Hillary Shows Emotion Responding to New Hampshire Voter

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
Tags: New Hampshire 08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: Think Progress lays out the hypocrisy of media treatment.

Update: Ezra Klein has Obama's and Edward's responses. Go read.

Hillary Clinton showed emotion today when responding to a New Hampshire voter at a campaign stop. The video is here.

She took an unexpected question from a woman in the audience. "My question is very personal, how do you do it?" asked Marianne Pernold Young, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. "How do you, how do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?"

"It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know I have [had] so many opportunities from this country [I] just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said. Then, her voice breaking and tears in her eyes, she said, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political it's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it."

She added:

"Some people think elections are a game, lot's of who's up or who's down, [but] it's about our country , it's about our kids' futures, and it's really about all of us together," she said.

Did she cry? Not that it should matter, but no, she didn't. She showed emotion. Will the media now blast her as weak instead of shrill?

< Do New Hamphire Voters Read National Blogs? | Government Says No Privacy Rights in Laptop Hard Drives at the Border >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary Shows Emotion Responding to New Hampshire Voter | 61 comments (61 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

and you know all the other candidates (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by cpinva on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:09:45 PM EST

are "real" how?

That's the overarching issue with Hillary - she's calculating and people just don't know what's real and what isn't.

i hate to break the news to you guy, but all the candidates are "calculating", "and people just don't know what's real and what isn't."

how does sen. clinton differ from sen. obama or sen. mccain, or romney, or giuliani, et al?

why is being calculating bad for sen. clinton, but ok for everyone else? how come it's bad for sen. clinton to be ambitious, but the other candidates, ambitious all, get a pass?

of course they're ambitious and calculating, everyone at that level, in business, politics or the military is, it's the nature of the beast.

really, do you want someone in the oval office who isn't ambitious and calculating? they'd get walked all over, by everyone.

this is beyond sexist, and has now risen to the level of completely idiotic.

Maybe she had that stuff movie actors (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:23:24 PM EST

rely on when they need to cry on demand!


Emotional recall? (none / 0) (#10)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:25:55 PM EST

: That's what the good actors rely on. (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:58:32 PM EST

Its glycerine or something for the rest.

Fair point.... (none / 0) (#11)
by andreww on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:29:45 PM EST

...all the candidates are calculating, however my comment wasn't sexist. Indeed, Hillary did have a planted question earlier in the campaign. This is a fact - you can't dispute it - and it's not sexist. I said nothing about ambition - and think it's perfectly good and normal that a president should be ambitious.

As for the others, I don't trust many of the ones you mention and would say the exact same things about them.

But calling me sexist and idiotic because I say a problem with Hillary is that you don't know what's real and what isn't? The reason I mention Hillary and not the others is because this thread is about Hillary.

I'm sorry, but this is a problem for her. It's possible that it's simply because she's been in the spotlight for too long - but that doesn't negate the fact that it's still a problem.


: it's only a "problem" (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by cpinva on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:29:32 PM EST

for the rubes, who've been brainwashed by the matthews, hannitys, limbaughs, dowds, etc. of the media. they've been told for years that sen. clinton is lady macbeth reincarnated, that she's "not authentic", that she's "calculating", her voice is "shrill", ad nauseum.
yes, it was a sexist comment, lacking the caveat that all the candidates are calculating, implying that only sen. clinton, the lone female, is. further, you implied that being "calculating" is only a negative attribute for her.
this is the same tired, egregiously sexist right-wingnut rant we've been drowned with, since bill clinton first campaigned in 1992.
do you have any tangible evidence that this was a "planted" question? if so, please provide it. if not, your comment is gratuitous.

I watched the video (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by taylormattd on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:22:11 PM EST

and the emotion she showed was one of the most genuine and touching I've seen this entire campaign season. If any media think this will hurt Hillary, they are mistaken.

IMO, her argument, and the emotion that showed while speaking, turned out to be one of the most persuasive descriptions of her candidacy I've seen.

: I agree (none / 0) (#53)
by DA in LA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:38:09 PM EST

Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:59:51 PM EST

What is apparent now is that Edwards' campaign is all about hating Hillary.

It seems tobe about nothing else.

Certainly not about issues.

Or winning.

His statement (none / 0) (#34)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:16:08 PM EST

was mean spirited. I agree.


So, what did Edwards say about this incident? (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:21:33 PM EST

Answering my own questions now: (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST

ABC NEWS

As an unrelated observation, I watched Elizabeth Edwards on C-Span chairing an Edwards rally yesterday. She was quite effective but looked very subdued and exhausted. This might be one reason for Edwards to drop out if he doesn't do well in NH.


: thx (none / 0) (#43)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:49:49 PM EST

the abc bit was useful - the Edwards were sharks.
Obama came off well by simply being a decent person. I feel odd having to compliment somebody for basic good manners.

Tears (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Angel on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:10:55 PM EST

The lady just can't get a break! First she's "emotionless," then she's "weak" for getting tears in her eyes. Where were the headlines when Edwards got teary when telling of someone he had helped win a medical lawsuit? This hatred of Hillary has gone way, way too far. And all of you who question her every time she makes is move are partly responsible. I've read that she's cold and calculating and many other derogatory things. Please give examples, don't just repeat all the republican and media talking points you've heard for the past 16 years. She absolutely cannot get a break. Think about this. If you had to endure what she has for the past 16 years would you have survived mentally, emotionally and physically? She has, and she certainly needs to be given credit for it. In fact, I think that makes her a very, very strong person who is probably capable of taking care of most any problem that a president could be confronted with. So what if she sheds a few tears? I'd rather have that than someone who doesn't or can't cry.

exactly (none / 0) (#31)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:14:35 PM EST

they are quoting the GOP. Any wonder I find them a scarey bunch? Say they are Democrats and act like GOP. I guess they all really envied Rove all those years and just cant wait to be like him.


however (none / 0) (#33)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:16:00 PM EST

she did not cry.

Tears in the ey or on the lashes )as the dsirtbag at WaPo pointed out) are not the same as crying. Don't words matter or have the Bushies suceeded in making a mess of language.


: excuse me (none / 0) (#37)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:25:24 PM EST

for saying dirtbag - but yes, the reporter who went so far as to say she had tears on her lashes really sickened me. What kind of reporting is that?

You mean enduring (none / 0) (#51)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:32:18 PM EST

She absolutely cannot get a break. Think about this. If you had to endure what she has for the past 16 years would you have survived mentally, emotionally and physically?

life in that rarefied level of penultimate political power as she has done? Sorry, if she really does consider herself a victim, that's all the more reason for her not to be potus.


Cover up (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by mscho76 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:56:30 PM EST

Today we saw a master politician at work. Great cover up for her angry outburst during the NH debate. We don't need this kind of showboating. Someone mentioned all politicians are "calculating." Of course they are but we dont need a leader that will also manipulate us into supporting them. We need a canidate that respects people, gives us the straight scoop, and is in control of thier emotions, and can bring all Americans together. I think a both Edwards and Obama show these qualities over Clinton.

: yeah (none / 0) (#29)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:02:58 PM EST

being human is showboating. Nice.

absolutly.. (none / 0) (#1)
by Joebasic on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:20:24 PM EST

Its already begun on other message boards.
She's either "weak" or "fake"
really sad..

I thought at first (none / 0) (#2)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:28:09 PM EST

this was intended as a man bites dog reference. I should have known better here.

Of course, no matter how you want to spin it, it's hard not to admire the ability to answer a how can you be so wonderful question.

Unexpected? (none / 0) (#3)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST

She took an unexpected question from a woman in the audience.

How is it known that the question was not just another plant?

If this sinks her candidacy, we get (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:32:58 PM EST

what we deserve.

This wouldn't be a cause of a sinking candidacy (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by Geekesque on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:35:19 PM EST

as much as an indicator thereof.


Disagree. see Dukakis. (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:52:31 PM EST

P.S. If I ever announced I was running for President, I would make sure my tear ducts were disabled first.


Given the noxious bs you are now writng (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:02:09 PM EST

I personally would welcome your not paritcipating at this site for a while.

I can not stop you. But your latest diary at Daily Kos is one of the most offensive pieces I have ever read.

You have let this campaign stain you in a personal way imo.

I really do not want to see it here.

Keep that side of you at daily kos please.


The one about (none / 0) (#32)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:14:55 PM EST

MLK? I'm sure she didn't mean to detract from MLK, but she needs to be careful. That and the John Edwards killed Natalie line, are careless.


Re your final sentence, in looking (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:20:01 PM EST

at the transcript, Ms. Clinton stated "killed it," not "Natalie" or "she." Ms. Clinton was obviously referring to the House not passing the Patients' Bill of Rights.


she said (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:42:40 PM EST

if JE had done x Natalie would still be alive.

That is saying her is responsible for her death, meaning he killed her. it is an awful careless comment. Insulting MLK, accusing her candidates of killing someone, now crying, Ms. Experience sure doesn't seem ready for primetime.

How is she ready to be pres, if she can't even handle her primary campaign? what is she going to do when the right wing machine comes to life? if there is a terrorist attack and republican insist she has to bomb Iran, can she stand up to them? they will say mean spirited things, can she handle it?


100% wrong (none / 0) (#41)
by andgarden on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:46:53 PM EST

You are still peddling this line, even though it's clear that Hillary neither said nor implied what you claim she did.

Misrepresenting HIllary seems to be the order of the day.


Please stick to the facts, which are these (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:55:58 PM EST

(from the transcript BTD linked to previously):

CLINTON: Can we just have a sort of a reality break for a minute? Because I think that it is important to make some kind of an assessment of these statements.
You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the patient bill of rights through the Senate -- it never got through the House. One of the reasons that Natalie may well have died is because there isn't a patient's bill of rights. We don't have a patient's bill of rights.
EDWARDS: Because George Bush killed it.
CLINTON: Well, that's right. He killed it.

i dont get this (none / 0) (#48)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST

You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the patient bill of rights through the Senate -- it never got through the House. One of the reasons that Natalie may well have died is because there isn't a patient's bill of rights. We don't have a patient's bill of rights.

This implies that because of his action or inaction she died.

this

EDWARDS: Because George Bush killed it.
CLINTON: Well, that's right. He killed it.

is not where she says he killed her.


Umm (none / 0) (#52)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:34:19 PM EST

Then she accused herself of killing her too.

Let's say this - do not write that smear again at this site please.


really she (none / 0) (#57)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:19:52 PM EST

said Edwards you and i didn't get that passed? no she said Edwards you didn't get that passed.

If we want to stop going negative on candidates on this web site i would be very happy. But that is not something the two main posters have abided by. In fact the negativity on this web site by the main posters has been aimed squarely at one candidate. That one candidate is now most likely to be the nominee. So you and Jers smears now not only hurt Obama they hurt Democrats. So i think it is ridiculous to ask the commenters not to be negative.

Next time we have a primary if you don't want your readers to be angry with you when we have a nominee don't take sides! but don't after the fact come to your commenters and ask them not to post things you don't agree with.

This site was never pro Hillary it was anti Obama. so guess what now your readers are anti a lot of people. This tone came from the top, and in 8 years if you don't want it, set a different tone at the top.


: You're just lying about what she said (none / 0) (#60)
by andgarden on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:19:30 PM EST

It's pretty disgusting.

You are either carellls or lying (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:46:59 PM EST

I told you I will stop people from insulting you but I will delete any more comments like this.


I didn't insult anyone (none / 0) (#45)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:58:13 PM EST

Are you dyslexic? No one sd. you (none / 0) (#46)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:00:43 PM EST

insulted anyone. But you persist in spreading disinformation easily disproved w/reference to the transcript.


i (none / 0) (#49)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM EST

actually am dyslexic yes


: I apologize for my rudeness. (none / 0) (#50)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:26:01 PM EST

It was a fine moment from Hillary (none / 0) (#7)
by andreww on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:58:43 PM EST

and I think when she shows that kind of emotion it's actually appealing. The problem is we don't know if the question was a plant, if her statement was a prepared response, etc. It may have been authentic, but we just don't know. That's the overarching issue with Hillary - she's calculating and people just don't know what's real and what isn't.

it makes me like her more (none / 0) (#12)
by sammiemorris on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:33:42 PM EST

but i fear it will only cause her more grief politically. As much as I would love to see her elected as our next president, I think she deserves better than the media scrutiny she receives as a candidate, and I'm confident she'll do great things in the Senate as she has been doing for the last few years. I love her work ethic, and even if I don't agree with her Iranian Revolutionary Guard vote, atleast she voted. Same with the MoveOn vote. Mr. Presidential seems its too partisan to vote on issues like that. Being someone who is completely turned off by hype, Obama better show some substance if he expects people like myself to show up at the polls to vote for him because I think he is severely underqualified for the job.

George H W Bush ... (none / 0) (#13)
by chemoelectric on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:48:46 PM EST

... tears up all the time.

They called him a wimp, though, so I guess that's not cause for encouragement.

I don't see anything wrong with (none / 0) (#15)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:58:54 PM EST

crying, but lets all be honest about why she is crying. She is loosing. There is nothing wrong with that, buy I'm not going to give her a meddle for it either.

Speculating severe sleep deprivation (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:03:29 PM EST

contributed to tearfulness.

If she hadn't cried, that would be "mettle."


: nice one (none / 0) (#18)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:53:47 PM EST

that was good. I may have to get emotional whilw responding.

she didnt cry (none / 0) (#17)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:33:42 PM EST

but oh boy were the knives out for her. woof.

I just checked out (none / 0) (#19)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:58:45 PM EST

My fav. German newspapers, this is the lead story in all of them.

: from spiegel (none / 0) (#24)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:47:06 PM EST

This is a loose translation:
Hillary near tears on campaign trail.
then underneath questions weather they are real. pointing out that she in the same breath attacked Obama, and recited campaign talking points.
So before we get into this is all the Medias fault, then apparently the European media is out for her too.
And before we get into this is sexism, that means the Germans, who have a female PM are sexist.

I just saw this Hillary Clinton in its entirety (none / 0) (#21)
by Aaron on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:23:11 PM EST

It would've been a lot more believable if she hadn't, in the same breath, used it to take shots at her opponents. That last part made it look like just another calculated move

: spoken like the true (none / 0) (#54)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:47:21 PM EST

Obama supporter you are. You really should add "Obama supporter" to your comments.

Automaton or Human? (none / 0) (#22)
by Evergreen on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM EST

She showed emotion...she showed feeling. What is wrong with that? It is human. And it is most apt to occur when someone shows you kindness admidst an onslaught of slings & arrows.

Having said that: Hilary has been a part of the corporate takeover of our government. (she has major corporate donors) John Edwards recognizes this and is the major foot soldier trying to identify and fight this. I "like" Obama oodles, but I think Edwards is our best hope to fight the big money guys.

She's getting torn apart for it (none / 0) (#23)
by joanneleon on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:34:45 PM EST

I've seen her accused of insincerity, of weakness and a few other things. She's not even my candidate and I'm disgusted about it. I hate the way people treat her.

: I would have more (none / 0) (#25)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:47:57 PM EST

more sympathy if she hadn't attacked Obama.

Here's the news coverage from The Irish Times: (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:36:57 PM EST

NH CAMPAIGN COVERAGE

: sounded fair (none / 0) (#47)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:06:59 PM EST

I think she choked up because someone was actually showing some sympathy for her for the treatment she is getting. She has had to keep her guard up and be strong in the face of a torrent of hostility. I dont think she expected the kindness and it moved her.

How ANYONE can consider (none / 0) (#55)
by MarkL on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:52:27 PM EST

Hillary's use of emotion calculating, when compared to Edwards, is beyond the limits of rational comprehension.

: In order to hate well... (none / 0) (#56)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:01:59 PM EST

in order to hate somebody, (like the way some of these people hate this woman), you have to dehumanize them. Oldest trick in the book. Dehumanize and take away their right to be human beings.
To recognize that they are being vicious would mean they would have to stop...and stopping a mob is hard until it burns itself out.

Olberman (none / 0) (#58)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:02:11 PM EST

you know with his conservative bias, just hammered Hillary.

hammered her (none / 0) (#59)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:04:03 PM EST

on MLK, hammered her on playing the terror card, and hammered her on tearing up then slamming Obama. But you know he has conservative bias.