I think it did, though not substantially (I'm sure the polling was off.) The idiots in the media who were quick to decree that she was "cracking" and heading towards a meltdown in NH instead drove sympathetic voters to vote for her.

From what I've heard around here and there, women were less affected by that moment than they were pissed off by the general media mysogynist bullshit of the past few days.

I don't think so, at least don't have any reason to believe that is the case, and prefer to think that Hillary "found her voice" in the debate the other night, not tearing up at a campaign function.

puh-lease.

jnfr is much closer to the mark

So why were the polls so far off?

But what about her speech? Yuck. She needs someone who writes better than a fifth grader...
Obama's was so inspiring and powerful that Hannity had to break into the ending; Hillary's was "all about me." Leaden delivery, too. No thanks.

I don't see Hillary's "moment" as a "woman's moment", but rather a "patriot's moment."

When her eyes welled up, it was not as she was speaking of how hard campaigning is for her, but of her concern for the condition of the country, and as she expressed her desire to restore its greatness and potential for most Americans.

I'd take that as a positive in any candidate, whether male or female.

That speech tonight was like none she's given before. She was genuine, spoke from the heart, and expressed her goals for her presidency clearly and persuasively. You could see the real person, not the scripted candidate who measures every word. I'm so thrilled the sexist media pundits were proven wrong tonight.
Thank you, women of New Hampshire!

Sorry, I need to have my own personal sexist moment here.

Typical woman. She cried and got her way.

There. It's over. I know it was wrong, but I just had to say it. We can all move on now.

Once again, oh please. Girl. Rest.

This was not an "upset." The media was wrong.

They were so excited that they thought they raped her to death they and you were just wrong.

THis was not an upset. The loaded, biased, bigoted media was wrong.

How the does that make the voters wrong, and not the media? Upset of what? The media lies.

(Ps. this is from an Edwards contributor.)

I've not been a Hillary fan since forever [Edwards then Obama for me], but that raggedy-edge moment for Hillary made me much more likely to vote for her than before. Of course, if she's the Democratic Party nominee, I'll be voting for here, no question. Just that it didn't hurt her chances to become the nominee in my eyes. I was even wondering while watching it, "why are the Repugs/media idiots/pundits thinking this will hurt her?"

SGL is on crack. That speech was horrible. I think Hillary is supremely competent to be the President, even if I won't vote for her, but she can't give a good speech to save her life.

And what does "get out of Iraq the right way" mean?

It sounds a lot like "peace with honor" to me. I hope the people who vote for Hillary just because she has two X chromosomes are going to sleep well knowing that thousands of more people, including women, are going to die so that a woman can win.

I have no idea how Hillary won. I don't think much of her at all, and I was wrong that other Democrats care about her Iraq War vote as much as I do.

But congratulations to her. This was a huge victory, and whatever I might think of her, puts her on the road to the nomination.

I think it helped, though I don't know how much. There was a definite gender gap in voting.

Doesn't matter to me anyway. I still haven't seen anything that really convinces me to vote for any of the "Big Three" or "Big Two" Democrats.

For info on Green Party candidates, click here.

I am hearing a lot of talk that women were just fed up with the sexist treatment about Hillary, particularly from bozos like Chris Matthews. I know I have been appalled by the things both he and Tucker Carlson have said about her being castrating and equally appalled at how little attention their statements got.

I think the "emotional moment" might have helped Hillary in NH, although I am sure jnfr probably has a point as well. I'm a strong Obama supporter simply because Hillary is too conservative for me, especially her views on Executive power. However, just like Kevin was not horribly upset when Obama won in Iowa, I find myself not horribly upset that Hillary won tonight. The media treatment of her lately has been horrible and this is almost as good as getting a chance to tell Chris Matthews to go F himself.
When I originally heard about Hillary's "Emotional moment", my first thought was that Hillary was cracking. After watching the video myself however, my perspective changed. I found it a very human moment for Hillary. She wasn't feeling sorry for herself, as I think some of the media reports hinted, she seemed to be feeling sorry that all of these things she wanted to accomplish for the American people were slipping away. I think that resonated with people in New Hampshire, although we may never know.

Over all though, I think it's a good thing that Hillary keeps this a race. I've always hated the short primary schedule. Just like Kevin, I'm excited that my vote may actually matter this year.

Dinner tonight with friends in NYC. All are very progressive, mostly for Edwards. We were all so mad at Hillary's treatment we were ready to vote for her. I know some think this is stupid, and I admit it's not rational; but is was surprisingly very real.

But what about her speech? Yuck. She needs someone who writes better than a fifth grader...

Why don't you just say it. A chipmunk full of sound bites switching moods like a manic street preacher. But, I definitely have a better handle on what kind of president she would be. I never liked flowery speeches with teleprompters. Great to sea Chelsea too. Leave Bill at home.

Anyone raising the "race-conscious poll participant" explanation?

The "found my voice" comment was politically brilliant; whether or not she thinks the last five days really changed her, it gives the press a narrative that allows her to present herself as a changed candidate post-Iowa.

As for the choked-up moment, I said yesterday that I thought it played well for her (I empathized, and I'm an Obama supporter), but I didn't imagine it could possibly swing 5+ points in the polls. I'm not sure now whether that's what happened or not.

One thing that surprised me on that front, though: my wife (who, like me, supports Obama but very much likes Clinton) thinks that moment may have swung the polls, and she really doesn't like that. She says she doesn't mind Clinton getting choked up in general, and that it could have even been a moving campaign moment, but that she doesn't like that Clinton's reaction came in response to a question about the strain of campaigning...

Just a random datum from California.

Which may now be the most important state in the country for Democratic politics. Wow. Who'd have thought?

My 2 cents. I didn't see the crying speech on TV, but I heard it on the radio. Hillary sounded more compassionate, committed, and all together more human than in any of her speeches. Bill's great gift was to communicate how he "felt our pain"- up to now Hillary has not been able to capture that tone.

But looking forward, all three leading D candidates are great, and I want to see them go ahead and butt heads and knock elbows, so that the final winner is validated as the best candidate. I am tired of McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry style candidates who run a great primary race and then can't deliver in November.

I heard some pundit say yesterday that New Hampshire likes to reverse Iowa.

All the candidates in both parties are so mediocre, voters probably pick on the basis of personal likes and dislikes, prejudices and inanities, leading to difficult analyses.

I've got to admit, as a non-clinton supporter, i did find that moment touching and sympathetic. It was the first time i've seen a candidate get that emotional and have it seem authentic, unlike Romney's constant BS crying which is just embarrassing. Now, this touching moment would not change my vote, but I can imagine it could change others votes. Particularly many women (though that might just be my own sexism) who I've often heard call Clonton too cold.

I personally didn't care one way or another a month ago. But between mean spirited coverage by the media and disparaging treatment by other candidates (particularly Edwards) I've been flipped. Particularly annoying to see gutsy positions by clinton ignored and others misinterpreted in extremely negative light. At the moment I'd love to see a Clinton Obama ticket. Maybe as the primary season progresses I'll care less who's at the top of the ticket.

I think the media coverage of Hillary's " meltdown" pissed off women mightily and might have contributed to a larger turnout. Even tonight NBC couldn't resist cracking: "Big girls don't cry, but if they do, they win." Women are entitled to decide the feminist and family issues are important.

From what I've heard around here and there, women were less affected by that moment than they were pissed off by the general media mysogynist bullshit of the past few days.

Yep. Pretty much. I've been supporting Richardson and waffling back and forth between Hillary and Edwards as my second choice. But after yesterday, I wrote Johnny-good-hair off.

Iowa made Obama a challenger to the long-time front runner and kept Edwards in the race.

New Hampshire is keeping the competition between Clinton and Obama alive.

I'd say they've played their roles well in selecting the two most electable Democrats. It will be good for them to fight for it if they do it the right way.

In every Presidential election, many people complain incessantly that the field is quite mediocre. Can someone give me an example of an election in which the candidates were not mediocre? Carter? Reagan? Dukasis? What kind of candidates other than Gore Vidal would you like to see?

I would prefer not to see the Clinton's back in the White House, and I think that the crying helped with women, but, if push comes to shove, she's better than any Republican.

That said, ANYTHING that makes that douchebag Chris Matthews look even more douchey than usual is OK with me.

... I didn't imagine it could possibly swing 5+ points in the polls. I'm not sure now whether that's what happened or not.

It's anyone's guess, but she might've gotten exactly what the polls said she would, but the undecideds broke to her. That was something like 15%, if I remember correctly. In any event, maybe this will bring me back a candidate instead of a rock star. Don't much care for those.

don't know if it was on purpose or not but the subject line of her first campaign email tonight is:

"From the bottom of my heart"

Several years ago I was at home on the weekend nursing a cold, watching C-SPAN 2 book events. Hillary had published 'Living History' and C-SPAN was covering a book signing at a Wal-Mart. The camera panned the line of people (mostly women as I recall) waiting for her to sign her book. The table was set up at the back of the store; the line went through the length of the store, out the door, and around the building, almost lapping itself. She arrived, sat down, started signing and greeting each person. The camera stayed back probably 20 feet, so you couldn't hear everything that was said, but she engaged each person who came up to her - and I mean really engaged. I've been around a lot of politicians, leaders, and I was stunned at what I was seeing. Then I forgot about it - life went on. When I saw the video of Hillary answering the question of why she stays in the race, I immediately remembered how she engaged the folks at Wal-Mart, and remembered how authentic she was then - and how authentic she was when she answered that question a couple of nights ago. I think a lot of women recognized that authenticity, and have thought the same thing for their children, wanting so much for them. It rang a bell for me, and I would vote for her.

I think that there may have been a backlash in favor of Hillary because of the savage press she has been getting. I'm an Obama supporter and I certainly felt that way. I would have voted for Hillary yesterday because I think she has been held to an entirely different standard than the men in this race. We keep hearing how she is too cold, then too emotional. She was criticized for not taking questions, then Dana Milbank and Roger Simon said she was dull because she did. Anything negative she said about Obama was criticized, while Romney got a pass for running negative ads.

And let's not forget the Drudge photo, the NYPOst cover and the one man hate band that Chris Matthews leads every night against Hillary.

I still like Obama better and now I can vote for him in South Carolina knowing that Hillary has gotten a little support in return for what she has done for our country and the Democrat party.

Heck, GWB is pond scum and he has never been treated to 1/10th of the crap in the MSM that Hillary has gotten.

You know, it's not just the "moment." She really is quite likable when you get her off the world stage and into a relaxed setting. Just google some videos of her talk show appearances. The only reason she hides her "personality" is because she takes statesmanship seriously. Not such a bad thing after the swaggering joke that is W.

Her main weakness is her husband -- too many unanswered questions there. How much does he influence how she thinks? What role would he play in her administration? Would it be Clinton redux or something totally different? People would support her in droves if it weren't for this "baggage." She needs to turn the page on this chapter in the nation's history ASAP.

Otherwise, her arguments against Obama were heard. He's unvetted. Why coronate him now? It's a big risk when he's been getting such a freeride in the press. More than anything, the NH results were an admonishment to a media too eager to lap up Barack's empty rhetoric and peddle a sexist line.

It may turn out that it's the Illinois senator who is only "likable enough."

Of course her emotional moment helped her. That's exactly what was missing from her image: people were saying she was too cold, artificial, scripted. Suddenly she became human. Bingo.

It would be great to have a president who used the words "vast right-wing conspiracy" on national TV. And to have a break from the white male habit.

Now if she could only lose Holbrooke.

Why haven't I heard any of the pundits talk about the possible impact of independents on today's primary? The polls showed Obama being such a lock that all the independents who said they were voting for him decided they wouldn't waste their vote and went to vote for McCain instead. It seems to be the only theory that explains the results versus what the polls said.

I think B has it right. It's called the Bradley effect (Tom Bradley vs George Deukmejian in the 1982 California gubenatorial election). New Hampshire voters simply voted contrary to their previously stated intentions once they got in the voting booth. Because once they got in the voting booth they decided, in sufficient numbers to give Clinton a victory, to not cast their ballot for a person of color. Please discard the facil "vulnerability", "piling on", and "anger at the press" explanations.

Greg-- spare us the Bradley effect nonsense. Because that would mean that only white women lie to pollsters, not white men. Obama carried the white male vote by a large percentage. Women were just fed up with Hillary being villified by the media. It had nothing to do with the crying -- I was turned off by that -- but I've been fuming to my poor husband for weeks that the media coverage of Hillary was going to turn me reluctantly from an Obama supporter to a Hillary voter out of solidarity.

Now I can vote for Obama knowing that the fever swamp and Chris Matthews took it in the teeth tonight.

I agree with most of the commenters re being fed up with the media pile-on. Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan can suck on it. And I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Obama supporter.

But I can't see this having legs, really. For the whole point of the incident is that it was spontaneous, not staged. Which means it's not repeatable. And though people may treat Hillary a little better after this (I sure hope they do), I don't see this propelling her to victory. I mean, she and her campaign still have a lot of other problems that aren't related to what we call 'character'.

"People must not be humiliated, that is the main thing." A. Chekhov

I think B has it right. It's called the Bradley effect

Just to be clear, I wasn't supporting the concept. Just wondering if anyone was espousing it.

Personally I lie to every pollster / telemarketer I talk to. Usually something like "Ik spreek het geen Engels" or "I'm sorry sonny boy, could you speak up. I don't have any saturday newspapers to sell".

even if hillary manipulated the narrative to lower expectations, it was a good stroke. a victory well done.

and now if she can beat mccain/bush or romney/huckabee.

Personally I lie to every pollster / telemarketer I talk to.

Me too. It's especially fun to lie to the fox affiliate when they are conducting exit polls.

I'm so impressed by everything I see in the comments; I think everyone is just exactly right. I've NEVER liked Hillary--too DLC centrist, shrill ice bitch, all that. But I cried when Hillary was crying, even though it was only a question that was about the stress of campaigning (I wished it had been about something bigger than herself as well). And when Chris Matthews pinched her cheek, I would have voted for her ass too. I've been liking her more and more despite her wan kind of hawkish centrism, and I couldn't BELIEVE her snapping one sentence in the debate was headlined "Hillary's Temper Tantrum." Seriously? My boy Edwards shouts his angry ass through every speech, adn we all love him for it. I'm done with the way the media's been treating her AND she helped herself with me with her soft-voiced moment. Yay! Everybody's right!

I agree with most of the commenters re being fed up with the media pile-on.

But I can't see this having legs, really. For the whole point of the incident is that it was spontaneous, not staged. Which means it's not repeatable. -- Lampwick at 1:00 am

Her emotional moment doesn’t have to be repeated. That is the beauty of Hillary’s great comeback win. Maybe, from now on, the chastened media will back off from its snarky treatment of her and Hillary can just concentrate on connecting with the voters and getting her message out.

She said it best. She has found her voice.

Greg, I remember the very real "Bradley Effect" in the 1982 California gubernatorial race, but I don't think it applies in this case, for the reasons that Teresa implied.

The key demographic in Sen. Clinton's New Hampshire triumph was women, particularly women over the age of 40, which she won overwhelmingly. And in a primary where 57% of Democratic voter were women, I believe that this was decisive in the outcome.

To offer a personal anecdote, I live in a household with three women (my wife and two teenaged daughters), and I can't begin to describe accurately their utter resentment and contempt over what they saw as open misogyny in full bloom on the cable news outlets and news programs over the last few weeks.

Add to that the fact that my mother and aunt were also visiting us this weekend while on their way to Japan, and I became the designated surrogate male whipping post for five females over not only the media abuse of Mrs. Clinton, but also the issue of men's treatment of women in general.

Neither my mother or aunt (both in their 70s) are necessarily supporters of Mrs. Clinton's candidacy (as of yet!), but in our discussions this weekend, the corrosive effect of decades of suffering in silence the condescension and discrimination at the hands of men was clearly palpable.

I would offer that at this point, the intangible bonds of sisterhood may well be the trump card in determining who gets their vote in the California primary on February 5.

Well: I'm glad she found her voice. But this is an election about the future of the United States, not the soul of Hillary Clinton. I felt some satisfaction on her behalf tonite, but no pride in my country. Some justice was done, by acknowledging the contribution that she (and Bill) have made, but as you yourself admit, she's still the same old policy wonk.

All Obama has to do is remain gracious and respectful towards her, and from this point on she will simply disappear.

My mother was saying today how touching she found Hillary's "emotional moment" and was appalled that I agreed with the Republican naysayers that nothing about it seemed real, that every word and syllable sounded false, hollow, and practiced.

How come this great leader with 35 years experience had to rely upon one question, or perhaps 2 or 3 days of campaigning in New Hampshire, to find her voice? The words in the speech were about as obviously a scripted line as I have ever heard. It may work. The tears in the eyes obviously worked. She and her consultants just as obviously thought they should emphasize it in the victory speech.

I thought the rest of her speech was mediocre, and Obama's speech was great. I have no idea how the battle between them will play out, but the only democratic route I see to the presidency is if Hillary beats him and then is smart enought to offer and lucky enough to persuade him to take the VP slot. It could happen. They also could stalemate and allow Gore to move in - unlikely, but now possible.

let me see if i understand this... someone certainly shouldn't vote for/elect a candidate based on soaring, empty rhetoric; but voting for someone as a way to stick it to the pundits for "piling on" is totally legit?

I'll second Donald's comments upthread. I don't think it was Hillary's "emotional moment" that got Democratic voters, particularly women, riled up, but the absolutely horrible way the press piled on what appeared to me, at least, to be a fairly innocuous and fleeting choke-up with all the "can a chick handle the pressure?" crap. I'm no huge fan of Hillary's but the whole thing was so idiotic that I can totally see a significant percentage of Granite State women deciding in the polling booth at the last minute to stick it to the man and give the nod to Clinton just to spite all the pundits and media jackasses who made a huge deal about this. On the other hand, it also means that New Hampshire was more of a lucky break for Clinton rather than an actual comeback. Whatever, as Kevin says, it makes things even more interesting going forward, so that can only be good.

I also think Edwards' obnoxious behavior helped her. He shamelessly attacked her on Saturday to try to allign himself with Obama and finish her off. Then he attacked her for getting emotional, but later said "absolutely not" when asked if he had been critical of her. Then, he gave that same phony speech after the results, this time claiming falsely that he congratulated Obama last week - he did not say anything congratulatory to Obama in his speech last week. A guy who can lie that easily is dangerous.

With that cheesy grin, he is about the phoniest serious candidate for president I have ever seen. He is obviously done in terms of getting the nomination this time, but he still in a position to hurt Clinton if he gets out. My guess is that he quietly offers his support first to Obama in return for the vp slot again and, if rejected, he makes the same offer to Clinton. He is obsessed with becoming president and his calculation will be that the best step for him to someday become president is to again be the vp nominee. I'm sure neither Clinton nor Obama wants him, but in their death match, they may be willing to make a deal with the devil.

>>Maybe, from now on, the chastened media will back off from its snarky treatment of her

You must be dreaming right? No chance.

A question about the “Bradley effect”: Can anyone explain why a white person being asked about his or her preferred candidate in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire would feel socially uncomfortable expressing support for John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich and so feel pressure to express false support for Obama to avoid seeming bigoted in the eyes of a pollster? As I understand it, this is the basis of the “Bradley effect” so in the absence of such an explanation or a plausible theory, I don’t see how the “Bradley effect” is relevant to the result in New Hampshire

To Donald in Hawaii and to Teresa: It would appear that I have been unclear in communicating the applicability of the Bradley effect. For this I apologize. It is my feeling that this phenomenon is all the more relevant in New Hampshire today (key demographics and gender voting percentages notwithstanding), where the population is 95% white, as opposed to California, where the population is 43% white. These are figues published in today's Los Angeles Times. In 1982 the percentage of whites in California was probably marginally more than 43%, but nowhere near the overwhelming numbers reflected in today's NH breakdown.

Whatever brian. You've been an idiot about pretty much everything to this point - no reason why you should change now.

The Democrats have several candidates who would be good Preseidents. On the other hand the Republicans have no candidates who are worthy of being appointed to watch television.

Now, by nature, Republicans aren't really cut out to hold elective office. If you think that government doesn't work, you shouldn't be begging people to give you a chance to prove it. But this crop makes one long for the comptence of a Reagan. Yes, even with the napping and the Alzheimer's he stands head and shoulders above the guys who all arive at the debates in the same VW Beetle wearing giant shoes and flowers that squirt water.

brian: "How come this great leader with 35 years experience had to rely upon one question, or perhaps 2 or 3 days of campaigning in New Hampshire, to find her voice?"

Please excuse me while I find mine -- yeah, there it is, right where I left it, on the dining room table. Testing 1-2-3 ... Okay, sounds good, let's try it out:

"Blow it out your ass, clown!"

Yep ... still works.

jonas: "On the other hand, it also means that New Hampshire was more of a lucky break for Clinton rather than an actual comeback."

History and politics can and will often turn randomly on luck and chance.

I suspect having spent the week watching NFL players like Jeff Garcia and innumerable college players getting misty and choked up just reinforced the double standard for most people.

If the conventional wisdom becomes that the attacks on HRC as "emotional" backfired and motivated women to turnout for her, does that take away an important line of attack for the Republicans in the general election? (Assuming she makes that far)

Anon: "My mother was saying today how touching she found Hillary's 'emotional moment' and was appalled that I agreed with the Republican naysayers that nothing about it seemed real, that every word and syllable sounded false, hollow, and practiced."

I appreciate your honesty, Anon. Now, you should really get back to your room, before your mother catches you on the computer after she grounded you.

For me at least, that was a small part of it. I resent the media trying to pick a candidate(Obama) and foist him on us. If Obama wants the nomination, then he needs to fight for it and earn it.

I also have been very turned off by many of the Obama supporters. I suspect that a lot of them are very young(read: obnoxious), and some of them basically have been telling us to leave the party. They forget that they will need our help in November is Obama is the nominee.

[trolling deleted]

The media effort to trash Hillary really backfired. Tom Brokaw was really great in letting Chris Matthews have it and explaining journalistic ethics to Matthews. The Matthews and David Gregorys of the media really overstepped the line of journalistic ethics and responsibility with their simplistic Saint Obama and Demon Hillary. Unfortunately its unlikely they have the decency to stop trying to turn candidates into saints or demons and just do real reporting.

"Because that would mean that only white women lie to pollsters, not white men

Well, white women are far less likely than white men to date interracially. And a white woman is the frontrunner, not a white man. So it is white women who would have a motive to lie. Not to mention old white women, not old white men, run the Democratic Party. If you don't like the anti-male, pro-white sentiments of the Democratic Party, I don't know what to tell you. I guess you could vote for Obama.
Posted by: Susan is probably a racist on January 9, 2008 at 7:17 AM | PERMALINK"

???? Are there two Susans on this thread? Or are you quoting someone else?

[trolling deleted]

It wasn't the tears, it was that moment in the NH debate when she said it hurt her feelings that people found her unlikable and Obama responded by saying, in a flat voice, "Oh, you're likable enough." She came off as human and he came off as ungracious, rubbing it in like that.

These campaigns are all manipulation and the Clintons may be the supreme masters of the game -- her crying routine in combination with Bill's "I can't make her taller" comments were masterstrokes.

I'll add that this "I've found my voice" stuff is just more manipulative PR bs... after 35 years of making change she's suddenly and finally found her voice? Campaigns are all about herding sheep.

let me see if i understand this... someone certainly shouldn't vote for/elect a candidate based on soaring, empty rhetoric; but voting for someone as a way to stick it to the pundits for "piling on" is totally legit?

No, I don't think you do. You see, the pundits appear to have been using a completely different yard stick for Hillary, turning every possible news story into a negative, and arguing that we shouldn't vote for her because she is a self-motivated, calculating, bitch. To the observant, this forces a reevaluation of the facts -- particularly as to whether Hillary really is a self-motivated, calculating, bitch, and whether that belief was the only thing keeping them from voting for her. In the absence of the Colbert Report, Chris Matthews and Bill O play the over-the-top haters and push the audience gently toward the opposite conclusions and they become more educated about politics.

The other candidates didn't notice this humanization trend soon enough and were left were their own bad moments -- piling on at the wrong time and trying to utilize a negative Hillary meme after it had disappeared in the minds of a good number of voters. Using aggression at the wrong moment or allowing yourself to be interpreted as heartless is a great way to lose a good 5 to 10 points. Ask Gore or Dukakis.

Well, all I can say is Susan is probably a racist is most certainly a trollish, first-class twerp who has difficulty distinguishing between the names, Susan and Teresa (which I guess seem similar to a troll). And that the content of this trollish comment is as wildly off as the Teresa/Susan name thing. Aim like this is worthy of a drunken duck-hunting VP.

And I am oh so tired of the Bradley effect comments.

I am dismayed by the idea that the primaries have become a vehicle to stick it to the media, or revenge misogyny from time immemorial. It took all this time for Hillary to find her voice? Are we to accept that Hillary has suffered more as a woman than a black man in America? Is this race about the tribulations of a candidate, or the tribulations of a country? Is this race about personal vendettas, or is it about who can win in November and most effectively govern?

Note to John Edwards, who was my second choice: thanks a lot.

I just don't see how the Bradley effect could possibly underly the discrepancy between the poll results and the election results.

The cases I have heard of representing the Bradley effect are cases in which the socially acceptable candidate is a black -- so far as I know, always a Democrat -- and the white candidate is a troglodyte -- i.e., a Republican. People simply don't want to admit that they are voting for the troglodyte, so say they're voting for the black candidate.

I just don't see how that dynamic might play out between Hillary and Obama. What voter would ever be embarrassed to admit they are voting for Hillary (obviously a woman, and therefore breaking ground herself), and would feel obliged to say they're voting for Obama instead? It just doesn't make a bit of sense.

leo, if the Clinton "routine" was a masterstroke then the initial Edwards/Obama reactions were supreme gaffes. I personally noticed that Hillary was a human way back in the 1990's. Very sneaky of her to wait till now to break it to the public. I'll bet she's been paying off all those wingnuts and pundits to overstate her robotic bitchiness.

You might want to be a little more subtle with the anti-Hillary rhetoric lest she utilize the momentum of your ill timed right hook ( like the political kung-fu master sheep herder that she is ) to your disadvantage.

Honestly, I think that claims of the Bradley effect are absurdly off the mark that they really represent the Obama effect: the ability to find racist explanations for any kind of setback or criticism of Obama.

"I also have been very turned off by many of the Obama supporters. I suspect that a lot of them are very young(read: obnoxious), and some of them basically have been telling us to leave the party. They forget that they will need our help in November is Obama is the nominee.

The above is a quote from you. I take it your "us" and "our" and "they are young" comments mean you are an older, white woman. Yes, you are the person I am calling a racist."

LOL, well, the race card is very convenient. But if you think that what I said is racist, then you are just dumb. I have read posts very similar to that on this blog, and on HuffPo, to mention just two. Posts that anoint one candidate this early and basically tell the rest of us to get lost are smug and obnoxious. If thinking that makes me racist in your eyes, then so be it.

[trolling deleted]

nt

"LOL, well, the race card is very convenient.

Umm, I'm an Edwards supporter. But I still think you're a racist."

Ok, you just think that then. Enjoy. Oh, and no matter who you're supporting, you're still pulling the race card. The fact that you don't realize it speaks volumes.

Umm, I'm an Edwards supporter

that I doubt.

But I still think you're a racist.

I know you're a troll. But do you have to be this clumsy!

B, I'm not anti-Hillary... she's probably my choice for President (given the choices available). I just think that campaigns/politicians are manipulative, and have to be (I just react negatively/cynically when I see it). Campaigns are sheep herding for the most part, big gestures and grand acts rather than weedy details.

The commenter critcizing Susan is abusive. Needs to be *'d just like mhr.

"Dinner tonight with friends in NYC. All are very progressive, mostly for Edwards. We were all so mad at Hillary's treatment we were ready to vote for her. I know some think this is stupid, and I admit it's not rational; but is was surprisingly very real."

Ditto for me.

I hear talk of an exchange between Brokaw and Matthews, and also earlier some notes of similar exchanges between Rachel(?) and Matthews. Anybody got a link to video of these events?

leo, agreed. I was referring to your anti-Hillary rhetoric, not saying that you are necessarily anti-Hillary. The cynical viewpoint is a pretty good starting point. They should teach it in school.

I have to say I disagree if you think the Hillary reactions were premeditated. Both "moments" were brought on by direct questions concerning her likeability and the negativity of the press. The questions themselves were sympathetic and indicate that the pendulum was already moving back in her favor. Considering the heights that the press had pushed that damn pendulum I think a five year old could have hit it out of the park. You'd have to have a Dukakis moment to fall on your face.

The ultimate cruel irony: I'd wager that a very large majority of the women who supported Clinton passionately believe in ending the war, yet they are supporting someone who has absolutely no intention of ending it.

She supported the war enthusiastically, and has been consistently dishonest about her reasons for doing so.

I'm a white male Obama supporter. Clinton's emotional moment seemed genuine and attractive to me. The press's response to it was absurd and infuriating. The whole thing reminded me of how deeply unfair the media's treatment of Hillary has been for an unbelievable amount of time. Same reaction from my father. I find it easy to believe that this led a lot of wavering voters to vote for Hillary. I also believe that all the talk of landslide depressed youth and independent turnout for Obama.

I sure hope it didn't help her, as it struck me as being a little contrived--and I've always liked her (although I like her better as a Senator than a Presidential candidate) and I'm female. While I think she was sincere in what she was saying as she had this 'emotional' moment, it felt to me that she was deliberately pushing the teariness and the emoting a bit.

But what is making me most ANNOYED is the press characterizing the outcome as a huge victory for Clinton when the REALITY is that the percentages (and actual number of votes) indicates it was so much closer than that: Clinton at 39 percent, Obama 36 percent. Is there even a statistically significant difference here?
I'd like to see a huge backlash against this sort of hyped up spin (but I won't hold my breath...) And the press is doing the same thing for McCain; calling it a big 'comeback' when he did in NH essentially as well as everyone was expecting he would do.
Things are so far very interesting, except the news media is doing their idiotic thing and I hope they don't ruin all the fun.

Karinthy,

The media treatment of her lately has been horrible and this is almost as good as getting a chance to tell Chris Matthews to go F himself.

Oh yeah. As a guy I'd like a chance to punch Chris Matthews in his big fat mouth, but this is almost as good.

She got much needed airtime and the coverage ate up some of the oxygen of Obama's ballon from Iowa.

Anon,
My mother was saying today how touching she found Hillary's "emotional moment" and was appalled that I agreed with the Republican naysayers that nothing about it seemed real, that every word and syllable sounded false, hollow, and practiced.

Listen to your Mother, son. Now off to bed.

...And I forgot to add, I think the NH results are attributable to the 'embarrassment of riches' effect. I find myself subject to it, so I have to think others are too: I like all the Democratic candidates. I especially like the last one I've seen/heard...whoever that may be at the time! I can't decide and stick to that decision, so whoever I hear last I'm liking a lot.

She supported the war enthusiastically, and has been consistently dishonest about her reasons for doing so.

As tempting as it is to play whack-a-mole, I have to go to work.

It doesn't seem as if there has ever been a primary race that divided and brought out so much vitriol. And it does seem to be coming mostly from the camp that says things like "we're not going to kneecap her" and "we've got her in our sights".

I've never seen such division as I have with the Obama campaign and supporters. There has been resentment based on age/generation (calling people old and out-of-touch), resentment based on race (calling anyone who does not get Obama's appeal racist).

If this is the CHANGE Obama and his supporters are bringing, give me the past prosperity and decency of the Clintons, who had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at them by the media and the right wing and never responded with anger.

I wish Hillary would drop the stupid CHANGE meme and go on her strength - return to prosperity and respect.

Ya’ know, I felt like it was an Oprah moment. It was emotional nakedness in the context of victimhood, struggle, hope and overcoming. It is a powerful formula on TV, but it has never really been exploited in politics before. I guess Bill Clinton had shades of this narrative. Happily it is probably inaccessible to the Republicans since they can only be manly men from manlymenland.

I'm amused at the men who don't get this: we women bite our tongue most of the time at the indignities we experience in addition to what we see served out to other women. In this instance, women had a chance to do something about it and they did. I'm an ardent Obama supporter and I may have voted for Hillary if I had been in NH yesterday.

Tom Toles nailed it in his cartoon today. I'm more of an Obama supporter, but I would have been tempted to vote for Hillary out of solidarity. Screw you, Chris Matthews. How can your wife stand you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html

Well, white women are far less likely than white men to date interracially. And a white woman is the frontrunner, not a white man.

Uh, obviously you really are clueless.

Susan is probably a racist, or whoever the fuck you are, you're proving yourself an exceptionally immature and very poor loser, even if it is only vicariously.

Further, your repeated charge of racism is particularly rancid, supported as it is by such nonsensical statements as "old white women, not old white men, run the Democratic Party", which is something you've clearly pulled from your own ass with a pair of vice-grips.

Therefore, why don't you just shut the fuck up, lest you do any further collateral damage to the very candidate you ostensibly think you're supporting with such vile temper tantrums?

Well, the victim card has always worked for her before. Now that she has learned to cry on cue, she can ride that wave of tears all the way to the White House. Maybe John Edwards should take some acting lessons, You can fool some of the people all of the time.

The Tom Toles cartoon mentioned upthread is truly a thing of beauty.

Here's a clickable link to it for those who don't want to bother to cut and paste.

Hillary Clinton is no victim, nor is she the standard-bearer of downtrodden, excluded and exploited women everywhere. Maybe this could be said about Shirley Chisholm back in 1972, but not about Hillary Clinton in 2008. This is a wedge. It is wedge-shaped; it is tailor cut straight through the liberal coalition and appears at a time when a wedge is needed to knock down Obama. As far as it goes it is fine, but it has nothing to do with the reality of her power, or her backers or their agenda.

Varecia: "Clinton at 39 percent, Obama 36 percent. Is there even a statistically significant difference here?"

Why, yes, there is. It's three percentage points, as you've just helpfully noted.

Further, Sen. Clinton carried registered Democratic voters in New Hampshire by a rather significant 46%-34% margin over Sen. Obama. That's something to keep in mind as we move on to the next few rounds of Democratic primaries and caucuses through "Super Tuesday", since many of these will not be open to crossover participation by independents and Republicans, as was the case in both New Hampshire and Iowa.

[I suggest posting your unfounded conspiracy theories in another forum, not here. --Mod]

That speech tonight was like none she's given before. She was genuine, spoke from the heart, and expressed her goals for her presidency clearly and persuasively. You could see the real person, not the scripted candidate who measures every word.

She delivered it well for her, but it was a mostly poorly written speech that she read. I wonder if that will bother the person who (incredibly) bitched about Obama's having the nerve to read a prepared speech after Iowa?

And what does "get out of Iraq the right way" mean? It sounds a lot like "peace with honor" to me.

Bingo. No one can say she didn't warn us.

The "found my voice" comment was politically brilliant

Think so? My reaction was, "Senator, if you haven't 'found' it by now--a seasoned politician who's running for president..." It made a demonstrably strong person sound awfully weak. I wish she had said "rediscovered" or "refocused" or "found a different aspect of" or something similar. Because as much as I wasn't turned off by her almost-tears, I also don't want them to be her defining "voice."

Despite these criticisms, I'm happy we have a real race and happy as hell that the misogyny fest of the past few days was put in its place. Of course, today's version will just be modeled on Mr. No's post.

To me the remarkable thing about Hillary's final and decisive appeal to women is how much it arose out of the circumstances of the moment, and how little of it might possibly have been planned and consciously exploited by the campaign. The truth is, I think that people were quite right about Hillary's campaign: it simply had no plan for dealing with NH after a loss in Iowa. What happened, took place spontaneously.

Her frustration in the debate was clearly real. And I don't see how anyone objective can look at her "moment" and declare that it was faked. Really, just look at how she behaved; everything about what she did suggests that she was doing all she could to maintain her composure. To me, the most telling sign of that was when, at the exact moment when she seemed most to be near tears, she put her hand under her face, obviously struggling to keep herself from losing control. And note too (as my wife pointed out) that she never made any effort to wipe the tears from her face -- the exact thing you would expect someone to do if they were trying to make a "statement" by showing some emotion.

I think the spontaneity of how everything played out in NH for Hillary was absolutely key for the tremendous surge of sympathy with her. And, of course, one has to add to the mix here the spontaneous outburst of vile abuse and dismissiveness she received at the hands of the pundits and her opponents.

The whole thing has a Zen like quality to it, because so much went on without a rational understanding of the process.

"Clinton at 39 percent, Obama 36 percent. Is there even a statistically significant difference here?"

Do you have any idea how little rational sense that this makes?

Hint: an election isn't a poll.

C.S.: "Now that she has learned to cry on cue, she can ride that wave of tears all the way to the White House."

As has already been discussed upthread ad nauseum, it's blatantly sexist, demeaning and obnoxious commentary such as yours that holds such rich potential to provoke a visceral backlash amongst women, which may well prove to be the decisive factor in this race.

"I was referring to your anti-Hillary rhetoric"

B, I'll put it this way... I can't think of any big emotional scenes driving McCain's successful campaign (just the newspaper endorsements) but there's a list leading to Hillary's win.

And I'll again repeat that I probably will wind up voting for her.

So why were the polls so far off?

Yeah, why?

I sent this in to Talkingpointsmemo:

I haven't really dug through the polling data in any detail, but my sense is that Hillary won the NH primary based on the female vote. If this is indeed accurate, I don't think that it is any accident. Also, from my vantage point (someone trying to sort through the echo chamber of news, pundits, etc.) HIllary's campaign organization accomplished this in a manner that would have made Karl Rove proud. Further, it gets to your questioning as to whether Hillary's org had a "plan B." I think that they did, but it required a lot of finesse. In summary, I think that the plan emphasized explicitly targeting the female vote with the notion of eking out the few thousand votes necessary to win. Unfortunately, I also have the sense that the strategy played a bit on racial stereotypes, but in a way that permitted deniability in a very Rovian fashion. Let me explain.

1) Going into the Iowa caucuses it was increasingly clear that Obama and/or Edwards had a good shot of winning. Nothing was certain, of course. What interested me at the time was that Hillary org. began to float the meme that the Iowa caucuses were biased against women. This was a pure "victim" play, and the natural rejoinder that I did read in one or two places was, "Well, it's even more biased against african americans." But my sense is that this comment wasn't picked up on that much, mostly because the Obama org. didn't push back with the just-mentioned rejoinder. Why didn't they? I'll get to that.

2) After Iowa you and a few others pointed out that in retrospect Iowa's voting demographics were tailor made for Obama, and that New Hampshire was a different ball game. You also mentioned the very tight schedule. Regarding the latter, it plays both ways. A tight schedule leaves very little time to mount a broad strategic defense. On the other hand it is perfect for a quick, dirty tactical defense. If it works, the press is going to focus on the winning, and look forward. If it doesn't work, well, Hillary's org didn't have much to lose.

3) It would be interesting to go back and look at all of Hillary's talking points over the days between Iowa and New Hampshire. I was most struck by two phrases. The first was her comment that Martin Luther King inspired but it took LBJ to implement. The second was her famous "voice cracking" episode. I'm of the opinion that the latter was staged, only because of the transcript that went along with it. But let's start with the first comment. What on earth was Hillary getting at? It's the kind of comment you'd expect of an insensitive Republican. Taking a swipe at the man who risked fire-bombs, jails, lynchings... in the cause of social justice??! Seems crazy, and then elevating a man who, yes, passed legislation for a "war on poverty" but who also escalated Vietnam??! This also seems crazy, as it risks allusions to Iraq that I wouldn't think Hillary would want to make. So, what was this comment supposed to accomplish? To my mind it bears an eery resemblance to comments made by sports casters...comments that cost certain sports casters their jobs. e.g., "Magic Johnson had raw talent, but Larry Bird had to work hard." or "White coaches have the sports IQ, whereas the black players have the speed and agility." So, I think Hillary's MLK-LBJ comment was meant to echo such sentiments. We've all heard of Repub's including language that "secretly" (i.e., if you don't travel in evangelical circles) targets the religious base. Well, I'm pretty convinced that Hillary's comment was meant to do something similar. It's subtle, and within a 3-4 day window deniable. What such a comment serves to do is remind potential voters that on some level the "race" is between a white (read, experienced, intelligent) and a black (read, raw, powerful).

4) This leads me to Hillary's "voice cracking." As I mentioned above, I'm convinced the episode was planned with the goal of targeting female voters, and subtly playing off the racial undercurrents mentioned above. Take a look at what Hillary was saying as her voice "cracked." She's still hitting all of her talking points. But let's unpack this maneuver. What does it do? Well, first off it emphasizes that Hillary has been a victim of "harsh treatment." This meme was already floated back in the debate a month ago when the story coming out was that the all-male group of debaters had ganged up on Hillary (who, of course, was the front-runner and front-runners tend to get ganged-up on...just ask Mitt). But Hillary's voice cracking reintroduces the meme. And in reading many, many discussion boards, it seems to me that people responded to this: e.g., "I was so pissed off at how the press treated Hillary that if I could I would have voted for her, myself." But here's the thing. Hillary's voice cracking, and then verbal references to Obama's talkingpoints also bring up some pretty uncomfortable racial tags that are a riff on the MLK-LBJ comment. If Hillary is the experienced and intelligent white to Obama's raw, powerful black, well, now she's managed to introduce the tag that she is also the victimized [white] woman. And once this is done, well, there is a whole panoply of pretty negative racial references out there that become primed. Makes me want to watch _To Kill a Mocking Bird_ again.

5) Finally, as was widely mentioned, Hillary's org sent out a mass mailing on the eve of the primary that targeted reproductive rights. My understanding was that this mailing was more inflammatory than accurate. But again, the target is the female vote.

So there you have it. My hypothesis is that Hillary's org did have a plan B, and it involved introducing "hot" emotions that would swing the female vote. As Karl Rove showed again and again, it's not policy but emotion that turns out votes, and the more primal the emotion the better. If my hypothesis is at all accurate, then it reflects some brilliant politicking -- dirty, but brilliant, and given the political brain-power on Hillary's side, I simply can't imagine that the issue has not been thought out. Obama cannot win an election if he is seen as primarily an african american candidate, that is, if race becomes the defining meme of his campaign. A sad comment on our society, but no more sad than the fact that Hillary cannot win an election if she is seen as primarily a female candidate. That said, in a two-way race between a white female candidate and a black male candidate (i.e., if those adjectives are emphasized in the campaign), it's my opinion that in the near-term the primal undercurrent / bias will favor the white female candidate.

Hmmmmmmmm... once again an election where Diebold machines were prevalent, and where wild divergences from statistical probability of lottery winning proportions ONLY in the Diebold areas and ONLY for Hillary?

Hmmmmmmmm... go back to sleep America, we have provided you an explanation. Go back to sleep America, Hillary was emotional and statistical/mathematical theory ceased to function. Go back to sleep America.

Noogs,

The problem with your only too elaborate scenario is that everything about Hillary's campaign in NH suggests that it was in disarray, and had NO plan to deal with the loss in Iowa. Wasn't that in fact the very thing all of her critics were pointing out with glee just the day before yesterday? You know, "Stupid, stupid, arrogant Hillary. Thinking she was just going to win it all without lifting a finger. So caught up with her own inevitability that she couldn't even come up with a Plan B if she lost in Iowa."

Ironically, it was exactly the inability of Hillary's campaign to have an effective plan B that forced Hillary into spontaneity.

And God did it work.

"I wish she had said 'rediscovered' or 'refocused' or 'found a different aspect of' or something similar."

I have to respectfully disagree. That would have sounded awfully robotic, and not unlike the Coneheads' standing invitation to their guests to "consume mass quantities" on vintage Saturday Night Live episodes from the late '70s.

franklyo,

And note too (as my wife pointed out) that she never made any effort to wipe the tears from her face -- the exact thing you would expect someone to do if they were trying to make a "statement" by showing some emotion.

I've stated that I believe the moment was sincere, too, but I'm sorry to say it really could have been acting. I've taken the class. They teach how to stage cry. You recall an emotional memory, (ideally) well up, pause, then talk through it. Do not pull inward, keep your face and focus out. Let the audience do your crying for you.

If you bawl like a baby the audience will not cry. The only time you 'wipe' is to fake it if you can't produce the tears, pretty much bad acting or maybe, in the movies, the result of too many takes. It is really hard to well up after about 5 times.

Also, acting involves the entire body.

Well, the victim card has always worked for her before. Now that she has learned to cry on cue, she can ride that wave of tears all the way to the White House. Maybe John Edwards should take some acting lessons, You can fool some of the people all of the time.

Hey, C.S. Iron my fucking shirt!

By all means, keep up the petulant sexist crap. Please. I beg of you - let the misogynist genie out of the bottle. Let's deal with this shit once and for all. I'm a woman "of a certain age" and I have dealt with it all my life. Please do galvanize and piss off all of us testy old broads over 40 who bypassed e-fucking-nuff of this crap 30 years ago!

Looking back over the last five days as objectively as I can, the outcome should never really have been in doubt (with 20-20 hindsight, of course):

Obama a sure winner according to the press.
Hillary's feelings hurt by a question at the debate.
Qbama dismissively saying, "You're likable enough, Hillary."
Hillary getting all misty-eyed -- authentic or not.
Edwards, in unsympathetic response, saying "We need a strong leader."
Matthews being the chauvinistic pig that he is.
The MSM piling on and on and on.
Bill saying I can't make her male.

I don't mean this in any way as an insult, but HRC, Bill, and the campaign played this perfectly. Congrats to them. They get to carry on.

FWIW, even though Joe Scarborough is completely reprehensible, he did summarize the event perfectly when he read a note from his mother stating that she always hated Hillary, but given the bad treatment of her, she would have crossed over as an independent and voted for her.

I think the outcome makes us as dems stronger.

Hillary has always been my least favorite choice, but I think the coverage of her by the Dowds, Matthewses, and their ilk, has been appalling. On the other hand, I thought her speech was crummy. Get out of Iraq "in the right way"? All of a sudden she's discovered that there's a problem with the oil, pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies? Spare me.

That Which Shall Not Be Discussed: "Hmmmmmmmm ..."

We read your baseless insinuation the first time, and ignored it just to be polite.

And FYI, New Hampshire voters use paper ballots for use in optical scanners, which are a product of ES&S, not Diebold. Therefore, there is a paper trail, should any candidate desire to contest the outcome.