home

The Passionate Moment: A Test For The Media

This is the moment of the debate. Hillary Clinton responds to John Edwards' defense of Barack Obama (and you are right to wonder if John Edwards is trying to win the nomination if he is spending his time in a debate defending Barack Obama) and his attack on Hillary Clinton (he even insinuated that Hillary should drop out of the race; talk about presmptuous).

Hillary responds with passion. It was reminiscent in style to Ronald Reagan's moment in the 1980 New Hampshire debate after he had lost to George H.W. Bush in Iowa:

I think Democratic partisans will love this moment for Hillary and wonder if John Edwards is still trying to win. I think people who dislike Hillary will call it shrill. Of course that response is sexist. Will the Media reveal its sexism again? I predict they will. I think that is less important than how Democratic partisans react to it.

Update (TL): My favorite clips were where she talked about how words aren't action and how her feelings were hurt when Gibson said she isn't likeable. Also memorable and moving: When she said having the first woman president would be change.

Also check out her Fact Hub for sourcing of her criticisms of Obama because the chair of his NH campaign is a drug company lobbyist and his flip-flopping on the Patriot Act extension and vote to fund the war in Iraq. It also has the details of her record in New Hampshire.

[Update (TL): Debate transcript here.]

< New Hampshire: Post-Debate Thread | What Did New Hampshire Think? >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:53:40 PM EST
    To both you and Jeralyn for your wonderful hosting.  I got to see both debates which I would not have been able to do otherwise.
     

    "I've already made change" (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:58:05 PM EST
    If she co owns the Clinton presidency, then why do we need such big change now?  Why don't we have universal health care?  Why didn't she end DADT then? Why Doma then? Why didn't she get us off oil then?  You can claim these were impossible feats but they made much better strides towards a lot of these things in Europe at the time. Why didn't she make changes then?

    To me she is arguing against actually needing change, we just need to go back to Clinton 90s, if you are so partisan you think the Clinton era is the best we can do, i guess this will work for you.

    Also her body language is so aggravated and angry, she almost seems pissed that anyone would even suggest not going back to the 90s is the best idea.

    I don't really know what you think is so strong about this?  I think her plea for her candidacy was way better.

    I love the premise, if you don't think this moment is wonderful, you are sexist hate hillary clinton and hate women.  Seriously BTD is no one allowed to disagree with you

    You are obtuse (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:01:53 PM EST
    You can of course disagree with what Clinton said.

    What would make you a sexist is if you describe that answer as shrill, angry or hysterical.

    Of course you did that already. And yes, you were being sexist when you did.


    [ Parent ]

    She comes across as unflinching and (none / 0) (#136)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:28:23 AM EST
    cold and immovable.  She interrupted at inopportune times twice.

    I'm a woman and a feminist and while she wasn't shrill, she was rude and demanding.  Not assertive nor masterful, but rude.

    Though she has some incredible intelligence. But, her comment about the missiles... she's too quick to put her finger on the trigger constantly to prove how Maggie Thatcher tough she is.

    I know that doesn't go over well here.

    [ Parent ]

    I am seeing nothing but positive for hillary (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:30:45 AM EST
    so far for that moment.

    [ Parent ]
    CDS is real (none / 0) (#142)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:35:24 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    She said that making change (none / 0) (#143)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:36:54 AM EST
    is not just "running on promises"... but actually "delivering" change.  It was her wrap up on the "35 years" and "working hard" angle.

    Now, if someone really wanted to swipe at her... that is a definite opening.  

    "Delivering" change.

    [ Parent ]

    I suppose (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:42:22 AM EST
    But what does that have to do with how the moment is playing?

    And I disagree that she was rude at all.

    [ Parent ]

    A... there were a lot of people commenting on it (none / 0) (#178)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:45:03 AM EST
    Perhaps rude is not the word... many people used a variety of different words to describe it, but it works out the same... she turned people off with it.

    It's part of her personality most likely though. It's something she cannot flip off and on.

    The dynamics are such in this primary race that Hillary's elasticity is constrained.  She's a super smart woman and a lot of people would love to see that barrier broken, but Hillary just cannot seem to catch fire.  

    And, the Bloomberg meeting is on Monday. Who knows what monkey wrench that will throw into the stew.


    [ Parent ]

    So are you shrilly saying she was shrill? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:01:58 PM EST
    I believe her reference to health care for kids and National Guard members refer to her accomplishments, with others, while she has been Senator from NY.  

    [ Parent ]
    This person (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:04:15 PM EST
    is irrational discussing this race.

    What I love is they claim to be a Hilary fan.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, you began this by using the word shrill (none / 0) (#82)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:43:00 PM EST
    in your opening blog.  If you meant that only certain people would call her shrill, then you should work on the meaning you are attempting to convey.  You are guilty of doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.  But it's become quite the standard here on TalkLeft.

    I did find her response "passionate," I thought it was angry.  She dished it out two minutes before, then became livid when it was turned back.  And it showed.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:07:49 AM EST
    Well, whatever.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes indeed. (none / 0) (#127)
    by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:10:48 AM EST
    The writing matters.

    [ Parent ]
    I call edwards (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:04:34 PM EST
    angry when he goes into his rants about how sad the world is.

    I say the same for her.  why is it ok to cal lhim angry but sexist for her?

    [ Parent ]

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:05:49 PM EST
    I see. So you are saying that because you stupidly call Edwards angry you are not a sexist when you stupidly call Clinton angry.

    I take your point.

    [ Parent ]

    hilarious (none / 0) (#22)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:07:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    well you (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:10:23 PM EST
    didn't say that it was stupid, you said it was sexist.  i'm pointing out the myself and the same people you are calling sexist claim Edwards is angry.  

    I'm sorry i think calling people sexist or racist or biggots is a big deal so you might want to actually be accurate about it.  

    [ Parent ]

    My apologies to you (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:13:48 PM EST
    But I think you will find MOST people did not call him angry.

    We'll see.

    [ Parent ]

    absolutely (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:22:02 PM EST
    no need to apologize. if i ever use the word shrill call me on it.  it annoys me

    [ Parent ]
    let's avoid personal attacks (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:50:05 PM EST
    on commenters, okay? "Stupidly" is not appropriate.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh oh (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:07:06 AM EST
    a rap across the knuckles.

    Yes, ma'am.

    [ Parent ]

    "Rap across the knuckles?" (none / 0) (#152)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:44:09 AM EST
    Nun/school marm reference?

    Not sexist at all.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong. (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:46:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    J, if you have the patience to (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:38:59 AM EST
    review these exchanges, you may conclude BTD is the exhibiting calm under the circumstances.  I do.  Is it o.k. if he says "gnat"?

    [ Parent ]
    sigh (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
    of course you can disagree - but you have to make a case that makes sense.  You mix up what is said - I cant tell if you dont understand or you do it on purpose. I think you dont understand and so I should cut you morfe slaxk than I have before.

    For example, Hillary didnt say she wanted to go back to the 90s.  You didnt understand her point.  See, you have to actually understand a point to argue against it.  

    [ Parent ]

    no (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:06:59 PM EST
    what i said is that if she takes credit for the positive changes in the Clinton first presidency says that that is her record of change. i think it is fair to ask why we still need change, why didn't she make the changes then?  Either that is a fair question or she can't claim the 90's.

    [ Parent ]
    no (none / 0) (#23)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:08:11 PM EST
    you said she wanted to go back to the 90s - hello?  Your own words, dude.

    [ Parent ]
    no my interpretation (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:12:44 PM EST
    of what she said was that she wants to go back to the 90's, and she is angry that everyone doesn't think it is a good idea

    i quoted what she says, you can disagree with my reading of it, but i did not misquote

    [ Parent ]

    Your (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:17:29 PM EST
    interpretation was very wrong.


    [ Parent ]
    yeah (none / 0) (#50)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:20:05 PM EST
    not suprised he cant make a cogent point,

    [ Parent ]
    you made my point (none / 0) (#48)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:19:23 PM EST
    you didnt understand.  You dont pause to make sure you have understand what you have heard or read first.  

    [ Parent ]
    Why Edwards is not ryig to win (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:15:59 PM EST
    This Top recommended dkos diary -

    Edwards Beats Hillary Again.

    Last I looked, Barack Obama was the frontrunner. Is Edwards NOT trying to beat Obama? Obviouilsy he is NOT.

    The Edwards supporters (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:18:20 PM EST
    are being completely unrealistic about their candidate right now. It makes discussion at dkos pretty difficult.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:22:42 PM EST
    just difficult, it's downright impossible.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards is letting personal animus (none / 0) (#89)
    by MarkL on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:47:15 PM EST
    cloud his judgment. I don't know why he loathes Hillary, but it's clear to me that he does, and this is why he is intent on taking her down.

    [ Parent ]
    lol (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:19:26 PM EST
    maybe they mean beat as in the abuse definition. funny quote though.

    [ Parent ]
    And Obama fans (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:22:53 PM EST
    love him for it.

    Will not vote for him, but love him doing the dirty work.

    [ Parent ]

    It's really hypocritical of them, (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:25:14 PM EST
    isn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:30:10 PM EST
    If I was the Obama campaign, could you have come uip with a better way to be defended?

    It is so idiotic a moment for Edwards that it defies belief.

    [ Parent ]

    That they love divisive politics (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:31:22 PM EST
    so long as it doesn't come from their "above the fray" candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm watching the Dems. now. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:32:05 PM EST
    Obama is saying he and Edwards yada yada yada.  

    [ Parent ]
    OMG. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:24:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ditto (none / 0) (#78)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:40:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    he's currently third (none / 0) (#161)
    by along on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:59:02 AM EST
    in NH. You don't think trying to claw your way up to second is a valid tactic in that circumstance?

    I know he's SAYING it's a 2-way race, but he's reacting to the reality. It might not work, but the doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

    [ Parent ]

    George Stephanopolis (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:04:05 AM EST
    thought Edwards did a great job tonight.  

    [ Parent ]
    And? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:07:02 AM EST
    No one cares.

    [ Parent ]
    You big meany, you are hurting (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:09:17 AM EST
    my feelings, but, don't worry, I can take it.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (none / 0) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:15:58 AM EST
    It was a rebuke of Stepanpoulos frankly.

    His take is not important imo.

    [ Parent ]

    I just figured he doesn't (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:18:04 AM EST
    find Hillary all that likeable and was pleased to see Edwards try to hurt her chances.  

    [ Parent ]
    He shouldn't be allowed to be a commentator (none / 0) (#177)
    by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:19:24 AM EST
    Considering who he used to work for.  Not exactly an unbiased voice.

    [ Parent ]
    I've just spent a few minutes (3.66 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:56:36 PM EST
    taking fire from the Edwards partisans at Daily Kos for suggesting that his behavior tonight was more than a little strange. This is a post that reaffirms my feeling.

    And damn (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:59:10 PM EST
    that is a good moment from Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    No cursing (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:04:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    I thought we could stick to PG here. I apologize.

    [ Parent ]
    Afraid it's (none / 0) (#46)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:18:38 PM EST
    gotta be G for the young Obamaites.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (none / 0) (#132)
    by Rojas on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:20:50 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    WTF (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:08:14 PM EST
    I didn't know that d*mn was still considered a curse.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:10:19 PM EST
    can correct me but I believe it gets filtered.

    [ Parent ]
    Damn is okay (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:46:08 PM EST
    it's just the four letter words and words that filters pick up thinking they might be s*x-related, like as* and as*h*le and p*rn.

    Thanks though for reminding people.

    [ Parent ]

    George Carlyn's list is passe. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:48:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    4 letters in damn (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:54:05 PM EST
    Just sayin'

    [ Parent ]
    Don't think it gets bleeped on TV (none / 0) (#114)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:58:22 PM EST
    But there's no consistency to censorship, so what's filtered or not filtered isn't really based on reason.

    [ Parent ]
    That seems extreme (none / 0) (#26)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:09:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It gets filtered (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:10:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:11:52 PM EST
    Sensitive filters.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah, wow (none / 0) (#57)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:23:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Rationale is that law firm (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:25:25 PM EST
    computers have tender ears.

    [ Parent ]
    Ours must be the exception to that rule (none / 0) (#69)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:33:59 PM EST
    Ours curse like drunken sailors :)

    [ Parent ]
    Like in the Raggedy Ann books? (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:57:58 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I totally give up on that place. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Teresa on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:00:42 PM EST
    I had to come over here to read the grown-up live blog (only to find a few of them here).

    [ Parent ]
    Shrill = anger (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:01:29 PM EST
    When JE gets passionate they call it anger.  DMR called him angry you can disagree and say it is passion but the sexism seems over the top.

    Why is it ok to call Edwards angry but it's sexism to say the same of Hillary.  

    Seriously everything is an excuse with this womans supporters.

    She probably should have omitted the (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:57:02 PM EST
    "35 years" part.  Strong statement though.  Good for her.  

    why? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:06:07 PM EST
    just curious.

    by the way, your sage comments were missedearlier.

    [ Parent ]

    Because the "youth" of NH, SC etc. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:11:38 PM EST
    might realize she is older than Obama!

    I had to listen to the Republican candidates jump all over each other first.  Now I'm onto the Dem. debate.  Wait up, you guys.

    Sounds like every Dem. candidate would invade Pakistan to capture Bin Laden.  Surprising to me.  Awe are plowing so much money into Pakistan.

    [ Parent ]

    oh (none / 0) (#38)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:14:07 PM EST
    I thought you meant something else - thanks

    [ Parent ]
    WOw (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:57:24 PM EST
    What a moment. Hardly shrill.

    i cant tell (none / 0) (#14)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:04:18 PM EST
    if he is stupid or just wants attention.  You must know him better...or have tons more patience.

    I think it will worry some Democratic partisans (none / 0) (#20)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:06:11 PM EST
    She's been careful throughout this campaign to maintain her calm so that, as Markos said, people wonder "Remind me, why do we hate Hillary?"

    Some Democratic partisans will worry that this will remind people of why they hate Hillary. It will remind them of her negatives. It could make them think to themselves, do we want to go through it all again with the Clintons. Maybe we need change.  And "change" leads them to think about Obama.

    I think it was not a strong moment for her.  

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:08:55 PM EST
    So you are saying they did not know about the attacks on Hillary before?

    I think you are wrong in your assessment.

    [ Parent ]

    I know you think I'm wrong (none / 0) (#41)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:17:16 PM EST
    and maybe I am.  We'll find out.  Truthfully, I would be happy if this didn't come back to bite her.  But my gut level feeling is that it is not good for her.  

    The mere fact that you immediately wrote a post questioning whether the MSM will treat this in a sexist way means that this moment concerns you too.

    She needed a real moment.  Not a debatable moment.


    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:24:06 PM EST
    I think she had no choice, whether it works or not.

    She had to do this.

    What would you have had her do in response to Edwards' attack?

    [ Parent ]

    Oh she had no choice but to respond. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:31:33 PM EST
    But the question was how.  If she had responded as she did to attacks in other debates, she could have had a real moment. In her other debates she tried hard to come back in clever funny ways. Or in poignant ways as she did in Las Vegas with the gender card question.  (That was a great moment). But I think she was tired tonight.  She looked exhausted to me.  When he hit her with it I think she responded naturally, with anger.  Anger doesn't help her.  

    It woke her up, she got better in the debate.  That's why she tried the funny tactic with the hurt feelings.  And that might have worked if she hadn't had the other reaction earlier.  I know some people (you) think it worked - so let me say it might have worked better.  

    Her real moment should have been the reality check moment.  But it won't be.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you are wrong (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:40:47 PM EST
    mostly because she is no the forntrunner anymore.

    But more importantly, she needs to appeal to the Dem base.

    And it seems to have worked.

    [ Parent ]

    We'll see. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:47:27 PM EST
    If I'm wrong it will be a pleasant surprise. I think it's unfair that women are held to a different standard than men and aren't allowed to get angry.  And I think that most of her so-called negatives are unfair.

    You have to take into account, though, the difference between reacting to her comment in the moment and saying "yeah Hillary!" and then thinking about it the next day as other people see it on TV and question her anger.  Maybe it won't affect anything.  I suspect it could.

    But we'll see.

    [ Parent ]

    Anyone seeing that video (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:52:35 PM EST
    will be hardpressed to call her angry.

    Watch it again.

    [ Parent ]

    I have (none / 0) (#106)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:54:19 PM EST
    I've watched it three times now.  The end is where she gets in trouble.

    [ Parent ]
    Very Presidential (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    Transcending gender.

    [ Parent ]
    You know, one reason I may be wrong (none / 0) (#116)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:59:16 PM EST
    is that I'm not from NH.  I react as a Democratic partisan from where I'm from and I also know reactions of Democratic partisans from where I'm from.  I know what our concerns are.  

    If NH doesn't have a whole lot of irrational Hillary haters that the Democratic partisans have to deal with on a day-to-day basis, like we do, maybe they won't be as concerned as I suspect.

    But even if it doesn't raise a concern (and I still think it will) it wasn't the big moment that she needed imo.  

    [ Parent ]

    I fully expect to see the (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:50:02 PM EST
    "hurt feelings" comment front and center tomorrow.  

    [ Parent ]
    Do you think that helps her? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:53:47 PM EST
    I don't think it hurts her in and of itself (although I think it hurts her if played with the passionate moment).  But on its own do you think it helps her?  Is that the moment she should have hoped for.

    It was obviously rehearsed so maybe that is the moment she wanted played on TV.  I'm not sure why. (Although if they play far enough and get Obama's snotty answer it could help her I guess.)

    [ Parent ]

    I'm expecting something similar to (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:57:33 PM EST
    playing up George Romney's "I was brainwashed" comment or Dukakis (was it Dukadis) tears.  

    [ Parent ]
    Wow! (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:06:21 AM EST
    I must say you folsk seem tone deaf to me.

    No one, Imean, no one, think that was abad moment for Hillary.

    She was funny.

    EVERONE is writng that.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course it was funny (none / 0) (#126)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    but will it help her?  I doubt it.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought it was good. Had she just accepted (none / 0) (#131)
    by Compound F on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:20:08 AM EST
    that she was less "likable," then she would have been less likable.  The question was indelicately phrased, even to a battle-hardened politician, and she responded appropriately and with some charm, a touch of humor.  

    [ Parent ]
    It was funny in context. But (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:27:50 AM EST
    I'm predicting it will be used in print out of context.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm expecting something similar to (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:58:21 PM EST
    playing up George Romney's "I was brainwashed" comment or Dukakis (was it Dukadis) tears.  

    [ Parent ]
    me too (none / 0) (#117)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:59:54 PM EST
    too girly

    [ Parent ]
    Girly! That's what I thought! (none / 0) (#185)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:35:26 PM EST
    She batted her eyelashes, looked at the floor and gave a flirty grin to the WMUR guy asking the question.  It was a Scarlett O'Hara response, and only worked for her because she's a woman.

    I don't think it's sexist to criticize that tactic, but I DO think it's hopeless to take issue with it.  She's a woman fighting her way up the patriarchy!  Why is using the weapons society dumped on her a bad thing?

    The part of that answer that bothered me, was that she was clearly expecting the question and rehearsed the answer - even her smile on "I think he is likeable" got a little tighter like she'd practiced it before a mirror.  I don't think this feeds the narrative about her being likeable, but it does feed the narrative about her being calculating.  

    I interpreted Obama's response (which he tossed out while making notes on his pad) to mean he saw through her practiced answer and was waiting for her to stop compliment fishing and get back to a real issue.

    In the end, I get why people think it was a good moment for Clinton, but thought Obama came out looking like a grown up to her flirty teen response, and ultimately looked presidential.

    [ Parent ]

    To say that "all women (none / 0) (#115)
    by DA in LA on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:58:39 PM EST
    can't get angry is absurd when we are talking about ONE woman.  

    [ Parent ]
    um? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    And it seems to have worked.

    what evidence points to this working?

    [ Parent ]

    Focus groups (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:51:41 PM EST
    Check links offered in comments.

    [ Parent ]
    i saw that after (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:03:19 AM EST
    for some reason my sound doesn't work grrrrrrrrr!

    [ Parent ]
    her response? (none / 0) (#181)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:16:37 AM EST
    Please!

    I am not sure I understand you properly.

    The problem with 'Oh, she should just be funny and laugh it off' is that such tactics have their limits.  First, it really bothers me that a woman that is CONSTANTLY attacked should laugh it off time and again.  That's ridiculous.  At some point, she (for all woman really) has to stand up and say enough is enough.  

    Second, she is not running to sit there and look pretty.  She is running for the frigging presidency.  Of course, she defends herself and set the record straight.  Don't you love it if she stood up to republicans like that (and she does.)  

    [ Parent ]

    oh boy, Ghost (none / 0) (#188)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:52:11 PM EST
    do I agree.  There is more at stake here than just this election - it is future of women as potential presidents.  Hillary has an ENORMOUS burden carrying this forward and it is so pathetic when women join the clamor to put her back into the 1950s i.e. folding her white gloved hands in her lap and being demure.

    Not this woman.  No way.

    [ Parent ]

    she continuously (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:38:26 PM EST
    underestimates him, i don't think she realized how carefully her attacks needed to be executed.  she doesn't get it.  Obama is a really tough target to effectively hit.  She thinks he has never been criticized before, i think she has bought into her own talking points about him.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:39:53 PM EST
    What in blazes are you talking about?

    [ Parent ]
    suggestion (none / 0) (#83)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:43:18 PM EST
    before reading one of his posts go find a hammer and hit yourself on the head. The resulting double vision may move the letters around in a more cohesive pattern.  Its the only chance, really.


    [ Parent ]
    HaHa (none / 0) (#88)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:46:45 PM EST
    That was wonderful.  Thank you.


    [ Parent ]
    cult of hillary (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:48:35 PM EST
    cheers insulting people they disagree with.  of course they love her anger in this.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks (none / 0) (#109)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:55:06 PM EST
    :-)

    [ Parent ]
    this rant you have posted (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:47:21 PM EST
    came about from an attack she made on Obama. she executed the attack carelessly, and it came back around to bite her.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually he has a point. (none / 0) (#182)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:23:12 AM EST
    I really like Hillary (I do).  But Obama is intentionally vague and nebulous and just talks in platitudes.  He just says, ... blah blah blah hope ... positive ... unity... [doesn't it remind you of a certain campaign in 2000 that worked out so well?]  Like George Bush, he is intentionally vague and is hard to target.

    That strategy works only if you have the press on your side, and they don't report your glaring mistakes, but nitpick on your opponent's.  

    Today's moment of zen is brought by Walter Shapiro of Salon.com  (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/05/debate/)

    As in many debates, it is difficult afterwards to recall much that Obama said, but he consistently seemed in command while saying it.



    [ Parent ]
    she invited him to attack (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:42:26 PM EST
    What would you have had her do in response to Edwards' attack?

    He has gone after her before, why bring him up on her attack on Obama, that was immensely stupid.  He made clear in Iowa with her union attack that he would respond if she included him on an attack.

    She invited that scenario, and it was clumsy.

    [ Parent ]

    what choice would (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:44:14 PM EST
    he have but to attack her at that point.

    He is trying to prove he is still in the game, it would have looked bad if she was allowed to attack Obama on his behalf.

    [ Parent ]

    What choice did EDWARDS have? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:04:42 AM EST
    How about AGREEING with Hillary on the mandates question as he does.

    See Ezra Klein.

    Edwards argued against himself.

    [ Parent ]

    If that's how it goes (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:10:18 PM EST
    then Democrats will have internalized Andrew Sullivan. Very sad.

    [ Parent ]
    oh dear (none / 0) (#34)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:12:27 PM EST
    that would give me gas.

    Not this Democrat!

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I agree (none / 0) (#47)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:18:42 PM EST
    that this reaction would be sad.  But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (none / 0) (#32)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:11:44 PM EST
    she should passively let people walk all over her so no one calls her angry.  Please.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Her tone... (none / 0) (#36)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:13:23 PM EST
    was okay I thought - but was the comment in the beginning that should be discussed.  "Making change is not about what you believe." she said.  Yes it is - change is absolutely based on what you believe.  Beliefs are what created this country.  Belief is what freed the slaves.  Belief is why you have a wear orange banner on your site.  Because belief in what's possible is the very foundation of everything that has ever been accomplished.  And to discount beliefs, is to discount the possibility of change itself.  

    no (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:15:45 PM EST
    what freed the slaves was a guy TAKING action.

    [ Parent ]
    the action came after the belief - not before (none / 0) (#44)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:18:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#53)
    by Xlp Thlplylp on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:21:36 PM EST
    Unless one wants to take the position of some philosophers that the action taker was an automaton with no internal mental states.

    [ Parent ]
    but belief alone (none / 0) (#63)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:27:10 PM EST
    is worthless

    [ Parent ]
    I Posit (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:09:32 AM EST
    you are planning to cross the Delaware River to suprise the enemy in their beds, but first you need boats.  So - do you go to the guy who has built boats before (probably has a few down at the shore you can confiscate) or to the guy who eloquently says - hey, I never built a boat before, a few rafts - great rafts mind you - but I firmly believe I could build you an armada.  In a week.  Or maybe 10 days.  

    Doesnt mean he cant...but would you risk it?

    This is probably silly but it is late and I cant sleep now.

    [ Parent ]

    really edwards (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:17:25 PM EST
    never gets called angry.  off hand i can think of DMR. but tons of coverage maybe not on the blogs but the msm calls him angry.
    I didn't say shrill to describe her(if i did it was a mistake) i used angry, and i think that is a correct interpretation. You can say shrill has some sexist undertones, i agree, but angry is on the mark and it isn't sexist, and it is consistent with msm's description of other peoples "passionate" rhetoric.

    Clinton's best moment was (none / 0) (#51)
    by sammiemorris on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:20:24 PM EST
    when she said reality check

    your patients health care thing didn't pass, and barack, you voted for the horrible energy bill. actions speak louder than words.

    I ALSO thought OBAMA took a hit on his lobbying reforms when Gibson called him out for saying.. yeah.. but you can still have lunch as long as your standing.

    I also thought that was her best moment (none / 0) (#52)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:21:13 PM EST
    unfortunately I doubt it will be played by the media much because the clip that BTD has above will interest them more.

    [ Parent ]
    I liked the "reality check" moment (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:23:45 PM EST
    Does anyone have video?

    [ Parent ]
    she got very close to the edge when (none / 0) (#75)
    by Compound F on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:38:47 PM EST
    she implied Edwards killed Natalie because he