fairly. Clinton knows, because she believes in it and the polls reflect it, that pushing hard for universal health care is the way to appeal bedrock Democratic values and voters. When she said anything less will be “picked apart” she not only issued a warning but rallied party foot-soldiers who don’t want to fight for a concept, but an absolute.

This is not to say that Obama lost the health care debate. The voters will decide which approach is better. Whn Obama argues the first priority is to lower costs, he raises an important but politically less-resonant point. His formula takes longer to explain and exposes him to criticism that his plan is built on a fragile foundation where an estimated 15 million adults would still lack health insurance coverage. Based on conversations I’ve had with voters, however, it seems that if Obama loses ground on substance he makes it up on style. Obama voters and those on the fence tend to believe that a larger political coalition is required before universal health care or something close to it can be achieved. They also tend to believe Obama can create that coalition and Clinton cannot.

On Iraq, it’s hard for The Bourbon Room to detect a tectonic shift tonight (hey, I was born in San Diego and can indulge in one earthquake metaphor without penalty). Most Democratic voters understand Clinton and Obama will end the Iraq war more rapidly than any Republican nominee, especially if the nominee is, as appears more and more likely, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Obama supporters were drawn to him first because he opposed the war from the start. When Clinton declined again to say her vote for the Iraq war authorization was a “mistake” she re-enforced why many Obama supporters are where they are. In Super Tuesday states where some voters may be tuning into the campaign for the first time, this could reintroduce the central weakness in Clinton’s “experience” argument. Clinton strategists, however, believe she’s already lost all the votes she’s going to lose on this issue.

On the economy, differences were substantive but not remotely combative. Obama could have used his stump speech lines about Clinton’s original stimulus plan failing to demand tax rebates or credits. Clinton could have said she was warning about a recession long before Obama and put together the first substantive stimulus plan of any major candidate. Both left that ammunition under the table.

On immigration, the most important point is that both were far more willing to talk freely about comprehensive solutions. The reason? The rise of McCain. On driver’s licenses, the differences were gently highlighted and both scored a key point — Obama that Clinton flip-flopped; Clinton that a week after the Philadelphia debate Obama couldn’t authoritatively state his position. More important was how they enthusiastically spoke of a comprehensive solution and how readily they condemned the “anti-amnesty” politics that killed immigration reform (and nearly McCain’s candidacy) earlier this year. The change in tone and temperament matches McCain’s own improbable comeback. Clinton and Obama have begun to conclude that the immigration monster either will die because will be the GOP nominee or that it will be relegated to angry third-party splinter movement (a plus for the Democrats either way).

On the running-mate issue, both turned it away easily and for good reason. At the end of this campaign Clinton and Obama will stand as enormous figures — not only in their party but in American political history. If Clinton prevails, she will seek a vice president with complementary skills, temperament and, most importantly, a keen understanding of the lesser role the vice president must play in her White House. The same is true of Obama.

Why?

Because if either is elected president, all of the old measurements will disappear. Every move Clinton or Obama makes will be historic. The focus on their presidencies will be, if possible, even more intense, personal and urgent. Under these circumstances, the centrality of the office will require a vice president eager to accept a secondary role in a new march of history. Any whiff of competition or hidden agenda will not only rankle the president, the president’s senior staff and cabinet, but the party hierarchy and the rank-and-file. It’s The Bourbon Room’s hunch that a large swath of the public will live vicariously through a Clinton or Obama presidency. Hopes will be high. The stakes will be high. The next vice president must be devoted as perhaps no vice president has been before to the task of making history work for the new president and the many things he or she will represent. Also, an Obama and Clinton presidency will also require massive legislative support on Capitol Hill. That will require skills in the cloakroom and the ability to hit the road and rally the public on behalf of the new president’s agenda. For this reason, a president Clinton will need a Senator Obama far more than a Vice President Obama. And a President Obama will need a Senator Clinton far more than a Vice President Clinton.

Lastly, for those who wonder if Obama or Clinton would need each other to defeat the Republican nominee (probably McCain), I can only say that most top Democratic strategists (those in both campaigns and those who remain neutral) tell me because Clinton and Obama break the mold, each will win or lose ENTIRELY on their own merits. The vice presidential pick, these strategists agree, will matter even less than before — which is next to not at all.

[baseballlibertarian]

South Carolina Debate

The debate’s ferocity set a new standard for Democratic combativeness.

What America saw tonight was all of the pent up opposition research from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards spill out on stage as if from a giant, perforated spleen at the Republican National Committee.

Already, Democrats with loyalties in this race and some who remain neutral have fretted to The Bourbon Room that the biggest winner tonight was the likely Republican nominee (Edwards said it would be John McCain). Yet other Democrats found the debate tense but mild when compared to Democratic campaigns of yore.

The debate will test what the campaigns have been unwilling to test on the airwaves — the effectiveness of direct, personal attacks on each other. Every perceived weakness came under assault and each candidate left the stage more bloodied than he or she arrived.

The debate’s greatest contribution was the time alloted for lengthy rebuttal. This gave the debate some of its most sizzling intensity and allowed for dramatic policy contrasts (such as on universal health care, trade and approaches to economic stimulus).

Winners and losers can’t be tabulated based solely on the debate performance.

If they could be, Edwards would again emerge as the clear winner. His crisp, passionate specificity again outshone Clinton and Obama. This is undoubtedly the kind of joust Edwards desperately needed in Iowa, where he still had a fighting chance to win the nomination. If this debate happened in Iowa, Edwards could have contrasted himself against the aggressively nagging and negative Obama-Clinton interplay that dominated the first hour of tonight’s debate (of course, this kind of debate would never have happened in Iowa which is always why Edwards never actually had a chance in this race).

Sadly for Edwards and his diminishing band of supporters, his performance tonight, while cogent, will probably most be remembered for providing either comedic relief or a welcome respite from the Clinton-Obama sniping. The debate could boost Edwards in South Carolina, but since he’s so far behind here it’s unlikely to propel him to victory.

The key question, then, is if Edwards rises who suffers? Clinton or Obama? The Bourbon Room surmises the votes will most likely come from Clinton.

And that’s not because Obama beat Clinton. I’d call their battle a draw on points. But if Edwards rises as a result of tonight’s strong performance, he will more likely take support from Clinton because the arc of the debate highlighted her deep ties to lobbyists, her support for the Iraq war and, in general, the exaggerated criticisms she or her husband have leveled at Obama. Also, on issues where the three did not argue - such as poverty, Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy, and Toni Morrison’s musings on the blackness of the Clinton presidency — Obama and Edwards were more confidently and naturally eloquent. Clinton didn’t stumble in these moments, but Obama and Edwards out-performed her.

Obama probably lost ground on health care because “universal” vs. “non-universal” polls off the charts with core Democrats (they want universal and, at bare minimum, the fight to START with the goal of universal coverage).

Clinton probably lost ground on Iraq and the stimulus. On the war, criticizing Obama for voting for war funds doesn’t make him a pro-war. Plenty of other anti-war liberals have voted to fund the troops fighting the war. That doesn’t make them pro-war. It makes them accountable to powerless volunteers who didn’t ask to fight the war, merely to have the equipment to prosecute it as best as they can. On economic stimulus, Clinton was first to unveil a comprehensive plan. But that plan did not highlight tax rebates. Hillary said they were held in reserve to avoid tempting congressional Republicans to reopen that debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. As Hillary must know, that was going to happen anyway. Also, many economists fear her call for a five-year freeze on mortgage loan interest rates will drive up the cost of future mortgages and thereby further delay any rebound in the housing market.

Edwards lost ground on trade and the bankruptcy bill, but since these issues are largely peripheral, the damage was less severe.

In summary, Edwards gained tonight. And since he and Obama sounded more like “change” than Hillary, his rise will probably take more from Clinton on Saturday than from Obama.

Obama held his own in the toe-to-toe fight with Clinton. The underdog, which Obama is nationally, always wins when the favorite hits hard and he doesn’t crumble. Also, Obama sounded more high notes among likely African American voters in South Carolina’s primary (where their turnout could easily exceed 50 percent) .

Clinton scored points but took several stylistic hits (drawing the occasional boo) and oddly acted as if Obama was more of a threat now than he was in Iowa or New Hampshire. She also appeared uncomfortable defending her husband’s recently aggressive line of attack on Obama (no one compares Bill Clinton to Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards in the surrogate wars).

In summary, Edwards gave his candidacy a boost. Obama took Clinton’s best shots and survived. Clinton acted as if she hadn’t won the last two contests and regained her aura of inevitability and combativeness suits the challenger better than the front-runner.

[baseballlibertarian]

Nevada Turnout Very High

Anecdotal reports abound of heavy turnout at Democratic caucus sites and confusion evident over which site is the correct one for caucus-goers. Calls are flooding into the Nevada Democratic Party call-in center at the Cashman Center near downtown. Turnout could easily top the 40,000 state party operatives set as a goal of “successful” turnout.

Early results show Hillary Clinton leading in vote-rich Clark County but running neck-and-neck with Barack Obama statewide. Eighty percent of likely turnout to come from metropolitan Las Vegas (Clark County) and Reno.

One source of confusion: there are more tan 1,700 precincts but only 520 caucus locations. That means several precincts conduct caucuses at the same location. High schools, for example are conducting one precinct caucus in the cafeteria, another in the auditorium and another in the gymnasium. In rare instances, precinct caucuses will be held outside on the a high school football field. As you can appreciate, moving people to the proper caucus site would be a big chore for caucus volunteers well-versed in the precinct machinery. It could prove frustrating and paralyzing for people pressed into service at the last minute who are unfamiliar with the rules, procedures and logistics.

This problem will not go away today and is likely to spark some grousing about the final results.

But it won’t be the only grousing, I predict.

Early Fox entrance polls suggest Hillary Clinton may do well today, but those entrance polls do NOT reflect sentiments expressed by caucus-goers heading into the nine at-large precincts in casinos located on or near the Las Vegas Strip. Since the casinos are private property, entrance poll takers were not allowed to engage the rank-and-file casino shift workers heading into their caucuses.

Even so, Clinton had a nine-point lead going into the caucuses in the Review-Journal poll and there’s no evidence yet — in the entrance polls, precinct-by-precinct turnout reports, or turnout in the casino-based caucus sites — to indicate she’s lost that much ground to Obama in the closing hours.

Tags: Clinton, Obama

[baseballlibertarian]

Nevada Tea Leaves

I worked in Las Vegas as a reporter for the Review-Journal newspaper from 1986 to 1988 and appreciate the disdain all Nevadans have for cheap gambling metaphors glibly deployed by national reporters when discussing ANY Nevada-based story.

Tempting though it may be, I will avoid the corny gambling cliches as I describe the feeling on the ground here just about two hours before the Democratic caucuses begin.

First, there is some degree of unease in the Barack Obama camp about today’s result.

Second, I detect no preemptive triumphalism in the Clinton camp.

Third, the unions here are at daggers drawn and things could get a bit hostile at caucus sites on and off the Las Vegas Strip before the day is done.

Fourth, the Latino vote looms largest as the subset of voters most likely to determine the outcome. Public polls and internal polls in both campaigns show that vote splitting at least 65-35 for Clinton over Obama. The size of this turnout could spell the difference between victory and defeat.

Fifth, the Culinary Workers Union local 226 is, as expected, pulling out all the stops to help Obama win. But there is rising concern that two factors may limit Culinary’s clout in this hard-fought contest:

A. The endorsement may have come too late to translate the union’s organizing power into massive pro-Obama turnout (remember this fact: it’s much easier for a union to unify and mobilize its members on behalf of a fight for wages and benefits than it is on behalf of a political candidate their membership has little or no intrinsic commitment to). A key question looming over today’s caucuses is whether the Culinary endorsement was so close to the caucuses - just 10 days out — that there wasn’t time to fully mobilize union members on Obama’s behalf.

B. The lawsuit filed against the at-large precincts in nine casinos may have had two salutary affects on the Clinton campaign: the first, creating enough confusion about the process to render Culinary’s aggressive last-minute organizing less effective; and second, deepening pro-Clinton sentiment among Culinary members who disagreed with leadership’ s Obama endorsement. Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton just swept through the MGM casino and received a very warm reception among rank-and-file casino workers who eagerly grabbed leaflets Bill and Chelsea handed out explaining casino workers can caucus for any candidate — not just Obama.

Sixth, Rory Reid, son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and leader of Hillary’s Nevada effort, has never wavered in his belief Nevada was winnable for Clinton. Right not, he appears as calmly confident as anyone in the Clinton camp. To his credit, Rory was calm even in the panic that set in when team Clinton feared it might lose New Hampshire and debated whether to fight hard for Nevada. Reid assured senior Clinton advisers Hillary could win no matter what happened in New Hampshire. Victory is by no means assured for Clinton here, but Rory may have been the one to keep his emotions in check the best and that, in the end, may prove very beneficial to Clinton.

Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Chelsea Cinton, Culinary workers union, Hillary Clinton

[baseballlibertarian]

Keeping An Eye on the Ball

Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses. The turnout was massive, well above 115,000 and far and above any pre-caucus predictions (except those of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who was closer than anyone with a prediction six months ago of 100,000).

Massive turnout did not propel Barack Obama to victory, as it did in the Iowa caucuses. In two consecutive states (New Hampshire and Nevada), large turnout has lifted Clinton and lifted her where it matters most — among core Democratic constituencies such as labor households, women, and Latinos and lower income households. Yes, Hillary had the support of most of the state’s most prominent state and county Democrats and once led by as many as 25 points two months ago. Obama did close the gap and gave Clinton a tough race. But he still lost. Wins and losses leave consequences in their wake.

In politics generally and in this race particularly, some things matter more than others. Two-straight victories for Hillary based on core party voting blocks means more than the current stir here about Nevada’s delegate allocation.

Right now, the Clinton and Obama camps are arguing over who won the most delegates in Nevada. The issue in Nevada is how delegates will be apportioned from urban centers and rural counties. Obama won 10 of Nevada’s 16 counties and carried the sparsely populated rural counties by lopsided margins and thus may collect more delegates than Hillary, even though she won the turnout and precinct battle .

Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby disputes this and she should know. Here is Derby’s statement: “Just like in Iowa what was awarded today were delegates to the county convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

Delegates matter in the big picture, but this dispute is a side-show and here is why: Nevada had 25 pledged delegates to allocate and either Clinton won 13 and Obama won 12 or just the opposite occurred. One delegate either way doesn’t move the needle in any important way.

Whoever captures the Democratic nomination will need to win 2,025 delegates. Viewed in isolation, Nevada is a fraction of that amount. And a one delegate shift between 13 to 12 doesn’t change the trajectory or strategy of this race nearly as much as Hillary’s victory in the raw turnout and precinct-by-precinct contests.

Nevada is about momentum and electability. Hillary leaves Nevada with more of both than she arrived with. That’s what matters. Hillary lost two things in Iowa — the aura of inevitability and the sense that she was genuinely the most electable Democrat. With her New Hampshire and Nevada victories, Hillary can now more credibly assert she is at least as electable — and possibly more electable - than Obama.

Clinton won the union vote here by carrying 7 of the 9 casino-based at-large caucus precincts even though the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama and applied intense last-minute pressure to mobilize their members on Obama’s behalf. As The Bourbon Room observed before the caucuses commenced, there is every reason to believe the Culinary endorsement came too late to push Obama across the finish line first. It also means that Hillary arrived in Nevada with a pre-existing following among Culinary workers and their loyalty translated when and where it mattered most — on caucus day and at their assigned precincts. That was especially true among Latino members of Culinary. Of today’s caucus turnout, Latinos comprised 15 percent. Of those, 64 percent voted for Clinton and 26 percent for Obama.

The Latino vote in internal campaign polls before the race had a roughly 65 percent to 35 percent Clinton/Obama split. Notice, Clinton’s actual performance closely matched the pre-caucus polls but Obama’s did not.

It may be that the UNITE radio ad that described Clinton tactics here in the form of a law suit filed against the at-large precinct caucus sites as “shameless” and showing a lack of “respect” backfired on Obama. Of course, Obama’s campaign had nothing to do with the content of the ad, but Obama could have denounced the ad’s content as Clinton’s camp requested. When it did not, Obama gave rise to the perception that he agreed with the ad script which both John Edwards and team Clinton regarded as malicious and out-of-bounds.

If the Nevada race reverberates anywhere other than South Carolina, it’s in California. The Clinton campaign worked very hard to make sure Spanish radio and television were aware of her Latino outreach and the nasty nature of the UNITE radio spot. As one senior aide put it to The Bourbon Room, “we’ve been attached at the waist to Univision and Spanish radio for the last couple of days.” Pro-Clinton surrogates with deep ties to the Latino community, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaragosa and Delores Huerta chief among them, intend to leverage Hillary’s strong Latino showing and the Obama-sanctioned hardball on Spanish radio. Why? To motivate Latino voters in California, the biggest prize by far on the 22-state Super Tuesday calendar (370 pledged delegates).

For these reasons, some things matter more in Nevada than delegate allocations. The Bourbon Room has attempted to listed the most important.

[baseballlibertarian]

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to Endorse Obama

The Bourbon Room has learned from top Democratic sources that six-term U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a staunch defender of President Bill Clinton during the GOP-led impeachment, will endorse Barack Obama for president during an 11 a.m. EST conference call.

Leahy will appear on the conference call with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Leahy is the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and also led the fight against GOP efforts to delay and some cases deny confirmation of Clinton-nominated federal judges during the final two years of the Clinton presidency.

Leahy also opposed the Iraq war resolution and has been at the forefront of Democratic criticism of President Bush’s detention policies for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the Bush “terrorist surveillance” program.

Leahy also helped negotiate the first Patriot Act and was instrumental in reauthorizing the law with changes that reduced the federal government’s power to search library and personal records of American citizens implicated but not charged in terrorist investigations.

Elected in 1974, Leahy is Vermont’s longest serving senator and was among te first in the Senate to have an official website (launched in 1995) and in 2003 was the first senator to launch a personal blog “More from the floor.”

Tags: Bill Clinton, impeachment, Iraq, Leahy, Obama

[baseballlibertarian]

Robert Johnson apologizes to Obama

In a release that just hit the wires, Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television and prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, apologized to Barack Obama for recently implying that while the Clintons were fighting for civil rights, Obama was taking drugs.

With Hillary looking on at an event in Columbia, South Carolina, on Jan. 13, Johnson said:

“I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved.”

Obama admitted experimenting with marijuana and cocaine in his book “Dreams from my Father.” Johnson’s comments caused quite a stir. He initially defended them, saying he was referring only to Obama’s time as a community organizer - an explanation that neither Obama’s campaign nor many hosts of many black talk radio shows accepted. At the same event, Johnson compared Obama to Sidney Portier in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” At Tuesday’s debate here in Las Vegas, Hillary Clinton first defended Johnson’s explanation but also said his remarks were out of bounds.

Today Johnson released the following statement:

“I am writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the uncalled for comments I made at a recent Clinton event. In my zeal to support Senator Clinton I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail.”

Tags: apology, Black Entertainment Television, Clinton, Drugs, Obama, Robert Johnson

[baseballlibertarian]

Federal Judge Upholds Casino Caucus Sites

U.S. District Judge James Mahan ruled against the Nevada State Education Association and other plaintiffs seeking to eliminate nine-casino based at-large precincts for Saturday’s presidential preference caucuses.

Mahan told a packed courtroom on that “I don’t think it’s up to me to second guess” the legally established right of state and national parties to establish rules for presidential caucuses. “That’s why we have political parties,” Mahan said. “It’s a vital part of who we are as Americans. These are vital issues.”

Mahan invited the Nevada Democratic Party and the state education association to reach an out-of-court compromise on participation for custodians and other support personnel to participate in caucuses held at schools they must open and supervise.

Jill Derby, chairman of the Nevada Democratic Party, told reporters after Mahan’s ruling there would be no compromise. “There will be no change in the process,” Derby said. “We believe this is a fair allocation and we’re very committed to it.”

Derby said Democrats would unite in the aftermath of the ruling, even though the lawsuit exposed rifts in the party and was widely seen as a proxy war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

The lawsuit was filed two days after the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 endorsed Barack Obama. The plaintiffs did not formally endorse Clinton’s campaign, but senior members of the Nevada State Education Association back Hillary and the law firm that handled the suit has as one of its prominent attorneys former Democratic congressman Jim Bilbray, a Clinton supporter.

‘”I don’t think it’s been helpful,” Derby said of the antagonism the suit generated between the Clinton and Obama camps. “But we’ll pull together.”

Lynn Warne, president of the teachers union, said she was “disappointed” in the ruling because she said it created an unfair opportunity for casino shift workers represented by Culinary to participate in the Saturday caucuses at the special at-large sites while other workers — specifically her janitors — would have to return to their neighborhood-based precincts to participate, something they cannot do while they supervise caucus activities at the schools where they serve as janitors.

Derby said the party established the casino-based caucus sites to assist tens of thousands of workers participate.

The caucus rules were first established by the state Democratic party in March and formally approved by the Democratic National Committee in October. During the court hearing today, the DNC said if the nine at-large caucus sites were abolished Nevada might lose all of its presidential nominating delegates.

Mark Ferrario, the attorney who represented the teachers union and other plaintiffs, told reporters he was not sure if an appeal will be filed.

Tags: casinos, Clinton, Culinary Workers, DNC, Nevada State Education Association, Obama

[baseballlibertarian]

Nevada Expectations: Rory Reid v. David Axelrod

The Bourbon Room caught up with Rory Reid, son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and head of Hillary Clinton’s Nevada campaign, and senior Obama adviser David Axelrod to discuss Saturday’s Nevada caucuses.

Reid: “Anyone who tells you knows what turnout is going to be is lying because nobody knows. We believe Democrats are energized and this is an exciting process for Nevada Democrats, but we just don’t know how that is going to translate on caucus day. Hillary Clinton has a strong identity in Nevada and has attracted a lot of support because of her work on Yucca Mountain (the nuclear waste repository the vast majority of Nevadans don’t want) and her push for an economic stimulus bill that will help southern Nevadans deal with the mortgage crisis. We feel very good about where we are in this campaign.”

Axelrod: “I’ve always felt that we were fighting from behind here because she has most of the establishment with her. We’re the challengers, we’re the insurgents, we’re taking on the party establishment. I’ve heard (turnout) estimates from 25,000 to 100,000 so it’s almost impossible to predict. There’s no voter history here. But I do believe she has structural advantages here that are formidable and we will have to overcome them.”

Handicapping Saturday’s Nevada caucuses would be difficult under the best circumstances. Considering the turbulence of the fight for the Democratic nomination so far, predictions about Nevada are riskier than any wager in a state famous for them.

The biggest variable here is turnout. No one knows what it will be. In 2004 energized Democratic turnout was 9,000 for caucuses that everyone knew would have no affect on the race because John Kerry was clearly en route to the nomination.

A long time ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the biggest players in Nevada capturing its coveted third-in-line status among early caucus and primary states, said turnout could be as high as 100,000. Talk about betting the farm. There are about 412,000 registered Democrats here and a 100,000 turnout would constitute caucus attendance of roughly 25 percent of registered Democrats.

I am not aware of a precedent anywhere in American history of a state achieving turnout that high in its first competitive presidential caucus. Most Nevada pros are assuming caucus attendance will follow the Iowa model, in which about 10 percent of registered Democrats participated when Iowa’s nominating caucuses first became competitive and nationally meaningful.

Considering the energy and excitement this race has generated among Democrats, it wouldn’t be illogical to assume turnout could be as high as 15 percent of registered Democrats. If you accept the 10 percent to 15 percent turnout model, you would then expect between 41,000 and 62,000 Democrats to participate. But there are other factors that could keep turnout down, among the distractions embedded in a three-day Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend; confusion about where to caucus, and the simple lack of a caucus culture that motivates people to take an hour out of their Saturday morning to attend.

All this makes campaigns uneasy because the only thing more nerve-wracking than bad polls numbers is poll numbers you can’t trust because you can’t confidently create a reliable turnout model. That’s where the Clinton and Obama camps find themselves now.

Tags: Clinton, David Axelrod, Harry Reid, iowa, Obama, Rory Reid, turnout

[baseballlibertarian]

Nevada Debate Impressions, Volume 3

Edwards admits he should not have voted for a 2001 “bankruptcy reform” bill. Clinton agrees but, unlike, Edwards points out the bill never became law — softening the blow of Russert’s question quoting a top consumer group describing Clinton’s vote as the “death knell” for pro-consumer bankruptcy reform. Clinton tries to push the debate to Nevada, saying blacks and latinos here are stressed by the mortgage meltdown. Obama rises above both by being the only one to say he opposed the 2001 bankruptcy bill in concept and voted against the 2005 bill while in the Senate. Obama said both were pushed “by the credit card companies” and his opposition grew out of skepticism of their motives and general unease with special interest power in D.C.

On mortgage crisis, Clinton deftly and confidently describes the components of her economic stimulus plan. She comes close as I can ever recall to reaching the heights of intellectual synergy her husband often achieved by combining policy specifics with real-world examples the average person can comprehend. This was by far Clinton’s best moment in the debate and, I imagine, swayed the minds of some undecided voters and probably came as reassuring music to the ears of slightly wavering Clinton supporters hungry to be reminded of why they were drawn to her in the first place.

On the ask-your-opponent segment, Clinton makes a transparent attempt to erase any distance between her and Obama on Iraq by asking him to embrace her legislation to challenge President Bush on Iraq benchmarks, troop deployments and permanent bases.

Obama agrees immediately, but underscores his long-standing opposition to the Iraq war, defying Clinton’s desire to minimize the distance between the two. On troop withdrawals, Clinton leans more aggressively toward withdrawing U.S. troops within a year, offering the caveat she always does that she will move “carefully and responsibly” but can move almost all out within a year. Edwards says he’s the only one to eliminate combat missions and eliminate any prospect of permanent military bases, calling the differences between himself and Obama and Clinton important and telling. Edwards said combat forces and military bases “continue the occupation” in Iraq. Obama says it’s important to keep the option of combat forces on the table to deal with potential Al Qaeda uprisings, but concedes Edwards point that a strike team might also be stationed in Kuwait to handle such operations. Since this issue has been so thoroughly vetted and appears to be falling behind the economy in the minds of most Democratic voters, this exchange will probably not move many votes.

Tags: bankruptcy, Clinton, economic stimulus, Edwards, Iraq, mortgage, Obama

[baseballlibertarian]

Nevada Debate Impressions, Volume 2

Debate appears bogged down on impressionistic themes — now nearly a half an hour in and the panel is still hashing out vague and largely personality-driven assessments of the candidates. This may be inevitable because of the sense that so much issue terrain has been covered by previous debates. It may also reflect how personal the race has become in the past week.

Clinton appears less-than-comfortable explaining her “false hopes’” line of attack against Obama and leaves it “up for the voters to decide” if Obama and Edwards are capable of being president. Obama also appeared bogged down having to explain his comments to the Reno Gazette-Journal newspaper that he wouldn’t be a chief operating officer type of president. He explained that he sees the job as largely about setting a tone, setting a course and creating a movement to pursue it.

Clinton immediately warmed up to the topic and scored a hard punch suggesting Obama was describing a hands-off approach to the presidency reminiscent of President Bush’s. Clinton said a president needed to set a course of action but also get knee-deep in the details. “I think you have to do both,” she declared crisply. Obama, sensing a successful strike from Clinton, denied he would bring a Bushian approach to the office. He promised a more intellectually curious and probing presidency, one that would not go to war in Iraq “without asking the tough questions” and thoroughly examining all the intelligence (pro and con). Thus Obama elevated his judgment argument on Iraq to parry Clinton’s jab on his leave-the-paper-pushing-to-someone-else view of the presidency. This exchange may prove among the most interesting to voters watching the debate. But here’s a prediction it won’t make it into many debate articles or TV summaries.

Tags: Bush, Clinton, Edwards, Iraq, Obama

[baseballlibertarian]

Nevada Debate Impressions

Race question right out of the blocks. Hillary says she and Barack Obama called the truce. Obama called for it on camera, Hillary followed with a statement — not exactly the same thing and important since Hillary’s camp often accurately points out Obama follows Hillary’s lead on some issues — health care and economic stimulus to name just two.Obama tries to rise above the race issue and get back to the terrain that has been safest for him all along — that of transcending race and seeking to build a bigger coalition. Edwards weighs in tangentially on the side of Obama by highlighting role of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  and those who conducted lunch counter sit-ins, not the legislative dexterity and power of former President Lyndon Johnson.On Tim Russert’s question of his campaign’s involvement in pushing the race story by highlighting comments from Clinton surrogates that had a racial component, Obama appeared to concede the point that his camp bore some responsibility and pledged to set a non-racial tone going forward. Obama also rejected the theory that in New Hampshire the difference between the polls and the final result had something to do with whites lying to pollsters about supporting Obama but voting for Clinton in private.  Obama’s comfort level can be described as minimally comfortable. He tried mightly, again, to steer it back to the change dynamic.Russert’s question to Clinton about Robert Johnson’s reference to what Obama was “doing in the neighborhood” that he wouldn’t described, Clinton said his comments were out of bounds but said in the campaign it mattered less what someone “none of us have ever heard of” said, but what the candidates themselves say. Johnson, one of the most successful media moguls (white or black) in American history, might be surprised to hear Clinton refer to him in that way. Johnson’s comments were widely interpreted as a reference to Obama’s admitted drug use (marijuana and cocaine) as a teen. Johnson later said he was referring to Obama’s work as a community organizer, an explanation neither the Obama camp nor many black talk radio hosts accepted.

Tags: Clinton, Drugs, Edwards, Obama, race and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Johnson

[baseballlibertarian]

Ariz. Gov. Napolitano to Endorse Obama

Two-term Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, the first woman to ever lead the National Governors’ Association, will endorse Barack Obama’s presidential campaign later today, The Bourbon Room has learned.

Napolitano has scheduled a televised press conference in Arizona for later today and will follow up with a telephone conference call organized by Obama’s campaign.

The endorsement gives Obama a nice boost in Nevada, where Napolitano is highly regarded among party regulars and has a higher visibility than most neighboring governors among those with a passing interest in politics — i.e., likely caucus attendees on Jan. 19.

Napolitano was named by Time magazine recently as one of the nation’s top five governors and was the first governor to deploy National Guard forces to the border to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

Napolitano also pushed for and won the creation of voluntary all-day kindergarten. She also raised teacher salaries and boosted health insurance coverage for children. While not identical, these innovations resemble concepts Obama has stressed on the campaign trail.

Obama is looking to convey to party insiders that the New Hampshire primary setback wasn’t devastating and that he’s still in the ballgame. The string of Obama endorsements since leaving New Hampshire has been impressive from a party-insider perspective: Culinary Union 226 in Las Vegas, Nevada Service Employee International Union, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Rep. George Miller of California and, now, Napolitano.

Do these endorsement moves votes? Culinary and SEIU in Nevada will make an enormous difference in the Jan. 19 caucuses — probably the decisive difference. Kerry brings an e-mail list of donors and cachet among rank-and-file Democrats who may still have doubts about Obama’s readiness for the Oval Office. With Miller in northern California, Obama gets a congressman with something few others have — a real political organization that can deliver votes. Miller’s also House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top lieutenant and that association, even if arms length, helps Obama among party regulars.

Tags: Kerry, Miller, Napolitano, Pelosi, SEIU

[baseballlibertarian]

Shake-Up Imminent in Clinton Camp

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is due for a significant shake-up after an expected defeat in New Hampshire in Tuesday’s first-in-the-nation primary.Senior Clinton sources told FOX News that no one will be fired who has been part of Clinton’s effort to date, but numerous advisers from Bill Clinton’s White House and presidential campaigns will take on voluntary advisory roles likely to overshadow the input of Hillary’s current team.

Among those now expected to join Hillary’s post-New Hampshire team: Hillary’s former Chief of Staff Maggie Williams, former Clinton White House political adviser Doug Sosnick and high-profile Democratic ad specialist Roy Spence.

The Clinton campaign has engaged in frequent conversations with former top Bill Clinton political advisers James Carville and Paul Begala and is eager to bring them aboard. FOX News first reported that Hillary was actively considering bringing Carville and Begala into the fold as volunteer, day-to-day advisers.

Carville and Begala have denied seeking or anticipating any role in Hillary’s campaign. But senior Clinton sources say the move remains under active considertion and is driven by President Clinton’s intense desire to revamp Hillary’s flagging bid for the presidency.

Carville, sources said, drafted and submitted to Hillary’s campaign a memo outlining how to turn her effort around. Carville speaks frequently with Bill Clinton and lately no topic, sources say, has been higher on th agenda than the state of Hillary’s campaign.

The Clinton shake-up could occur as early as tonight, though the announcement may not be immeidate.

Clinton’s senior strategist, Mark Penn, will remain on the campaign, as will current campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, though their roles will be less prominent in the wider circle of advisers Hillary now intends to bring on board.

All the new volunteer advisers are believed to be committed to Hillary through the Feb. 5 national primary.

Many other prominent Democrats from Bill Clinton’s political past have turned down roles in Hillary’s campaign, fearing it may be impossible to turn her star-crossed effort around.

The shakeup appears to be a last-ditch effort to revive Clinton’s fortunes and give her contributers and supporters some rason for hope after two devestating early defeats.

[baseballlibertarian]

Begala Writes The Bourbon Room

I know you’re swamped and I hate to bother you on such a busy news day, but whoever told you I am joining Hillary’s campaign fed you some bum info. It’s just not true. Or as I say to my boys, N.H.D. Not. Happening. Dude.

I am not coming in as a volunteer, or as an adviser or as a strategist or anything else. I have contributed to her campaign, and am convinced she would be a great President. But I am not joining the campaign in any form or fashion.

Thanks a lot.

All best,

Paul Begala

The sourcing on the story is impeccable and its been confirmed through other, external sources very close to the Clinton campaign. The story has always said this is a matter that has to be finalized in a shake-down meeting tomorrow after what is expected to be a bruising Clinton loss here in New Hampshire.

The final decision is due tomorrow but the current intention, as The Bourbon Room first reported, is to bring Begala and Clinton on board as day-to-day strategists on a volunteer basis.

One of the realities of political coverage, is denials fly until the press release is out. There’s no press release on this. It is in development and that’s always the way The Bourbon Room has reported it.

The topic of bringing Carville and Begala on board was first raised in a Clinton conference call yesterday, a call in which two very credible sources tell me Begala and Carville participated.

Other big names from Bill’s era of politics are also under consideration, including Doug Sosnick and former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg. Everything in a campaign is fluid, especially in one where so much has gone so wrong so quickly.

[baseballlibertarian]

Back to the Future: Carville & Begala to join Clinton campaign

It’s back to the future at Hillary Clinton’s campaign as some of the top advisers to former President Clinton are set to join to Hillary’s faltering campaign as early as tomorrow.Senior Clinton sources tell Fox that Hillary intends to bring in as top day-to-day advisers James Carville and Paul Begala. The campaign could also add other strategists from Clinton’s presidential years, but Carville and Begala are the biggest names and are set to join the campaign after a post-New Hampshire strategy meeting tomorrow.Carville and Begala will serve as top strategists on politics and communication and likely overshadow the current role of Mark Penn, Hillary’s senior strategist, and Patty Solis Doyle, Hillary’s current campaign manager. Top sources tell Fox Hillary won’t fire anyone but will merely seek to “enlarge” her pool of advisers.One Democratic described it as “addition by subtraction.” The subtraction won’t come in the form of lost jobs, but lost influence, meaning Carville and Begala’s strategic advise will now carry greater weight than that of the original team that devised a strategy that has led to a defeat in the Iowa caucuses and a likely defeat in tonight’s New Hampshire primary.

The Clinton team fully expects to lose New Hampshire tonight and will attempt to argue that anything less than a 10-point loss will constitute a “moral victory.” Hillary’s surrogates will try to persuade the public that if Hillary loses by less than 10 points she will have withstood the affect of Obama’s massive post-Iowa momentum — momentum, by the way, the Clinton campaign asserted as recently as Saturday did not exist. Obviously, a loss is a loss and a loss in a state the Clinton campaign guaranteed it would wn less than four days ago, any defeat is a huge blow — no matter the magnitude.

As for the future strategy, top Clinton advisers say Hillary will attempt to compete aggressively in Nevada’s Jan. 19 caucus though she expects to lose the vital endorsement of the culinary union in Las Vegas, a vital cog in the state’s Democratic machinery. Rory Reid, son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has urged Hillary not to give up on Nevada, arguing he can keep her competitive. Even so, Clinton’s camp has begun to reconcile itself to defeat there too.

A crucial decision, therefore, awaits the campaign on the Jan. 26 South Carolina primary. Hillary may skip the state in order to save money for the Feb. 5 primaries in more than 20 states. In essence, Hillary now finds herself having to fight a rear-guard battle until the national prmary, even though less than two weeks ago she was regarded as a nearly unbeatable national front-runner.

Financially, top advisers say the campaign has enough to carry on, with staff in all states between now and February 5th paid in full and with at least $28 million in the bank. But Hllary’s campaign hasn’t purchased TV commercials in any of the Feb. 5th states, meaning resources could prove scarce as Hillary tries to move her TV message in expensive media markets in New York, California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

[baseballlibertarian]

Hillary Gets Emotional On Campaign Trail

The pressure of a surge by Barack Obama may be overwhelming Hillary Clinton as she choked up Monday unexpectedly when answering a question about how she keeps up the pace on the campaign trail.

Leave a Comment

This entry was posted on Monday, January 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm and is filed under Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Pingback by » Clinton Feels Heat, Lashes Out at Obama Ahead of New Hampshire Primary You Decide 08!

January 7th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

[…] Click here to watch the report on Clinton getting emotional. […]

Comment by Chad

January 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

ohhh, she’s good! I don’t buy it for a second! She’s desperate and is tugging at the heart strings. When Ahmadine-Whack-o-jad gets nasty…I don’t think I want a President that tears up when the times get tough and they will.

Comment by Florida gal

January 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

FOXNEWS, you should not make it soooo obvious that your an Obama “Hussein” supporter. You are doing an injustice to this country!! Keep your opinions to yourself and report the news!!

Comment by eisenmond

January 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

This is not a shocker to me. Clinton’s experience is balled up in watching her husband be president. Watching her break down due to this stress is going to be nothing comparred to those long lonely nights when your ratings are in the tank, the world is up in arms against us, and the economy is crumbling under the pressure of your increased taxes.

The only difference is that, for now, she can break down without her finger on the button!

Comment by David

January 7th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

How would she handle the pressures that the presidential office requires? This is a fatal campaign move. I can also guarantee the great presidents have shed tears during tough times…privately.

Comment by Kat

January 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Fox news has become ridiculous. I used to watch you exclusively but I can’t believe that you are taking this comment in which she was totally composed yet sincere and turning it into something weak. You are turning me toward her because of your disgusting tactics.

Comment by drew

January 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

couldn’t happen to a better person. tough when you’ve been exposed as a complete fraud!

Comment by Citizen Gal

January 7th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Reframe this: she’s talking about the democratic process, and the meaning of participating in a campaign—-her meaning and that of others running. Her voice and expression seems motivated with meaning—-emotion, yes, but not weakness. I am not going to vote for Senator Clinton, primary or otherwise, but this reporting seems like a real stretch to me. Even if she or Huckabee or Obama or McCain cry, haven’t we evolved as a nation more than this? Emotion as weakness. What baloney. GW Bush cried and cries—is he not a strong leader? No. Same, too, for Senator Clinton.

Comment by Peter Stockdale

January 7th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Next stop Hollywood with a performance like that!

Comment by Renegade

January 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

If you think this is the peak of pressure the Presidential candidates and Presidents get, think again. I don’t think it would be a good idea to vote for someone who got emotional this early in the elections.

Comment by RANDY BRIDGEMAN

January 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Mrs. Clinton is not strong enough to lead this country, in my view. We need a leader who is strong in every sense of the term. She would be better off ministering to husband Bill on a full-time basis. Pollitics is too rough and tumble for the young lady. GOD bless her, though.

Comment by David Olson

January 7th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

If Hilary gets emotional over something like Obama surging in the polls, then how will she react to a nuclear crisis? If she can’t handle the pressure of the race, then she certainly will not handle the pressure of being this country’s President. Hopefully, she will drop out of the race after she loses a few more primary elections.

Comment by Polly/Arizona

January 7th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

I don’t buy it. She is probably tired and feels sorry for herself. But as for feeling sorry for the working man and our country, she is play acting! She and husband Bill have an agenda they planned years ago and nothing will deter them from walking over anybody or anything. If she was really a good person, good things would be said about her. Nothing nice is ever said about her.

Comment by skies11

January 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Another example of her incompetence.

Comment by ChristforBarackObama

January 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

I watched the video @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfRLEvQsv9A and I’m still doubting whether she faked the tears as part of her ‘warm personality tour’ or whether she was emotional because she is too fatigued. Which makes me think she will not be ready on Day One to be our president in the White House.

Comment by Jan L.

January 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Hillary is obviously feeling overwhelmed, at least momentarily, and very, very challenged. After all, she was expecting something akin to a coronation, and now it dawns on her that she is in a genuine political decision. Do the tears make her more “human”? Sort of, but they also leave one to realize that she might not be as tough a commander-in-chief as we truly require.

Comment by Michael Thomas

January 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Well heck, Hillary, cry me a river. Just make sure it’s a river in New York, not in Arkansas or the White House.

Comment by Ken Wendt

January 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

At least she is not afraid to show her feelings. She feels strongly about this country and the direction it has gone in the past 8 years under Mr. Bush. I think the news media is blowing this out of proportion. I didn’t see any tears when I watched this.

I hope this country wakes up and puts someone in the White House that will fight for the white collar - that person is Hillary Clinton.

Comment by Elsa St-Pierre

January 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Go ahead Mrs. Clinton, you has shown compasion, love for our country, commitment , most of all humanity and soul.

I don’t see anything wrong showing emotion when we believe and love our country. We don’t need another President of the United States that doesn’t care what happen to this wonderful country, we need someone with Hart, Soul and Human emotions.

God Bless you and I am praying and hoping to be my President. Thank you very much for all your time and efforts to make us better, not only in this country but around the world.

Please help us and the United States to be “number one again”. Thank you very much. Elsa

Comment by Tom Colley

January 7th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Take a look at La Gov Kathleen Blanco at a post Katrina news conference, crying. When I saw that I knew we were in for a long bad experience and history proved me right. It goes on even as she is leaving office. Hillary gave me chills, I thought I was ahving a flashback!

Comment by T. Graves

January 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

There is no crying in baseball and there is no crying in politics. Growup.

Comment by Pattie in Parker, CO

January 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

As a Republican, I find it hard to appreciate much of anything from the Clintons. Having said that, I truly understood Hilary and her “emotional” reaction to questions regarding dealing with the enormity of this campaign. I perceived her repsonse as true passion for this country and I appreciated it. Maybe what Washington needs is a little more realistic emotion versus the scripted, rehearsed garbage we are continually force-fed from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Comment by DWilson

January 7th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

It’s obvious that Hillary is not up to the task of being President…..The President will face much more serious things in the future and we need a strong leader……

Comment by mike

January 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

I think that Hillary is showing her limit. How can she possibly lead a big and great country such as America with all thechallenges that are awaiting our country if she can not hold the pressure during her own party’s primary elections. Come on! we are not even yet in the midst of the presidential. What did she expect? Great leaders are ones who show what they are truly made of in time of challenges and pressure. Where is her smile, where is her confidence? Being the president of United States of America isn’t a easy task. She still have enough time to drop off the course if not she will become creasy before the end the primaries because the pressure has just started.

Comment by Philip Marsala

January 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Regarding Clinton’s emotions coming to surface. Because of His identification with humanity, “JESUS WEPT.” John 11:35. I’d say this verse speaks volumes regarding Jesus and all of humanity. Needless to say, there is absolutely no major reason to decry one who displays his or her tears. Needless to say, human tears may well be the spirital expression of the heart at it’s very best. Don’t knock it!

Comment by tony

January 7th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Oh, Pa-lease!!! Yeah, I want her to be my president. One day Iran goes nutty like today only worse, and she starts crying to their leaders, “Oh, this is so tough! Stop attacking us!”. Gimmie a break!

Comment by LaDonna Bangeman

January 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Okay, that’s scary. She is getting emotional over the polls on the campaign trail. Think about it folks…..is she going to cry if things don’t go well when she meets with the heads of foreign countries. I am a woman but I doubt I would ever vote to elect a woman as president. We are loving and nurturing………but we are also too EMOtional.

Comment by j

January 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Hillary can’t take the heat in the kitchen, so she should get out. Immagine her losing her temper to world leaders as she did in the debate. There are much better, more experienced people on both sides of the isle.

Pingback by The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » There’s a lifeboat waiting for Hillary, unless she jumps too late.

January 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

[…] does not look like someone who can overcome her lack of likeablity, & her little sniffle festwhen she was “talking” to the girls at that cafe in Portsmouth? Completely planned […]

Comment by jackie

January 7th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

YEAH… that’s what this country needs for a leader - an emotional cry baby

Comment by richard tyler

January 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

God help the Islamofascists if President Clinton starts her mences while in office.

Comment by James E. Settle

January 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

She is NOT qualified - she does NOT have the emotional stability - she does NOT have the judgement - she does NOT have the experiecne needed - to be President of the United State of American

Comment by John Bacon

January 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

It is about our Country! We Don’t want Hillary!

Pingback by Hillary’s Emotional Moment « FOX Embeds « FOXNews.com

January 7th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

[…] her full response from my imperfect vantage point, or check out Major Garrett reporting on the incident — complete with a head-on […]

Comment by Richard Goddard

January 7th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

I am an observer from a far distant country and feel that my views are nonpartial. However I must state here that I do not know your viewing audience very well, but do feel that if they believe you are reporting news completely in a nonbiased position they must be brainwashed, or that far into persuasion that like an adicted drug they are drawn into argreement without a reasonable question. Sorry but this comes from a person firmly in the middle of the road that can see both sides. Thank you for taking the time to read my views. A small shout from England RJ Goddard

Comment by Travis Nave

January 7th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

This will probably happen every 28-days or so if she gets elected.

Comment by Victoria

January 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Some people will say that it makes her look weaker, but I think it makes her look more human and more likeable, and may well translate into more votes from women…

Comment by LM

January 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

She is DONE!!!

You might as well stick a fork in her!!! I dont care how human, she may seem and all that. The American public does not a want a soft president.

Comment by Jeff Jacob

January 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Yeah, she’s ready to be commander in chief on day 1. NOT. Back to being the Senator from New York. Go Obama!

Comment by Steve Russell

January 7th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

This is typical Clinton trickery. Don’t think that everything she does is not scripted. She is desperate. Her one and only ambition on earth is to be the president. She probably had an advisor tell her this would make her more likeable or bring voters closer to her. Her ambition is unprecedented. She cracks a joke in Jan. 2007 about how she is used to dealing with “bad men” an obvious slam to her husband but she still stayed with him for political ambitions. Her newest rediculous line is that everyone that voted for George Bush did so because he was someone you would want to have a beer with. Personally I wouldn’t want to have a beer with someone that is a self-professed alcoholic that has turned away from that life and has become a better man for it. That shows her lack of respect for the office and the man. We all know what respect her husband had for the office. President Reagan wouldn’t walk into the oval office without his suit jacket on he had such a high reverance for the office. Clinton didn’t even feel the need to wear pants!

Comment by David Robertson

January 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Desperate times call for desperate acts, literally. This was nothing more than a staged attempt to rescue a dying campaign in New Hampshire.

David Robertson Danville Iowa 52623

Comment by Tom

January 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

go hard or go home. See ya Billary, and take Bill with y’all. Try agin in ‘02

Comment by Linda Wilson

January 7th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Poor Hillary. The Clinton’s have somehow gotten the misguided idea that they own American politics. Sorry Hill, welcome to the world of reality. If she is elected, we will go right back where we used to be just like the pictures from Iowa of her surrounded by Bill and Madelaine Albright. God help us! And what’s this about Chelsea can’t speak to the media, except to say “your cute” ? She’s an educated 27-year-old woman! Why does she need to be protected from the media. I am glad to see American is waking up and hopefully we will put the Clinton’s back where they belong. They are sickening!

Comment by Chuck

January 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

No surprises here!…. Hope all Clinton supporters remember this in November.

Comment by Lauren Delpesce

January 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

On Hillary getting emotional….give her a break! The last thing I am is a Hillary fan, but these candidates have been keeping a 24/7 pace for at least a month. Anyone could have an emotional moment. She never lost composure and quickly regained her steely demeanor. Let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill!

Comment by Melinda McAfee

January 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

I am not a fan of Hillary’s - not by a long shot - but I do think that people who campaign so relentlessly and who have invested themselves so much are bound to be subject to emotional glitches. She is tired. It might actually be a plus for someone who is perceived at times as hard, manipulative and calculating. I don’t think anything negative about her having tears in her voice any more than I would President Bush’s voice cracking when he is concerned about the troops. She cares a LOT if she makes this campaign work. Melinda in Oklahoma

Comment by Terri Garcia

January 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

And, if the Iranians point nuclear warheads at us, what will she do?? Cry? What an unfortunate display!

Comment by Brian

January 7th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Hillary gets emotional and you Fox bag on her. Well then what is arrogance but another emotion? One we have repeatedly seen from W. W is very emotional…mostly negative emotions which have twisted the American perspective into something our founding fathers and mothers would be aghast at.

Hey, emotion and passion are what founded this nation. Americans should never become robots or cyborgs, responding only to convoluted logic supported by lies and secret agendas.

You guys at Fox are incredible, and that ain’t a compliment. Yellow journalism and mud slinging. My emotion to your reporting…YUCK!

Comment by david devore

January 7th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Hillary is phoney and a loser. I still can’t figure out why my party caters to her and her adulterous husband!!!!

Comment by TS Cooke

January 7th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Major,

Your story about Hillary’s emotions makes me concerned you’ve been following her too closely, too long. You’re starting to sip the Clinton Kool-Aid.

Don’t forget Bill’s ability to manufacture emotions at opportune, made-for-TV moments, such as getting teary over the white rocks on Omaha Beach back in ‘94. Nothing about any of the Clintons is genuine. The last thing we need is for someone we count on, like you, getting sucked into their web.

Other than that, I think you and Carl Cameron are absolutely the best campaign reporters in TV history.

Major Tim Cooke, USAR (ret.) Keauhou-Kona, HI

Comment by Esther Plexico

January 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Hillary Clinton did not show weakness. She is a GENUINE person. We love you Hillary.

Comment by allen bradley

January 7th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

She is a woman. she responds like a women; not like an exective, not like a Leader, but a confusioned, disapointed, disillusioned woman who NO management no business being in the us senate let alone the white house. The spouse of a president who counts her husbands years of demonstrated political experience as Hers; at best has no concept of reality. HILLARY HAD LESS EXPERIENCE UNDER BILL THAN MONICA LEWINSKI!!!!!!!!!!!!

Better now, than later (after elected to show tlhis cruical FLAW.

Comment by Katherine

January 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

It was a breath of fresh air to see real humanity coming from a strong, multi faceted, human, woman, such as Ms. Clinton. A focused, dedicated, insightful, capable, woman forging ahead in a male dominated system that is in need braking through it’s strong hold on an old, greedy, pit of a thought system.

I believe it would be difficult for any person with humanity and emotion to deal with physical, mental and emotional exhaustion in an un-relentless, un-natural, political game.

What she showed me through this interview was humanity. I have seen where others in such a situation deal with pressures and truth with a false face, almost hidden under a cold well rehearsed, liner, non-dimensional, robotic, political responses, then head for that “end of the evening party” and a well deserved cocktail, most likely paid by “WE THE PEOPLE”

I believe “This humanity” she holds does not affect her ability in any way to lead this country. On the contrary……I see a dimension to Ms. Clinton that most candidates (with the exception of Thompson) in both parties appear to lack…..

I hope we as Humans “REALLY ” look a the mess that “WE THE PEOPLE” have allowed to unfold, while we blindly covered the eyes of our souls……selling out our future for “OIL”

I am but a pimple on the cheek of the creator…..And still I have a haunting question….. It’s the same question I had all those years ago while waiting in those long gas lines back in the 70′S ……How could we have allowed ourselves be so over powered and reliant on one commodity…..

Comment by Jan Neveu

January 7th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Although I am a Republican … I found it interesting to read about Clinton’s emotional moment … there is no room for this kind of behavior from a presidential candidate … tears are inappropriate coming from candidates on either side of the contest … I didn’t like her before … now I really don’t like her and feel that she will resort to anything to become a winner … even crying like a big baby. Or shall I say ‘tearing up’ like a bigger baby.

Comment by Lloyd Johnson

January 7th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Hillary needs to take acting lessons to try to appear to be emotional.

Comment by Julia

January 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

This really scares me…I cannot imagine a President in a world crisis and falling apart and crying or getting emotional…talk about loosing clout with the world!

Interesting…Condolesa Rice has been under heavy stress, pressure, and even attack and I have never seen her get emotional or loose it! There’s a contrast for observation.

Julia CA

Comment by Advance!

January 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Awwwww. Poor wittuw Hiwwawy don’t get to be a princess. I love it. She’s weak. We’ve known of her weakness since the Monica scandal. She’s never had what it takes to be president, she should have known better. I’d like to see her drop out, but she’ll force herself on us no matter what until she just can’t do it anymore, probably after the 8th round of recounts somewhere.

Comment by gene

January 7th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

mrs. clinton left a definite question in my mind. how would she react to a difficult negotiation if she were president ? she allowed her feminine side show. not strong in a foreign table negotiating. they now have her weak side. especially the far east where women are 2nd class citizens

Comment by mary

January 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

If she can’t stand the pressure she needs get out of the race.

Comment by Ike

January 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

When opposition comes, she gets angry. When the pressure comes up, she cries. What a mess !!!! Ready to lead? She can’t even lead her own self.

Comment by John Graham

January 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

I will start out by saying I am conservative. I have NEVER voted Democrat … and, I NEVER WILL vote for a Democrat … I couldn’t stand Bill Clinton, and I don’t like Hillary Clinton… but for the average undecided, uninformed voters who are swayed by things like Hillary almost crying and getting emotional … It will HELP HER POLL #’s. That is what this is all about. I don’t mind emotion. I like emotion. I am emotional. Some people out there will say to themselves that- that is what they were looking for … actual genuine emotion from her. And, now, they will feel more compelled to VOTE FOR HER because of it. I -actually- believed her for a moment; that she was actually human! That DOESN’T mean she should be the President of the greatest, most powerful, and most influential country in the world! Almost, to the contrary. She almost fell apart emotionally from a simple question, from an admirer, on the CAMPAIGN trail, to maybe win a PRIMARY, to maybe win enough primary’s to be on the ballot as the Democrat candidate, to maybe be elected as President of THE UNITED STATES! What would happen to her, if, GOD FORBID, she actually would become the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? There are some pretty tough questions coming your way. Thank GOD that she will never get that opportunity. I did believe her though. But…. NO… I would never vote for her.

Comment by Jean

January 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

How refreshing to see some real emotion from Hillary. I like seeing this side of her instead of the usual forced smile.

Comment by Lisa

January 7th, 2008 at 7:38 pm

While I am not a Hillary fan, I do not think this was staged…unfortunate for her that through the actions of some of her campaign people, this thought entered my mind, as well as a lot of other peoples, too. I think she gets the short end of the stick on some things that don’t seem “fair” to me, and again, I am not a supporter. While she didn’t gain the ire of so many by having a lot of these moments, I don’t wish for this to be a big issue for her, or our country.

Comment by Ed Kenneth

January 7th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Is Major reporting the news or trying to creat a story about Hill’s “crying” Why don’t you folks just report the facts and let us viewers do our own analysis? Or do you not think we are smart enough? Or maybe we whould come up with a different view then major’s? Ed

http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/hillary-gets-emotional-on-campaign-trail/#respond

Comment by Chuck

January 7th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

I just watched the video of Hillary and it made me sick to my stomach. Hillary talking about what’s good for our country and the what’s good for the future of our children? Give me a break. All Hillary cares about is what is good for Hillary.

Comment by JUDI FULKERSON

January 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

WHY IS IT CONSIDERED WEAK FOR SOMEONE TO SHOW EMOTION ABOUT THEIR COUNTRY? IT GIVES ME HOPE TO KNOW THAT HILLARY IS ABLE TO SHOW FEELINGS. ISN’T IT ABOUT TIME THAT WE LOOK COMPASSIONATELY AT WHAT WE AS HUMANS ARE DOING TO THIS EARTH AND EACH OTHER. I FIND IT DISTASTEFUL TO TRY TO CREATE NEGATIVE DRAMA JUST SO SOMEONE CAN HAVE A STORY WHEN EMOTION IS SUPPOSED TO BE WHAT MAKES US AS HUMANS ONE STEP ABOVE OTHER CREATURES ON THE EARTH.

Comment by Katherine Murray

January 7th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

It’s too much of a microscope. Campaigning can be exhausting. Hillary Clinton is a human being. Let’s move on.

Comment by Harv Holley

January 7th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

If Hillary has a MELTDOWN at this point in just running for the highest office in the land, how would she handle a REAL CRISIS when our nation and our security is being threatened?

Comment by Gervis Webb

January 7th, 2008 at 10:45 pm

I am an independant; but may god help us if Hillary Clinton becomes president of this USA. The baggage she carries of her unfaithful husband and the fact she was a part of Whitewater is too much to bear. May the Clinton’s just disappear from the political scene and bring some decency to our political process. She cares nothing for this country except for what this country can give to her. She as Bill think they are above the law in their business dealings and personal relationships; may they drown in their own ambitions. May God bless America by removing the Clinmton’s from ever governing any part of this country. Gervis Webb.

Comment by Morris Lentz

January 8th, 2008 at 12:20 am

what a fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by Niki

January 8th, 2008 at 12:24 am

IF Hillary is already showing such turmoiled emotion this early in the race, what can we expect as her being the leader of our country in the reality of the world today? I’m a woman and it is a known fact that our hormones are different from males - we cant afford for her to break down when times get tough or she gets tired - the President of the United States must always be tough!

Comment by Terry Moore

January 8th, 2008 at 1:32 am

I think this “show of emotion” was as contrived as the dance on the beach with Bill. Or the Southern Black dialect. I simply will never trust either Clinton.

Oddly enough, it crossed my mind that if she always used the same tone of voice and vocal inflections as in the “emotional” moment, she would be much more likable than with her usual strident and condescending tone of her speeches. OH NO! Please don’t tell her. The last thing Republicans need is for her to actually be LIKABLE!

Comment by Kannan

January 8th, 2008 at 2:49 am

I felt sorry for her. Some say it is a sign of wekness. I think it is a sign of her heartfelt empathy. She became emotional not when she was talking about her electoral prospects but only when she was talking about America and its future. Give her a break please.

Comment by Chris

January 8th, 2008 at 7:11 am

Whether I would vote for Hillary or not matters not. I LOVE a candidate that shows themselves human! The compassion that showed in her inflection was awesome. I have a new reverence for Hillary now. I used to think she was made of stone. I am very glad to see her compassion!! Whomever I vote for, I want to know that they care about me, my family and my country. I saw that in her today!

Comment by Jana

January 8th, 2008 at 7:22 am

Oh Please! Men are stupid! If this country wants change get men out of the White House. This is all the men saying “Oh look she’s crying”. They are worse, they are lying. Everyone needs to look at Obama on all the news reports. Look at the difference in how cockey he is acting. He acts like he has already won. Hillary keep doing what you have been doing. Stick to your program and what you believe in. He will crash and burn all on his own.

Comment by Setmose

January 8th, 2008 at 7:38 am

She’s up against Oprah Winfried, what do you expect? Look at the way she’s holding the microphone even as she is getting emotional. You couldn’t do better on an Oprah segment about chronic cheaters and the wives that stand by them. Completely manufactured.

Comment by Joan Garrison

January 8th, 2008 at 8:23 am

My comment is I am worried about Hillary,but after hearing her this morning on c span her speech yesterday, she hit on every concern that the people of the people of US are concerned about, If the independent vote for Obama, in the end they will realize that all he has said was Change, but how.Hillary has said what she will do for the people . This speech should help her get more votes in NH, and onto the other states.If Obama gets the votes, The democrats will not make it in Nov’ because of his inexpierence. Good Luck Hillary

Comment by Barbara Aiello

January 8th, 2008 at 8:44 am

Dear Friends,

Quite interesting to see how New Hampshire is shaping up. As I sit here in my studio in southern Italy, I reflect on my ex-pat status and what these primaries mean to those of us Americans who live and work in Europe. Hillary is “verklempt” over her heavy campaign schedule. Oh my. We here in Europe who watch the daily rise of Islamist extremism, who see honor killings now go vitrually unreported because there are so many of them they have become commonplace and who see unrestrained immigration and its consequent parallel societies dominate Europe’s major cities… we get the message. Blow your nose, dry your eyes and give me Giuliani and McCain.

Comment by patriciajsasha

January 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am

I don’t care about her emotion however let us not forget her campaign speech after she lost in IA. She stated it ws a game, she stated she would be the winner. She brought the on the comparision of the electorial process in our country to being as little as “a game”. After I saw that speech and heard her myself say “its a game” one day and “its not a game” the next I have offically changed my vote. I was questioning Hilary before since I didn’t care for her husbands time in office and I don’t agree with most of what she says. But I have had enough of double politics and flip floppin. So good bye Hilary.

Comment by patriciajsasha

January 8th, 2008 at 10:37 am

I was a Hilary supporter until I saw this, and not because of the break down. For those of you who are following her campaign like I was(I saw her 3 times, shook her hand twice) you will remember her speech after she came in 3rd in IA. Now in that speech she compares the election to a game. She states she will win the game of approval. She will up the stakes in “the game of politics”. That jarred with me when she said it because I don’t think of the election process of the leader of our nation as a game, however even if she hadn’t have “broken down” or “fake cried” or whatever her words were “it’s not a game, it’s peoples lives ect” now that I don’t understand. 6 days ago with a different crowd it was a game and now it’s not. I had my disagreements with Hilary and some mistrust but really felt she was the one to be behind. Now I SEE and HEAR differently. I have had enough two sided in the White House. I’ve had enough “I will do this” and then nothing gets done. You have lost my vote Hilary!!! You need to get a better speech guy, one who remembers what he had you say last week either that or you need to remember what you said last week.

Comment by David Finch

January 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am

You have to ealize that Hillary has had her eye on the presidency since she was very young, but ambitious. For having this final ambition be crushed in defeat was and is a terible moment for Hillary. She never criticized her husband or divorced him because it would hurt her chances to become president. Every moment in Hillary’s life has been to be elected as president of the United States. So imagine what this potential major defeat means to her. I am an independent voter and I always vote for the candidate that I feel will do the best for our country, therefore I will vote AGAINST Hillary because of her crooked politics, business and life. Don’t forget the time she and Bill took furniture and other items from the White House that belonged to the country and not her and Bill! Don’t forget “White Water” and all the other things that represented her corruption in seeking the ultimate position. How could you elect someone that you couldn’t trust with your country or your money! Hillary is morally corrupt!

Comment by Terry

January 8th, 2008 at 11:47 am

Heaven help us. I can just imagine the Arab leaders watching a laughing while Hilary was “showing her emotional side.” Vote for her, not a chance.

Comment by Andrea

January 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am

I didn’t see Hillary breaking down, but something deep within her that finally broke through the ice and came to surface. I think I’d be able sense crocodile tears or breaking down–but when I saw the clip, I saw it was someone who felt so deeply about wanting the best for her country and that she was somewhat overwhelmed with emotion at that time–”caught in the moment”, so to speak. If anything, no matter her views, it shows she really does care about the US. That small moment showed that Hillary is not the Ice Queen that many of us believe–perhaps she should have the courage to be herself more often.

Comment by Billy D

January 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

I can’t help but wonder if the question that her so “emotional” was PLANTED lol

Comment by Deborah

January 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

What a good actress. She is such a manipulator. You just wait until she gets some real power and you’ll see the show of your life. Be afraid; be very afraid. She has nothing but her own personal interest in her heart; not Bill; not anyone but herself. She has hungered for this office and has done everything in her entire life to get there. I really feel sorry for her because she has subjected herself to a lot of scrutiny but it cannot compare to what she has done to other people. What goes around comes around. Obviously I do not like her but I do pray for her because I am commanded to pray for my enemies and I consider her a true threat to our country and our children and grandchildren. I can’t even imagine how difficult it is to campaign but surely it can’t compare to the schedules and decisions that have to be made by the President of the United States. She can’t handle it if she can’t handle this. It is so easy to say anything you want to say when you are out there campaigning. So many empty promises. Everything she says scares me.

Comment by Jennifer

January 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

I think some of you are missing the point. It’s not about showing emotion or seeming more human. This is not about how tough campaigning is or how rigorous her schedule is. HRC is a consumate liar (as is her husband) and will do ANYTHING to further her agenda. She will scheme, double-cross, and trample on whoever she has to in order to achieve what she believes she rightfully deserves. I am an intelligent woman who will NOT vote for a woman for President just because she is a woman. HRC isn’t strong enough to handle leaders of nations who treat women worse than dogs. She wouldn’t be able to handle it without getting her feminazi sensibilities in a twist. She is a socialist/communist who hides behind the “liberal” (which is just another word for socialist/communist) mask just waiting to pounce so she can make America into a socialist state (it’s half way there already, Thank you FDR!!). She’s a pandering fraud who will have us overrun with terrorists in no time.

Comment by PCM 01

January 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Hmm…wrong political experience…questionable acting abilities…tendency to crack under pressure…Next!

Comment by sinna mani

January 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

In the company of a senior Labour politician I spent a few minutes talking to Hillary at UN development conference when she was first lady and realised how shallow her thinking was. She was very uptight when you critisised her position. She belongs to celeb culture and sound bites scripted by others whereas Obama seem to bea thinker as well as listener. I hope I am right.

Comment by Edward Primeau

January 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Hillary has had a good life and enjoyed being first lady for eight years. Let put it to rest Hillary and GO HOME!!

Comment by Edward Primeau

January 8th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

One last comment, I have been married for 38 years and know how moody a woman can get we don’t need a female holding a button that can bring it all to an end. Think about it !!

Comment by Mark

January 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

My comment is you have an eight year first lady with a failed healthcare program running against a one term Senator running against a failed Vice Presidential candidate. Where’s the experience? They can talk all they want, and promise the world, but without proven concrete actions of fixing problems, enhancing a person’s lifestyle, and making you feel confident in the leadership of this country, what gives a person hope in future success by supporting one of the three?

Comment by AmyDGC

January 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

I gotta say I just don’t get it. I heard about this on the radio and they made it sounds as if she were balling her eyes out or having some sort of weeping, sobbing, ranting PMDD episode. And I just watched the video…her voice shook slightly people. I’m not a Hillary fan…quite frankly I’m surprised to be defending her…but I see no proof or indication here that she’s either incapable of being a decent President (couldn’t be any worse than our current one…as if that should be the gold standard) or that she’s attempting to fake anything to show her “softer side”. Fox News is comparing this to Muskie’s breakdown, perhaps somebody needs to pull that footage from the vault and compare and contrast. This was quite simply no big deal and anyone who lets it color their opinion of the candidate is clearly not interested in issues or substance.

Comment by Jennifer

January 8th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

LOL I agree w/the other Jennifer from 1/8 @ 12:42. When I ran for State House, I knew better than to have a crying fit in front of the press. Hillary should too. I fully believe that it was staged to try to grab the soccer mommy vote. She reminds me of Eva Peron on the balcony of the Casa Rosada — the only difference is America’s not a dictatorship (yet).

Maybe the above Jennifer and I should run on the same ticket… I think we’d do better than Hilly and the NOW gang ( or shall I say the NAG gang?!?!?) Besides, if she were a real feminist, she would have gotten rid of Bill a long time ago.

Comment by California Jack

January 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

If Hillary cries over something petty like that, how will she be able to hold up under the pressure of making command decisions in tense national security related incidents? I can’t put any faith or trust in her! Jack

Comment by Ronda Pullen

January 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

I wonder where her tears were for “the country” and her “deep” feelings about it when she and her husband watched Americans killed and injured in the first terrorist bombing in NY, our embassies and our ships being bombed, and did nothing about it … until the Monica story broke … and her husband agreed to bomb an aspirin factory to get the news away from that sordid mess with all his affairs. I could certainly see she had no feelings for Americans as she watched friends go to jail for deals the Clintons were deeply involved wth, or when Foster committed suicide, or her husband was impeached in the House, or Berger stuffed documents in his socks … the list goes on and on. This woman “feels” nothing for anyone but herself and her blinding ambition to turn this country into a socialist one. Talk about fear … she scares me as almost as much as terrorists do.

Comment by republicanmommy

January 8th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

I’ve heard so much about Hillary cying that I was curious to see it for myself. COME ON! I can’t stand Hillary, I would never vote for her, but get over this crying thing. She wasn’t even crying, she was just a little emotional when someone asked a sympathetic question. I’ve seen strong leaders, male and female, do the same. I tear up more than she did at some commercials. This time, I have to side with Hillary and tell the world- define crying. Just because I don’t like her doesn’t mean that she can’t have an ounce of humanity in her.

Comment by michelle

January 8th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

There are plenty of sexist pigs commenting today I see. I have seen plenty of politicians cry and I have never heard anything about their leadership abilities because of it, but as soon as a woman cries she is woman and not able to compete, an actress, manipulator,contrived, weak etc….. one poster said if she is cries now how can we expect her to lead this country. All the Presidents in my life that I remember have cried at one time or another including both Bushes and Bill. This is ridiculous and sexist and some of the women on here disappoint me the most. Saying that a woman cant do it because of differences in horomones!!! You are an embarrassment to women everywhere.

Comment by Becky

January 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

I don’t think it is sexist.. this is minor situation and won’t compare to some days in the life of the President. If she can’t take the heat, get out of the fire.

Pingback by everyone was wrong | This Is Me Ranting

January 9th, 2008 at 3:51 am

[…] data to start making new type of predictions. Two days ago the only thing you could see on TV was how Hillary cried, how they’re campaign is out of money, how they’re so desperate they’re sending […]