Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 10, 2008
By: T.A. Frank

HOW SHE DID IT...Reminder, this isn't Kevin Drum writing this, so don't blame him for the wayward musings of a Washington Monthly staffer. Two days after the fact, though, having pored over the post-New-Hampshire-upset analysis, I can't help feeling that many of the explanations are a bit over-complicated. I wouldn't have predicted the results that came out of the primary, but I wasn't that surprised, either.

The "tears," simply put, did the trick. They were central to a smart and deliberate campaign, and there was no "Bradley Effect" (in which white racist voters lie to pollsters, thus skewing results). The shift of allegiance didn't show up in the polls, because, as far as I know, none of the polls were taken after Monday night, when all three nightly newscasts on Monday made Hillary's "emotional" moment their lead story. The very last poll to come out, in fact, showed a much slimmer five-point difference between Clinton and Obama, suggesting a sudden narrowing and a surge in Clinton momentum. So fear not, pollsters. Had the primaries occurred 24 hours earlier, Obama would probably have won, and you would have been vindicated.

What was Hillary's game plan? What the polling numbers showed was that her best hope lay in attracting female voters away from Obama. So Team Hillary went after them with determination. There was an appearance on Access Hollywood, in which Hillary talked about things like body image and got to say things like, "I find cleaning closets and drawers to be extremely gratifying because you know there is a beginning, a middle and an end, unlike a lot of what I do which seems to be much more long term." There was her talk with undecided voters: two men--and 14 women. There were the tears, predicted by some, which stirred even greater sympathy. Finally, there was the heckling moment, when one or two young rogues stood up and started chanting "Iron My Shirt"--allowing Clinton to gain a standing ovation by tossing out three great lines about sexism and breaking through the "biggest glass ceiling of all." (These hecklers turned out to be 20-something employees of a Boston radio show, and one even had a Hillary sticker on his bag.)

When the numbers came out, it turned out that female voters had flocked to Clinton in New Hampshire by a wide margin. It had been an effective approach. And the media, which had poorly concealed its glee over a Clinton loss, had only strengthened it.

So--am I suggesting that all of Clinton's moments were choreographed? No. I expect some were choreographed, and some were the product of sheer luck. But even if they were all choreographed--and the hecklers turn out to have been sent out by, say, Michael Whouley (the Clinton operative who once boasted of clogging up the freeways in Boston in order to keep likely Bill Bradley voters away from the polls in 2000)--it would hardly be sensational. Republicans like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove have played a much rougher game than that. This was good old-fashioned political hardball, and Obama's crew will have to be nimble enough to throw back some effective behind-the-scenes hardballs of its own.

T.A. Frank 11:34 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (114)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

So...You are saying the crying was planned?

That's the same stuff we've been making fun of the reichtwingnutz for a couple of days.

Myself, I think you are thinking about it a wee bit to much.

Posted by: kindness on January 10, 2008 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

If she can cry on cue to her advantage, why hasn't she done it before in the 15+ years that Matthews, Dowd, et al have been savaging her?

Posted by: Kyron on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Is the point really just "Obama better watch out"? If you were undecided or inclined to support Clinton beforehand, analysis like this just looks like more of the same piling on that drew last-minute female votes to Clinton in the first place.

If you weren't so inclined, speculation like this doesn't change much.

Posted by: Trevor J on January 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

It wasn't the tears.(And really, I didn't see any tears. All I saw was an exhausted woman showing a little emotion).

It was the press's reaction to the tears. It pissed a lot of people off who might have been inclined to vote differently.

Posted by: Paul in NC on January 10, 2008 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

"and there was no "Bradley Effect" (in which white racist voters lie to pollsters, thus skewing results)"

Obama's poll numbers were in fact spot on.

Posted by: bob h on January 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

The "tears," simply put, did the trick.

For the last time, people (and Mr. Frank): there were no goddamn tears. She did not cry. She did not get choked up. It was nothing. NOTHING. The media completely fabricated this "Hillary has weepy breakdown" thing, I think a lot of New Hampshire women (and perhaps even some men (!)) saw what an unfair and ridiculous meme it was and decided to give her some support.

Posted by: jonas on January 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

ah, kevin.

Posted by: engram on January 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter (not much shorter) T.A. Frank: although I have no evidence that it was all calculated, I don't like Hillary and we all know she's a calculating bitch, so I'll just posit the various ways she may have concocted events in order to appeal to the known irrationality of females.

And Trevor J. is quite correct.

Posted by: 11cents on January 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with you that the "moment" and some of the sexist reaction definitely helped her through a boost in sympathy vote. But, I will give HRC the benefit of the doubt that the "tearful moment" was unscripted. The question now is, if that's the case, *will* they use this in the future deliberately? If so, how much mileage can it actually gain?

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Regardless of the content of your post, I would just like to sincerely thank you for writing that you "pored" over the analysis and not "poured" over it.

Thank you. Thank you.

Posted by: Pore Boy on January 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

I think your analysis is dead on. It was just plain old politics, and it worked. Not really very nice, but that is the way the game is played by the establishment. And Clinton is a good actor (what a coincidence that after 16 years in national politics, she actually showed some emotion).

The only thing I would add is that I think her debate performance was part of the act, and that probably started her sympathy/empathy train rolling. I think Sunday polling reflected it.

Posted by: Tom on January 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

[Trolling deleted]

Posted by: Al on January 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

You know, before you start acting as though it's pretty damn obvious that she planned the tears you might consider how little actual evidence you or anyone else could possibly have for that idea. The fact that someone somewhere who hates Hillary "predicted" such an event is itself a perfectly predictable fact.

In my view, Hillary's "moment" is truly a rorschach test of who and what you are; it reveals at least as much about those who project their feelings onto the event as it does about Hillary. From now until forever it will remain ambiguous as to whether the tears were deliberate or spontaneous; I don't know how that issue could ever be conclusively resolved.

At minimum, though, it does seem worth noting that Hillary's campaign itself chose not to send along video of the moment in their campaign email of the day, for fear it would turn voters off. Now perhaps that's some Machiavellian head fake, but that conclusion too would be a further rorschach test of who you are.

In any case, I might wonder if I were you just what your own reaction to Hillary's moment says about you. I don't think there are loads of women voters who agree with your assessment. You would, though, find great company I'm sure in Maureen Dowd.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 10, 2008 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

I hope Hillary doesn't cry after learning of the Kerry endorsement of Obama so we don't have to put up with any more of this type of analysis.

Clinton won a close race in a small state. Move on.

Posted by: AJ on January 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

What also helped were the hecklers with signs that read "Iron my shirt".

Posted by: apeman on January 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

am I suggesting that all of Clinton's moments were choreographed?

Sure you are. This is exactly the kind of disingenuousness we get here in the comments all the time from people we call "concern trolls."

Moreover, that suggestion is belied by virtually everthing I've read or seen. The reaction of the Clinton camp, including Bill himself, clearly indicated they thought this was a real problem for them.

On the other hand, I agree that Clinton's "moments" as you put it, turned the women's vote for her, but only because women plainly resented the kind of BS contained in news "analyses" of her actions and that is also cotained in your post. I say it was this backlash against the Hillary-bashers in the media, and the double standard they applied, that put her over.

I've read much better stuff from you, Mr. Frank. Sorry this is not as good.

Posted by: David in NY on January 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Oops. Or Ms. Frank.

Posted by: David in NY on January 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's called triumph trolling.

Posted by: amem on January 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Repeat after me:
"I'm not a Hillary supporter, but thte times I come closest to supporting her is when the asshole sexist press goes after her the way they did with her 'tears.'"
(You can leave out the 'asshole' part if you want.)
It's the way I feel, most of my friends feel, and what a grand swath of the left blogosphere feels.

I also think that there was a strong desire not to let the media declare a winner. They derailed the 'Hillary juggernaut' in Iowa--and derailed the 'Obama Juggernaut' in New Hampshire.

I think anger at the press trumps any Dem candidate's support at this poinr.

Posted by: pbg on January 10, 2008 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

This has probably already been commented about, but if the general perception that this was contrived is actually deliberately, but subtly maintained by HRC's campaign, this actually *helps* HRC with voters that might be concerned about a woman president. If she can modulate and handle her emotions this effectively, then this actually adds a powerful and attractive skill set for the presidency.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 10, 2008 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

From now until forever it will remain ambiguous as to whether the tears were deliberate or spontaneous; I don't know how that issue could ever be conclusively resolved.

Yes. Ambiguous and interpreted idiosyncratically by those of good will. Interpreted maliciously by the malicious.

Stepping back a bit from the moment itself, which has been pretty well flogged to death, I worry now that Dems must express the ~correct~ (orthodox) pro-HRC opinion of HRC's moment. Those who demur will be pilloried and exiled by our new overlords of tone.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

T.A. Frank, these are excellent points.

It seems to me that in a primary, voter sentiment can move especially fast. Recall that primary voters are among the most committed of voters. Add in the intense media coverage and the fact that New Hampshire voters are aware of the attention paid to them. It makes sense that large last-moment swings are possible.

Posted by: Sam W on January 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

I hold Kevin responsible for hosting this Hillary bashing crap on his blog. What the heck is this -- Townhall?

Posted by: BobB on January 10, 2008 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

The other factor that gets overlooked is the ground game.

There's a good Time piece on this - focusing on a fellow called Nick Clemons, but as the post author notes, Michael Whouley was also heavily involved. Turning out your voters matters.

The Bush team was pretty good at this in 2004. If our guys are good at this in 2008, great.

Posted by: Andrew on January 10, 2008 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly,
I don't care for HC, but it's drivel like this that would push me to pull the lever. Why is it sooo difficult to believe that this is an extremely close decision between 2 (3) EXCELLENT candidates? The comment I hear repeatedly is, "I could live with either of them". When I hear this crap and non-journalistic analysis, make me think that maybe it's just 'blowback'.

Posted by: toodles on January 10, 2008 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

The "tears," simply put, did the trick.

Listen carefully: THERE WERE NO TEARS!!!

Jeebus! I expect better from you! I expect better from you. Move on already.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with the claim that the tears were planned is that this would require support from the woman who asked the question. Keith Olbermann had her on his Countdown show. She was an ordinary New Hampshire resident who wound up voting for Barack Obama.

I favor the media backlash theory, myself; it is, naturally, one that reporters are extremely unlikely to embrace, because they live in denial that the media is not merely an observer, but a participant. The media's wild overreaction to "the tears" probably helped Hillary Clinton more than the tears. I'm sure that many female Obama and Edwards supporters who were so pissed off at the blatant sexism of the media that they considered voting for Hillary just to show them up.

Posted by: Joe Buck on January 10, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with the political hardball line at the end.

Posted by: Bob M on January 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I'm so pissed off at you right now, I want you personally to reimburse me for your damned book.

Hell, I already knew what was the matter with Kansas. The Air Force sent me to Wichita. Twice.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

I can't stand the woman, if she wins the Dem nomination I'll hold my nose and vote for her. But, I'm real damned tired of hearing about her crying. Move along for Christ's sake there are much more important issues here.

Posted by: vrk on January 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

the media backlash theory ... is, naturally, one that reporters are extremely unlikely to embrace

Nicely put, Joe Buck. I've sort of been wondering why "media backlash" got no mention in the press, although it is the first choice of almost everyone I know in explaining Hillary's victory (she got 46% of the women's vote in NH and only 30% in Iowa -- explain that, will you).

I wonder what T.A. Frank thinks about this hyposthesis. Oh yes, probably that the Clintonites carefully crafted the teary moment fully knowing that the media would lash out and ...

Posted by: David in NY on January 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK
.....if the general perception that this was contrived is actually deliberately, but subtly maintained by HRC's campaign,.... Doc at the Radar Station at 12:16 PM
Suddenly, the adjective Machivalian comes to mind. T.A. Frank now sounds like all those stupidly insane Clinton bashers in the media, and now, others are being seduced by similar theories which make the Da Vinci Code seem reasonable by comparison

Life -- if only anyone were able to plan out every event with such God-like control.

....The Bush team was pretty good at this in 2004.... Andrew at 12:22 PM

That must be why Obama is echoing some of the old Bush rhetoric about changing the tone in Washington and bridging partisan gaps.

....He promised to work to unite the country and said his agenda of improving education, modernizing the military, updating the Medicare system and providing tax relief would move forward in a bipartisan way, founded on a "search for common ground."....

Posted by: Mike on January 10, 2008 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Good article by Novak today, about the Clinton's campaign tactics (tears and fairy tales):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_clinton_style.html

Posted by: leo on January 10, 2008 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

"Tears" is shorthand here. Everyone knows what Frank means.

Blumenthal in a "what happened" post at pollster.com says this: "I did a quick comparison late last night of the crosstabs from the exit polls and final CNN/WMUR/UNH survey. Clinton's gains looked greatest among women and college educated voters. That pattern, if it also holds for other polls (a big if) seems suggestive of a late shift tied to the intense focus on Clinton's passionate and emotional remarks, especially over the last 24 hours of the campaign" (emphasis mine).

"A late shift tied to the intense focus" on HRC's moment. . . . and the other little things, like turnout.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 10, 2008 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Are you fucking kidding me? We're still talking about these nonexistent tears?

I'm a supporter of Obama but Jeebus-on-Toast, folks, I expect this sort of Clinton paranoia from right-wing nut cases...not from Washington Monthly. Grow up.

Posted by: greg on January 10, 2008 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

...There were no tears!!
Posted by: MANY

If there officially were or were not tears - it doesn't matter. It only matters that people thought there were tears.

Posted by: rusrus on January 10, 2008 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, I really think Mr. Frank ought to address the "media backlash" theory, which is maintained by a wide majority of commenters here, most of whom are not Clinton supporters based on their own perceptions and those of the ordinary folk they know (a far bigger sample than the 12 NH voters the NY Times surveyed on its front page today). Why does he not consider that? After all, the only way the media did (or could) raise the issue of her "tears" was to suggest that, as a woman, she wasn't up to the job. Stands to reason that women particularly, though not exclusively, would spring to her defense.

Posted by: David in NY on January 10, 2008 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Just wondering: With all this speculatin' about the tears, have any of the analysts had time to check whether Biden and Dodd supporters went to Senator Clinton?

Posted by: victoriawoodhull on January 10, 2008 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

I seriously believe we're underestimating how pissed off women voters were over this "piling-on" thing. Just from the comments I've read on here shows me the fixation on a show of emotion (and although I'm no HRC supporter, there certainly were no tears) as being something 'bad" really gave her a boost among women.

Because as I see it now (and I admit I didn't really get it before), basically, the criticisms weren't about her policy positions, but her character as a woman. I'm somewhat just as guilty of others as taking on some of those memes and running with it. It's the same thing I have complained about in the past of weighing policy positions and judgement through a media lens which doesn't exist to explain, but to gain ratings through a compelling narrative.

I'm still pissed about some of the things said by the Clintons about Obama, but there is no reason to nail her for unsubtantiated claims about insincerity when it just can't be proven. This is what I think is pissing people off, an assumption of inauthenticity alongside an assumption of cold, calculated manipulation. And that's coming from liberals! A discussion on her impact on the elctorate or policy making process is on the table and alot of what the Clintons said addresses that, but I don't think we should add insult to injury on this stuff.

In the end, policy discussions, even heated ones, are good for the party, however, character fights do not help the party whatsoever. This is not to say if dirty tricks are employed, campaign statements are given which are obviuosly false or mischaracterize opponents, or policy proposals are out of whack I won't call 'em out for it. I just don't find it healthy to go for the "character jugular" in a Democratic primary. Now come the general election...the gloves are off!

Posted by: drosz on January 10, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone bothered to consider the weather on Tuesday? Instead of the normal freezing temperatures, New Hampshire enjoyed a balmy, spring-like day on Tuesday. Nice days always help turnout.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

From Maureen Dowd's recent column:

When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.
A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the “humanized” Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. “We are at war,” he said. “Is this how she’ll talk to Kim Jong-il?”
Another reporter joked: “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand.” He added dryly: “Crying doesn’t usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships.”
Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message.
As I said, Hillary's moment, fraught with ambiguity as it is, is little more than a rorschach test. What do you think these reactions to it say about (presumably) the newsroom of the NY Times?

The problem for these reporters and Dowd is that this is a situation in which they can claim absolutely no special knowledge about whether Hillary was being spontaneous or not. All they had in front of them was the same video that we all saw; they had no privileged access to relevant information that the rest of us might lack.

And just look at how they reacted.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 10, 2008 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

David,

The way I see the "moment" issue, it's folded into the backlash. It's the clip (especially the short one) being watched by the voters who then respond to reporting (and trashing) of the candidate in question.

Posted by: paxr55 on January 10, 2008 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

hmm. Make that: "who then respond to reporting on (and trashing of) . . . ."

Posted by: paxr55 on January 10, 2008 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think T.A. Frank is the Thomas Frank of What's the Matter with Kansas fame.

Posted by: Lucy on January 10, 2008 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

"...There were no tears!!
Posted by: MANY

If there officially were or were not tears - it doesn't matter. It only matters that people thought there were tears."

Sorry, rusrus, that doesn't hold in this case. Everybody's seen the interview a thousand times and it makes the tears talk, especially the scripted tears talk, seem ridiculous and dishonest.

Posted by: bayoustjohndavid on January 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

T.A. Frank? Who are you and why should we care? Did you hack into Kevin's PC or what? Go away. Shoo-o-o...

Posted by: A Skeptic on January 10, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

On the subject of the hecklers. Let me get this straight. When Hillary decides to find some plants to put in the crowd, her people go to the staff of a loudmouth zoo radio show and asks them for help? That's your theory?

Wow. I guess her people really must be stupid.

Posted by: Gene Ha on January 10, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if it is the same guy, there is a bit of justice: The book is available for a penny at Amazon.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

You go BlueGal.

Posted by: Sarah on January 10, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

From Maureen Dowd's recent column:

jesus christ will you give it a rest already? you made your point many posts ago, and everyone agrees with it. your obsessions are wearisome.

Posted by: as it unfolds on January 10, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not familiar with your writings, Mr. Frank, but this particular one reeks of cynicism, the most off-putting of all political punditry. Kevin is ill served by your snark.

Posted by: Houston Bridges on January 10, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Not the same Frank. The WTMWK author is T.C., not T.A., Frank. This one is a Washington Monthly editor, more's the pity.

Posted by: shortstop on January 10, 2008 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

you made your point many posts ago, and everyone agrees with it. your obsessions are wearisome.

No excuse me, I was NOT making precisely the same point in earlier posts -- nor did I directly quote Dowd's column in them. Earlier I simply was noting Dowd's spitefulness toward the Clintons. Here, I was presenting the reactions of a number of (presumably) NY Times' reporters to Hillary's moment, to demonstrate my point about Hillary's moment being a "rorschach test".

If you can't make distinctions between the different ideas I was arguing for in the different posts, no wonder you think I'm just repeating myself.

But that's your cognitive limitation, not mine.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 10, 2008 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Al, Bradblog is ignoring Zogby's comment that the polls were showing movement. In short, he's advancing a conspiracy theory. I blogged about it, and stuck by it in a follow-up comment he put on my blog.

He also doesn't say whether or not he thinks Hillary's campaign would do this, or whether Republicans who think Hillary is more beatable.

Beyond that, Clinton won in both towns with and without Diebold machines.

Beyond that, a statistical correlation is NOT necessarily a causal correlation.

I think every poster on every blog in the world who can't get that fact ought to be forced to take a class on introductory logic, followed by three hours at The Skeptic's Dictionary, www.skepdic.om.

Going beyond "tears" to the heckling... I think the story is, does Obama getting "nailed" on this mean we should further question his "I can sit down and reason with Republicans" as being naive? I say yes.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Ouch. What say you about this hideousness, Senator Clinton? And has Senator Obama addressed Congressman Jackson's horrendous comments from yesterday?

Posted by: shortstop on January 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

I say it was this backlash against the Hillary-bashers in the media, and the double standard they applied, that put her over. -David in NY

Yes. That's the most concise and honest version of the whole story. It is a pity in many ways that politicians have to spend more energy battling with the media than directly appealling to the voters. It may be "triple-bankshot theorizing" on my part, but I believe that in order for Clinton to get the nomination her campaign is going to have to play hardball (or chess) with the media far more than with her opponents.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, Leo... per Novak's usual crapola column... Bill Clinton didn't belittle Obama as unqualified/"the biggest fairytale."

He said Obama's claimed opposition to Iraq when a year later, he reportedly said his position was near Bush's was "the biggest fairytale."

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Well, then this one can give me $29.95 as penance for being an obtuse ass.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Way to go, frankly0! No matter how many different people tell you the same thing, they're the problem! Never say die!

BGRS: Well, then this one can give me $29.95 as penance for being an obtuse ass.

Girl, what are you doing paying full price for books!? We gotta talk.

Posted by: shortstop on January 10, 2008 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Oy. Enough already about the tear (or tearing up, or whatever)!!!!!

Posted by: mary on January 10, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Are you kidding? I'm a Jew - I'm trying to turn a profit here, shortstop!~

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 10, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

I'm ignoring the first part of that, BGRS, but Mr. or Ms. T.A. Frank should compensate us all for the bleeding eyeballs we got reading this post.

Posted by: shortstop on January 10, 2008 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop... Andrew Cuomo talked about Obama can't "shuck and jive," so, he and Jesse Jr. probably both need to talk.

One more Obama note, re his new endorsements: I just totally think of "change" when I think of Tim Johnson and John Kerry. NOT.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

While it is plausible that the show of emotion might have been planned, Hillary is in an impossible situation on this one. She's bashed on if she shows emotion and bashed on if she doesn't.

I think the country needs to move on from this issue. There's more important things at stake in this election.

Posted by: dem'08 on January 10, 2008 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Obama's hope agenda has no legs to stand on, and the cynicism with which the press and some voters greeted HRC's "moment" is proof!

Posted by: Illume on January 10, 2008 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

I think it was more than the crying, it was the media obsession with it, too. A lot of people who are not political junkies had probably not noticed how sexist and negative the coverage of Hillary had been until then. I think that woke up a lot of older women who remember frequently getting the same kind of treatment when they were younger. By realizing how subjective the coverage has been it may have led them to give Hillary a second look.
I actually know a couple of women who reacted that way.

Posted by: BernieO on January 10, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

"per Novak's usual crapola column... Bill Clinton didn't belittle Obama as 'unqualified/the biggest fairytale.'"

Good point SocraticGadfly, a little twist via the Dark Prince.

Posted by: leo on January 10, 2008 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

There were, apparently, no tears.

There was, apparently, a few moments of honest frustration (expressed) at the stupidity of this entire era (post Carter) of junior high school dirty political tricks.

I do (strongly) suspect that the "Iron my shirt !" event WAS a planned/scripted one.

Still no idea who I`ll vote for come November; my criteria for choosing is still, and will continue to be, first one off their knees gets my vote.

Where are the adults ?

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." - Niccoló Machiavelli

Posted by: daCascadian on January 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

What tears? Those weren't tears anymore than The Scream was a scream. How many times are we supposed to be pushed around by Total Non-Issues?

Where's Edwards?

Posted by: katiebird on January 10, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with all you say. And if there is a Wilder Effect, it would be minimal. But the fact is, this was a very close race in New Hamphshire. It only looks like a blow-out because of the polls. Obama learned a valuable lesson.

Let me get off track. Racism in the blogosphere. There I said it. And it is happening.

I won't name, names. Except one. Bartcop.

He is so blinded by his love for Hillary, he has lost his mind. What has Hillary ever done to defeat Repulicans. Her husband defeated two pathetic candidates, then lost the House and Senate. She got destroyed when she tried to push health care.

So now Bart has decided his new tact is to point out that Republicans will pull every racist attack on Obama. In pointing this out, Bart is doing exactly what he accuses Republicans of doing. He calls Obama a dope dealing muslim.

It is a page out of the Hillary book when she sent out her hitman to accuse Obama of dealing drugs.

This is so sick. Bart is telling me, I should not vote for Obama for one reason. The color of his skin.

If you like Obama, and he is my Senator and a great one. You will never find two Senators, Durbin and Obama, that actully take the time to talk to their constintuents. I have got hand written notes from both, And met with both once. We got Obama on the path to fixing vote problems.

So tell Bartcop he is a racist by telling me to vote based on the color of a Man's skin.

You will see a lot more of this. And this is my feeling only. Don't dare say Obama is running on the race card. He has gone above it. And he will go above the blogosphere.

Posted by: Ken on January 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

What a crock, an utter crock. What a stupid, shallow, sexist explanation. LOL, you guys are too pathetic.

Posted by: chris on January 10, 2008 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

TA Frank, is it? You're a joke. I'll have to remember that when I see your byline, which I now expect on ever more rarified real estate for exactly that reason.

Posted by: david on January 10, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK
...I do (strongly) suspect that the "Iron my shirt !" event WAS a planned/scripted one.....daCascadian at 1:54 PM
Yup, it was planned by some Boston radio shock-jock.
....It is a page out of the Hillary book when she sent out her hitman to accuse Obama of dealing drugs. ....Ken at 2:01 PM
Two lies in one comment. Bartcop is no racist and Clinton did not accuse Obama of dealing drugs. Posted by: Mike on January 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Holy Crap, that Mickey Kaus was craptistic.

No mention of Biden and Dodd supporters breaking for Clinton which they did and pre-electon polls didn't factor (the pollsters didn't know that Biden and Dodd were out or the voters didn't). No mention of a mild Bradley/Wilder impact. Obama lost 4pts. from W females, and 3 pts. from W males. Gratuitous linking to Peggy Noonan wanna be wackjob sucking the tit of Pajamammy. Misleading mention of radio pranksters having a Clinton sticker, but more telling detail of having a myspace that lists him as a Republican left out.

Bravo good sir-

Posted by: Harry S/mdana on January 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, I try to bend over backwards to be fair to alternative viewpoints here, but this blog entry reads like lunacy.

If any of you have been anywhere near Boston in the last 10 years, you'd know that the idea of the Clinton campaign asking these particular juvenile lunatics for help is laughable. She may just as well have asked Rush Limbaugh.

The fact that some alleged lefties are even willing to entertain this sort of sour grapes conspiracy nonsense does demonstrate what a formidable challenge Clinton faces though.

If even left-wingers want to believe the worst about Clinton so badly, what can we expect from pseudo-lefties like those in the media, not to mention independents.

She better be one tough woman to deal with all of you.

Posted by: JR on January 10, 2008 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

OMG, I just read your own damned link about the Iron My Shirt jokesters. Did you even read it yourself?

These buffoons are correctly described as what they are, 20-something "dudes" who peddle misogynist trash for a living to young 20-something listeners.

Hillary's staff hired these guys?! LOL, this conclusion makes you look like a lunatic.

Please untie Kevin, you are obviously holding him hostage.

Posted by: JR on January 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

One of these guys "even had a Hillary Clinton sticker on his bag"!

Ahahahahahahahha.... well then case closed right?!


You are insane dude/dudette. Read the damned article you linked to yourself.

Your implication that he is an HRC supporter because someone gave him a sticker at a Hillary speech is brilliant, just brilliant. I suppose the Clinton team put together his web site too and had him identify himself as a Republican just to sow confusion.


Please find the nearest swamp and rinse yourself off. Thanks.

Posted by: JR on January 10, 2008 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

paxr55

Yes, I'm coming to think the moment and the reaction to it are inseparable. That's because the only way to make the moment "newsworthy" was to use it to doubt Clinton's qualifications; either that, or they had to ignore it. The women I know thought it was no big deal by itself, and maybe was good in cutting against her ice queen image. But the press reaction really, really highlighted it, they saw it being used against her, and they were royally ticked.

Posted by: David in NY on January 10, 2008 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

When the numbers came out, it turned out that female voters had flocked to Clinton in New Hampshire by a wide margin. It had been an effective approach. And the media, which had poorly concealed its glee over a Clinton loss, had only strengthened it.

—T.A. Frank

I think this is spot on.

A brief note to the Clinton supporters who are freaked out by all this. I'm sure there have been many moments when HRC teared up in private over the last several years. It is a compliment to her campaign that someone thought it important that she show such emotion to the voters. Had I been on the campaign staff, I would have been in favor of planting a question that would elicit such emotions. (Everyone plants questions, for god's sake. In fact, it is SOP for our current president.) Planting questions is as American as apple pie and foot signals in public restrooms.

If it was a setup, it was brilliant, totally consistent with the campaign's strategy of humanizing her. That doesn't mean the tears weren't authentic. (I'm using tears here just to once again agitate all the folks who insist there were no tears :-])

To suggest that the event, and others, were orchestrated to allow HRC to show genuine emotion is a compliment -- repeat COMPLIMENT! -- to her campaign. That the MSM handled it so badly was pure freakin' GRAVY! That Matthews made a total ass of himself was a gift from god.

And it all worked! In fact, Kevin Drum's misspecified multivariate analysis notwithstanding, it worked better than anything the Clinton's ever tried before. Indeed, it may have worked better than any last minute maneuver ever, in the history of politics! It deserves the Atwater trophy for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

So, as Clinton supporters, you are left with three choices: the pollsters were wrong; and/or it was a lot of little factors that all turned in her favor at the last minute (call it the Drum miracle of loaves and fishes turnabout); or, LISTEN UP!, HRC and her team deliberately stuck it to Obama and Edwards. As in, bend over, boys, here comes Mr. Choo Choo!

My suggestion is simple: if you're an HRC supporter, DECLARE VICTORY!!!, and think about how she's going to do it next time.

(Hint: Obama or Edwards may have to actually strike her next time :-])

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 10, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Why do people think HRC is such a good actor to be able to feign misty eyes? She's a horrible actor--don't you remember the Soprano's-take-off video? Bill did great, but HRC couldn't act her way out of a paper bag (or was that cleverly designed "fake bad acting" so that no one would ever suspect her later....)

Posted by: mgcktri on January 10, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Good article by Novak today...

Now, that's funny (and impossible)!

Posted by: TJM on January 10, 2008 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Really, I think the problem with T.A. Frank's post is that it is like so much journalism these days. It actually doesn't draw a single firm factual conclusion, but manages to imply that Clinton is a calculating bitch anyway.

The post pretends objectivity and by refraining from drawing firm conclusions and purporting to to reject the conclusion that all these things were "choreographed," asserting that they might have been "pure luck," and anyway, that "even if" she did choreograph all of it, it was no big deal, "hardly ... sensational."

But my God, the innuendo is appalling: "[Clinton's] best hope" was attracting women, she "went after them with determination," one of her hecklers sported a Hillary sticker, "there were the tears" (were there?), it had been an "effective approach." Worse, there is the outrageous and unfounded speculation that the hecklers were in her employ (clearly at odds with their jobs at a shock-jock outfit) and that they were sent by Michael Whouley, followed by the recitation of a dirty trick Whouley once claimed he pulled eight years ago (which Whouley says was a joke, and which, if you think about it, was wildly improbable*), while working not for Clinton but for Al Gore.

I mean, talk about slime. Dragging in a dirty trick Michael Whouley probably didn't do for a different candidate eight years ago; claiming people who were obviously not Clinton's supporters were in fact in her employ. Christ, have you no common sense?

[*In the New Hampsire primary, eight years ago, would Whouley have been able to command enough excess employees or volunteers to get on I-93 and increase the traffic sufficiently, at just the right time, to significantly impede the progress of Bradley voters to the polls??? The very notion is laughable. And would a sane person have devoted the dozens, perhaps scores or hundreds, of cars and drivers necessary to do this, rather than using the manpower for traditional GOTV? To one not bent on slime, this is clearly a preposterous scenario, but something someone might hypothesize as a joke, at a bar, late at night. But by claiming this is relevant here, T.A. Frank shows himself to be either a knave or a fool. Take your pick.)

Posted by: David in NY on January 10, 2008 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

"A brief note to the Clinton supporters who are freaked out by all this"

Pay attention -- most of us are Clinton supporters. We're not idiots, either.

Posted by: David in NY on January 10, 2008 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Damn, too busy making tags. I meant we're NOT Clinton supporters, mostly.

Posted by: David in NY on January 10, 2008 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Great point, about the traffic David, I had missed that one. Lunacy. How many trained stunt drivers would this take?

One thing that does amaze me about the Clintons is the sheer level of hatred they are able to inspire.

Again, this is my biggest reservation about Hillary, something happens in many people's brains when they see her image and logic flies out the window.

Hillary couldn't have acted that "teary moment" if she tried, hell I don't know if Annette Bening (sp?). could have done it.

Posted by: JR on January 10, 2008 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Econobuzz, Matthews is continuing to make an ass out of himself. He's now, per Bradblog, joining the voting machine conspiracy theory.

It's the MSM's way of trying to CYA; unfortunately, at least one stupid blogger who hasn't heard of Occam's Razor is going along.

Might voting machines have wrongly recorded votes? I have no doubt of that, and yes, that's a concern. That's why paper trails are the minimum, or, if Americans took voting as seriously as Western Europe, they'd pony up the money to do paper ballots, period.

That said, there's a big diff between inaccurate and hacked voting machines.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 10, 2008 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

'Soft, wet and ready' will carry the male youth vote everytime.

Sorry, I could not resist. I think the 'ready' slogan does not rally Clinton supporters, but the soft spoken, misty eyed tone does.

Posted by: Brojo on January 10, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

IF this was indeed an act (and we have no way of knowing), I say we give her the Presidency AND an Academy Award.

I voted for Obama. But if I had seen the video before the vote, I would have voted for Clinton. (I was bouncing back and forth between Edwards, Clinton, and Obama up until Monday night.) The video didn't make me feel sorry for her, but it demonstrated to me how much she cares about this country.

The key for me was that the emotion came, not as she was talking about her personal hardships, but as she was talking about what this country has been led to in the last seven years. God, that makes me want to cry too.

BTW: I'm a middle aged white male.

Posted by: cailte on January 10, 2008 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

You're assuming that 50-100,000 people changed their vote because they'd heard a story about some tears being shed. That shows an incredible level of contempt for the voting public. But then again I think that anybody who runs panting after polling data and pontificates about the its values, changes, momentum, and, for all I know, acceleration and even the fourth derivative, is showing contempt for the public. It's my hope that they're beginning to return the favor.

Posted by: Bob Munck on January 10, 2008 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

What a bizarre story.

After Iowa Obama supporters were calling people 'racist' if they didn't support Obama. Do we really need that kind of political tactic?

We don't know that Hillary cried. Yet people thought she did and changed their vote. What kind of Democracy is that?

Edwards commented on it and was perceived as bashing her and people changed their vote based on that. What kind of Democracy is that?

Now, Karl Rove is suggesting Obama is 'prissy'. Will people change their vote based on that kind of garbage too?

It seems to me somebody is testing lost of emotional reactions while everybody is under stress. I'm guessing this is not good for America.

Now do you see why I suggest John Edwards for president? Leadership instead of garbage politics.

Posted by: MarkH on January 10, 2008 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK
.... three choices: the pollsters were wrong; ...it was a lot of little factors that all turned in her favor at the last minute....; or... HRC and her team deliberately stuck it to Obama....Econobuzz at 2:54 PM
Let me choose A & B: the pollsters stopped polling a couple of days before the vote. Obama's percentage didn't change. The Republican polls were accurate. There were a lot of undecided and soft support shown on the Democratic side. If Clinton's team were that smart..... yeah right, like anybody can be that Machiavellian successfully.
... Karl Rove is suggesting Obama is 'prissy'.... MarkH at 6:39 PM
Worse, Rove is making coded racist remarks already:

....His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night....He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn't know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through...

Posted by: Mike on January 10, 2008 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Beyond what's already been said, re the polls, nobody squawked like this when the Iowa polls proved wrong. I suggest folks like Brad Friedman/BradBlog pull their heads out of their asses.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

You people are all on crack, including a lot of posters I have respect for.

I saw the video the first time, as I was passing by the tv. The question sounded like a plant, I didn't get much out of the video except that her campaign was trying to counter the ice queen/robot image.

Just watched it again, without the original question.

Same reaction.

Earth to almost every poster on this thread:

POLITICIANS ARE ACTORS

BFD

Did you see Edwards act during the debate? I liked it, doesn't matter that he is dramatizing his message, this helped to get it across.

Clinton campaign decides to try and personalize Hillary to draw on the female vote. So what? This is called running a political campaign. It is what they are paid for.

She did exactly what Edwards did in the debate. She spoke emotionally about something she cares about, and I have no doubt she cares very much about this election. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, it is not cold or calculating, it is presenting your candidate's assets.

My complaint is that in the middle of her emotional outpouring, she transitions into how she is the only candidate capable of turning the country around. Before anyone rips me a new one, watch the video again. She is all choked up about how much they are putting out for the country, and in the middle of a sentence, in the middle of a sentence, switches to "but some of us are right and some of us are wrong"; she is not referring to Repubs.

The genius about the strategy is that it got the networks to carry her talking, non-stop, immediately before the vote, in a very sympathetic light. This part is what I think was luck. This is also what got her back in the game. They couldn't pay for that kind of exposure.

I agree with a lot of posters here, one of the reasons I like Hill, is that I think the Clintons know how to work the media. Gore and Kerry lost because they didn't manage the media, the Dem candidate this year cannot make that same mistake. It may not be fair, but the media treats Repubs and Dems differently. The R's can had them copy and tell them to run with it. The D's need to pull stuff like this.

PS: Anyone who doesn't think Hillary has improved as an actor doesn't remember her from the 90's. Not being on the east coast, I had not seen her speak in years after Bill left office, until somewhere around 2003. I was shocked at how polished and professional she had become.

PSS: Seems to me like Hill stole Edwards, "this is personal" shtick. Have not been following very closely so I could be all wet.


Posted by: says you on January 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

"I suggest folks like Brad Friedman/BradBlog pull their heads out of their asses." - Socratic Gadfly

It's now made it to Huffington Post in the media food chain. Very, very interesting exposition by a statistician.

Vote Fraud Redux 2008

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINK

A couple paragraphs from Huffington Post to whet your appetite:

"I can say with a high confidence level that the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual results were not an anomaly. The Democrats especially should want to follow-up on this ASAP. The idea that the so-called Bradley affect created a racial bias against Obama is nonsense. That is a lie that is meant to divide the Dems on gender and race."

"The post election reports show that Ron Paul did not get any votes in a precinct where exit polls show that he did. Zogby did a show for us at Nova M Radio and he is now on XM. He and I have had many discussions about the statistical anomalies in the 2000 and 2004 exit polls. Zogby and I are experts in the field of statistical sampling. Zogby however is not an expert in forensic accounting."

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

Moderator,

Someone's screwing with your system. I've now had two comments totally disappear.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

This is nuts. Is it even possible for someone to delete comments from your system, other than you? Maybe I just hit 'cancel' instead of 'post,' but I'm 'almost' certain that I waited to see that they came up on the thread. Time for me to call it a day.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

"Let me choose A & B: the pollsters stopped polling a couple of days before the vote. Obama's percentage didn't change. The Republican polls were accurate." - Mike

The Republican vote count was not accurate in Suffern. See Ron Paul's site. The fact that Obama's percentage didn't change is a tried-and-true vote fraud give-away.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

And Mike, the pollsters did not quit polling a couple days before the election. Sheesh. I feel like I've walked into the twilight zone.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 1:27 AM | PERMALINK

The amusing thing, of course, is that no one is accusing the Clintons of perpetrating the fraud, but her supporters here sure act like it. Shame.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

Where's a moderator when you need him/her? Oo-Oo-Ooooooo.... (Twilight Zone)

[I'm aware my system is being messed with, I'm dealing with it. Comments are deleted manually - if one of yours was inadvertently marked for deletion, I apologize. I don't think I did, but it is possible.]

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

Way more than comments being deleted is happening on this forum. You haven't noticed the 'concern trolling' by some of our most popular posters? To tell you the truth, I don't know who to trust around here anymore. I don't even know whether to trust you!!! This is no way to run a comment section. I know you probably don't really 'read' every single comment. I would suggest that you mention my suspicions to Kevin or else open your eyes wide yourself. Look for popular commenters beating up on less aggressive commenters. One item they've been particularly 'virulent' on has been the possible NH voting fraud comments. You could search for 'head in ass' and probably find quite a few commenters using the same words, almost identical, to accost various commenters. Their main purpose here is to pimp for Clinton.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 5:23 AM | PERMALINK

And their behavior is the same for Clinton debate. Beating up on less agressive commenters if any criticism is made of her, after first trying to 'coax' support. You know, I'm actually OK with this now. I know what's going on and can handle it. Whether less mature commenters can deal with the self-esteem issues involved is a question, but I guess they'll leave if the unpleasantness becomes too extreme. I could give you a list of user IDs, but I figure that's not my job.

Posted by: nepeta on January 11, 2008 at 5:29 AM | PERMALINK

It's amazing to read these comments...has it ever occurred to anyone that all this talk of 'backlash' may inspire African American voters to repay the favor to white women (there,I said it) in South Carolina in a few weeks? The women in NH aren't the only ones who will rally to their own...

Posted by: Free Thinker on January 11, 2008 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Who's doin' the cryin' now?

Posted by: AJ on January 11, 2008 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

are all those overwrought nepeta comments fakes? if not, a grip needs to be gotten. soon.

Posted by: as it unfolds on January 11, 2008 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Did the tears do it.

NO! She was ahead in polls and press wanted to champion Obama without taking the first polls into account like they should have. The press over-reached, as did the liberal blogs.

Hillary and Obama are corportist, so I was kind-of hoping Edward could use the war between the both of them go get ahead.

But I agree with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano who endorses the presidential bid of Sen. Barack Obama. I think it time to move beyond Clinton and Bush - since they are both one and same kind of politican anyway.

Posted by: me-again on January 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

I don't expect to find wacko Clinton-hating theorizing like this at Washington Monthly. You disappoint me.

Posted by: gob on January 11, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%

Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

1/8/08 - 'Problems' with Paper Ballots in State Inaccurately Reported by National Mainstream Media
1/8/08 - Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results Announced for Clinton/Obama
[Initial post-primary report, updated many times]
1/9/08 - Tribune Media: MSM Failed to Note 'Hackable Diebold Red Flags' in NH Primary Results
1/9/08 - New Docs: Exec at NH's Diebold Vote Counting Firm Convicted of Narcotics Trafficking
1/9/08 - 7 Point Swing for Clinton Over Obama in NH's Diebold Precincts
1/9/08 - Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in NH
1/10/08 - Brad Discussing Concerns on Stephanie Miller Show
1/10/08 - KUCINICH CALLS FOR 'RECOUNT' OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BALLOTS


Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%

Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

Posted by: amcmaster on January 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

And so it begins, again. With no meaningful reforms to our appallingly dubious e-lection apparatus since the previous presidential farce of 2004, the actual tallies are once again anybody's guess:

Kucinich Seeks NH Dem Vote Recount
By Stephen Frothingham [AP]

Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted. The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results. ...

In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."

Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton's triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin. ...
.

Posted by: Poilu on January 11, 2008 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree there were manipulative tears. Why perpetrate Republican talking points? What a yucky post. She was a bit choked up but recovered quickly and continued expressing her thoughts.

This has become a huge distraction. I suggest getting off this topic and onto investigative journalism. What is the administration getting away with while y'all discuss Hillary's moment?
Now there's the question.

Posted by: consider wisely always on January 11, 2008 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

I don't understand why the Obama numbers rule out any kind of Bradley effect. Couldn't such an effect occur just as easily with polled voters saying they are undecided, then voting for Clinton, as with voters saying they are voting for Obama, then voting for Clinton? Or couldn't it be substitution? 10% undecided all breaking for Clinton is indistinguishable from 10% undecided breaking evenly for Clinton and Obama, together with a 5% Bradley effect.

Posted by: ask2 on January 11, 2008 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, yeah, the tears did it. When you can't think of anything rational to say, just make shit up.

A more plausible explanation would be that Biden and Dodd supporters broke for Hillary. Biden got about 3% of the Iowa vote, Dodd 1% - each would surely have done better in New Hampshire, a New England state. Their potential went somewhere - why not Hillary?

Also, it's possible that after the debate, a few Edwards supporters switched at the last moment.

Edwards is very shrill, overambitious, and has a tendency to give Medusa-like glares at Hillary. He's unlikeable too.

Posted by: jane on January 12, 2008 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Insurance companies http://insuranceinstates.com/florida/Miami/Clear%20Title%20of%20South%20Florida/33173/

Insurance in the US.

Posted by: steesoftrodia on April 20, 2010 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly