.
January 7th, 2008
02:05 PM ET

At debate, an angry Clinton?

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It may be almost time to stay home and bake cookies... and here's why:

Listen to Hillary Clinton at Saturday's debate

Hillary Clinton said: “Well, making change, making - wait a minute. Now, wait a minute. I'm going to respond to this. Because obviously - obviously making change is not about what you believe. It's not about a speech you make. It is about working hard.

“There are 7,000 kids in New Hampshire who have health care because I helped to create the Children's Health Insurance Program. There are 2,700 National Guard and Reserve members who have access to health care because, on a bipartisan basis, I pushed legislation through over the objection of the Pentagon, over the threat of a veto from President Bush.

“I want to make change, but I've already made change. I will continue to make change. I'm not just running on a promise of change. I'm running on 35 years of change. I'm running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies.

“So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I've already made.”

Ouch! Remind you of anyone? We've had seven years of a president who gets angry anytime someone disagrees with him or has the temerity to suggest he might not have all the answers.

That little outburst is not going to help her in New Hampshire where 45% of the voters are independent.

ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper, on his blog, wrote Hillary got angry, "Not about an issue so much as about the fact that Obama is beating her."

Here’s my question to you: Will Hillary Clinton's angry response at the debate on Saturday hurt her chances in New Hampshire?

To see the Cafferty File video click here

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Kris writes:
We have already had two terms with a "my way or the highway" president. Hilary Clinton's angry outburst sounds like more of the same.

Jason from Atlanta writes:
It's called passion, Jack! It irks me to no end that when a WOMAN shows some strength and passion, she's considered 'angry' or a 'b*****'. But when you have some little barking Chihuahua like Romney (or even Bush) constantly throwing hissy fits, it's somehow different. If the New Hampshire voters are smart, they'll see that Iowa made a big mistake - and they'll put Hillary BACK on top where she belongs.

Joe writes:
Hillary Clinton is the epitome of the term "plastic candidate". She will say anything to get elected. I am not swayed by her fake tears. She is trying to use a 'sympathy tactic' because she is realizing that her words are as hollow as her heart. America is not fooled. We will not settle for a 30-year Bush-Clinton dynasty.

Jack from West Virginia writes:
I'm an Obama man, but I thought Hillary was entitled to step it up and belt it out on her record. People praise Edwards when he gets testy and Obama when he has a vision. At least give Hillary points for being on point about her record. And good grief, don't compare her to George Bush. (Are you groggy from a weekend of really good football?)

Alan from Indianapolis writes:
Hillary Clinton is an angry woman. We saw that when her husband ran for office (not going to be a woman who bakes cookies or something to that effect). Bill's election team had to put her in seclusion until Bill was elected. She can run, but she can't hide. Her outburst reflects her personality - frustrated, angry feminist. She will never be elected.

Brian writes:
One minute she's angry, another minute she's crying. Is she bi-polar or just cold and calculating? Either way, she does not belong in the White House. I see the true colors shining through and I think America is starting to see it as well.


Filed under: Hillary Clinton • New Hampshire • Primaries
soundoff (545 Responses)
  1. Brian Nancoo - Trinidad

    From my outsider perspective,I seem to be missing something.What past act did Senator Clinton do to be so villified and hated?It seems that she can't say anything without being piled on.Conversely,what has Senator Obama done to make him so revered?Am I missing something here?What has he done as a Senator to try to effect the changes he is saying he will bring as a President.Aren't the two connected?Did I miss something?Can the President effect change through executive power or won't these changes have to be passed as legislation in the congress?

    January 7, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  2. D-Dog

    I think what will hurt her chances is CNN demonizing her. Clinton/Obama '08! Just in case one goes down. With Pelosi, watching their back. Republicans don't have a chance to win the presidency.

    January 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  3. marcella mitchell

    OBAMA & EDWARDS

    Hillary is right to be angry, she has worked hard and has a PROVEN RECORD. What Obama & Edwards demonstrated were Typical Men
    in the work force where a Woman is more QUALIFIED AND PROVEN
    to do a job but they cannot accept a WOMAN who can do a better Job
    and lead America.

    I.M STICKEN WITH HILLARY ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITEHOUSE.

    IF CHANGE IS BUSH TO OBAMA, WE ARE IN TROUBLE.

    STAY STRONG

    January 7, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  4. Susan Norris

    Hillary was passionate, not angry.
    Seems to me Hillary has forgotten more about how to run the White House than all the boys know today, including Obama, a man of Muslim heritage who will be nothing but a train wreck for the Democratic party.
    Hillary won't be destroyed by the Republican oil machine the way Obama will be nuked. .
    Any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary must truly like being a second class citizen in america where females earn 24 percent less than a male in the same job on average. Afterall, these women keep voting for the status quo-men.
    Do you think people would like Hillary better if she was a man? Why is it when a woman is passionate she is seen as angry? What a sexist world we live in today.

    January 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  5. Rebecca

    Hillary's angry response as with so many Americans might also be the media's ability to sway how the public sees the candidates. Obama does not get criticized for attacking Hillary, but she in turn gets criticized for defending herself. Why not try and build Hillary up for awhile and see how the pubic follows you.

    January 7, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  6. marcella mitchell

    I can tell you this as far as race relations, We will not forget, how the
    CLINTON'S has help to make it better for us.

    Washington DC is a SYSTEM IF OBAMA & EDWARDS HAS NOT HEARD
    I can see them FOLDING.

    Hillary has establish Power. As a Peace time and Gulf War Veteran
    I can say Obama needs to go back, and research the REAL REASON
    VETERANS CANNOT GO OUTSIDE VA HOSPITALS FOR MEDICAL
    CARE. I KNOW THE ANSWER. HIS ANSWER IN THE SECOND
    DEBATE WAS WRONG.

    i"M STICKEN WITH HILLARY!

    January 7, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  7. Bubbles

    The anger and BAD body language clearly indicate that Mrs. Clinton cannot deal with situations when things are not going her way. The Cintons have made a mockery of the American people by playing this "we are one of you" game. I think the good people of NH and the rest of America saw that she was the only one amongst the candidates flared up. They just took the jabs in stride and kept with their message.....she just go down right UGLY!!!!!!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  8. Cove

    Clinton should stay calm like Richardson. She is looking very moody lately ... as Bob Dylans lyrics put it "Just like a woman." Unlike Clinton, Governor Bill Richardson is on the record as codemning torture. I started out being a very mean blogger against Bill Richardson and for Hillary but over the course of the campaign I have done a 180 degree turn-around. Richardsons would be far more even-handed than Clinton in dealing with the MiddleEast.

    January 7, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  9. Rich, Fairview Texas

    No. That damage was done long ago by her husband Bill and his philandering. Hillary had her back to the wall in New Hampshire and she came out swinging. Mostly hitting nothing but air, but swinging none the less. It was a fight or flight response to losing the lead in a must win state for her. There is are two things certain about Politicians. When they do well they were just doing their job. When they are wrong they can always write a book about it. Either way they make money.

    January 7, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  10. Dave

    Was this after the part when Obama declared, “I came, I saw, I conked her.”

    January 7, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  11. Michael - Stamford, CT

    The majority of the media in my opinion has been bias in favor of Senator Obama over Senator Clinton and I think it's very wrong. In the previous debate Senator Barack Obama openly admits that he supports giving driving licences to illegal aliens yet the media has and still is giving him a free pass as if he never said it. The majority of the media has also been giving a free pass to John Edwards because he claims to be for the poor and the middle class yet as an investor John Edwards has ties to lenders who have forclosed on hurricane Katrina victims which shows he really stands for nothing. If we want serious change in this country then we need to support Senator Hillary Clinton as President because she has the experience to bring us that real change and her record proves that she is sincere about helping the middle class and the poor. Senator Clinton has the best chance to win the national election which is another reason why voters need to think long and hard at the big picture. If Senator Obama were to get the nominaton that would be handing the Whitehouse another Republican victory which would result in more of the same. Obama also doesn't have the experience to deal with national security issues and the Republicans will have a field day with this one should Democrats be foolish enough to give him the nomination over Hillary. It's a shame the media has been bias against Hillary because she would be good for America and help us gain back the respect at home and around the world which is something we lost due to the failures of the Bush administration.

    January 7, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  12. Diane

    Jeez, single handedly that woman has been a whirlwind hasn't she?
    When you listen to that speech, can't you hear the follow-up -"AND ON THE 7TH DAY I RESTED."

    Her anger isn't coming across well Jack, its sounding like a tantrum from someone who thought she was a sure thing.

    But the real problem they are not seeing, the american peoplehave had it with the status quo, we don't care what you did when you were a Senator, Governor, or whatever, we want change, and that means out with ALL of the old.

    Strap yourself in and enjoy the ride!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  13. Terry

    Jack
    Absolutely Hillary's campaign is slowly going down the tubes. We are now starting to see the real Hillary, even Bill cannot correct this.

    January 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  14. Chris

    The response hurt her but it shouldn't have. I think it's about time the people of the country woke up. Sure Obama has the lead but the question is why? Over the weekend i watched CNN and saw most if not all his stump speech. He tells you almost everything you want to hear except one thing and thats how he's going to do anything he says. Like he's going to get elected and the world is going to crumble at his feet. Hillary's right to be angry she clearly is more qualified for the job, has specific plans she wants to impose but still she's getting beaten by a first term senator who's best asset is his mouth.

    January 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  15. Chris

    Hillary is enough of a polarizing figure without adding negative emotional fuel to her smoldering campaign. There have already been enough pompous knee-jerk reactions to larger and more dangerous issues coming out of the White House. Let a cooler head prevail.
    P.S. Thanks for your book.
    Chris

    January 7, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  16. Rebecca Leigh

    I'm keeping my fingers crossed. That's all we need, 30 years of Bush's and Clinton's. God help us.

    January 7, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  17. T M from Canada

    Hillary is like a chef with only one recipe. You can stand it for so long then it gets a bit much. Her political vehicle is running on empty. Obama's statements are fresh, new and inspires confidence in knowing your vote will count. She needs to whip up a batch of something fresh!

    January 7, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  18. Chris

    Let a cooler head prevail.
    Chris

    January 7, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  19. casee

    I guess it would be nice if she showed up in an apron and plate of full of humble pie cookies. Then the press could say she was cowed. Too bad you've got yourself an excellent candidate....support her.

    On another matter,....please explain Jack...
    Why does Obama run silent and deep when questioned about his Muslim upbringing?? Why does America want a Muslim in the White House??

    Really confused on that one!
    Casee

    January 7, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  20. Scott

    jack, don't count the lady out, feb. 5th will be a confuseing day, dicession will be made at the convention on both sides , don't see a blow out by anyone, obama is good , but his scrunity will be tested from now till the big day of head scratching,
    feb 5th.
    bowling green , mo.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  21. Charles

    No, Jack, it will not. I can’t beleive that american people might vote in majority for two demagoges who don’t have anything substantial under their belt except great speeches. Not that I against speeches, but they do not create jobs (except jobs for speechwriters), attracts friends or scary enemies. Word “change” became a mantra but, rephrasing the old proverb, even you say “change” a hundred times, nothing will happen. Are these voters the same people who wanted to send a message in 2000 and voted for ultraleft Nader just to get ultraright Bush to the White House? Are they are the same people who answer that Clinton is the best prepared to be president and deal with multiple issues facing the nations, but – guess what? They like Obama more so they vote for him? Do we EVER LEARN anything?

    Obama and Edwards will never get elected as they too much to the left, but if they do, it’d be no better than Bush’s administration, just on the opposite part of the spectrum. And as Clinton said today – IT IS not a game, it is about our future and future of our kids. And I'm scared to trust this future to Obama.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  22. Jonathan

    Too bad she couldn't show that kind of emotion back in the 90s when she was 'fighting' for a 'better' health care system.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  23. Patricia

    Look, I've said from the beginning that Sen. Clinton shouldn't have tried to run for President. I do feel badly for her & I wish that things could have been different. But, she's just got too much baggage wrapped around her neck. The Republicans will use her to win another election.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  24. Elena

    Wow Jack how disappointing. If Obama said that you would call it enthusiasm. I thought it was an honest, passionate answer by a woman who has always been an advocate for human rights (which includes positive changes).

    However, I thought that Obama's bitter stage whisper of "you're likable enough Hillary", was just plain mean. Haven't we learned our lesson yet? Live in hope...die in despair, which of course is good media so I guess that's just your job, so stop pretending to be unbiased, hypocrisy doesn't become you. We are employers and must for once hire the most qualified, and that would be....HILLARY!

    January 7, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  25. Will K

    Senator Clinton seems to be confused as to what type of change people want. She claims that she is running on 35 years of change; that she took on oil, drug and insurance companies.

    Oil is $100 a barrel and oil companies are making record profits.

    Drug companies now advertise directly to consumers, and every year we hear about yet another Vioxx, Bextra, or Celebrex rushed to market that happens to be killing people.

    Less Americans then ever are insured and those that still are pay higher premiums then ever before.

    If this is the type of change we can expect the Senator to deliver I'm not really sure that we want more that.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  26. W B in Las Vegas

    I sure hope so.

    Hillary Clinton is a potential disaster for the Democrates in the general election and probably would hurt their congressional and senatorial candidates too. in fact I think she is the only Democrate that has a chance to lose in November. either Obama, Edwards or even Richardson would be a safer choice. Hillary just has too many negatives.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  27. Richard Sternagel

    Jack,unfortunately Senator Clinton's response may be perceived by others to mean she is a bad loser.There still is primaries to come and she has to distill the notion that her experience solely qualifies her to be President. With her being woman candidate everything she says and does will be scrutinized twice as much as a male candidate without sounding sexist.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  28. Ed

    Whoever Hillary fights, the oil companies, health insurance or the drug companies triple their prices. We know Hillarys change. Obama's change is the same brand of change So they'll fight over the same bone. While NH decides which candidate gets the bone. I hope they don't miss the candidate offering America a stake. Ron Paul.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  29. Phyllis in Virginia

    I'm glad Hillary got angry. It's time someone brought this mess around to the real issues! One of those is foreign relations and I have a question for all of those Obama supporters: How can he negotiate with Muslim countries when they would condemn him to death for turning his back on his native religion? I don't believe they would do anything but be angry at the USA for putting him in office! People need to think about what he is really saying just to get votes. He only has whatever power that congress would give him!

    January 7, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  30. Adekunle Oladide

    Jack I must say this is the most odious, ridiculous, buffoonery and irresponsible analysis to be calling for. It is obvious the prospect of Obama is exciting for everyone, especially when American people are lured into "new face equal new change". The truth is Obama need to be schooled first under the tutelage of someone like Hillary or Bill, or Americans will end up with a Bush-like Obama who view anybody that does not share his position unpatriotic. Obama is going to lack the benefit of hindsight which experience should have offered. If I may offer my candid opinion, Obama should serve as vice president first and that in itself is a huge change. He can then ride on the back of a seating president to the white house.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  31. joan

    First, I am not a Hilary supporter but, if Obama or one of the othe candidates had reacted that way they would be considered foceful. It appears that Obama will be the nominee because of the media and McCann in spite of the media. We lost two good candidates when Biden and Dodd dropped out.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  32. Joy Paquin

    Between Hillary throwing her little tantrums and Bill saying he can't be blamed if she loses, I think Hillary has been seriously wounded. I personally think this is a "good thing", replacing Bush with Hillary is just more of the same and the American people are making it known we've had enough! We need support for middle America, Hillary doesn't know we exist!!!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  33. Dan Garner

    When is the media going to quit pitching slow balls to Hillary and really ask about those 35 years of experience. We all give her credit for 7 years as an effective U.S. Senator. But what else is there?

    What credit should she get for 16 years as a state and national first lady?

    What executive experience does she have?

    How many National Security Council meetings did she sit in on?

    How many CIA briefings did she attend with Bill?

    How many cabinet meetings did she attend?

    How many policy meetings with heads of state did she attend on these 80+ foreign trips?

    Did she even have the security clearance necessary for Bill to ask her opinion about national security matters?

    We should ask Hillary (and all candidates) if they are going to continue the tradition of appointing unqualified political supporter to important administrations jobs – like Brownie and many Bill C appointed?

    I think we will all learn that she is no more experienced that many of the other candidates.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  34. colin jones

    I keep hearing from the republican 's how Bush has kept us from being attacked....Ben Laden said years ago oil should be $100 /barrel...seems we've been attacked economically, doesn't it?, and we're all feeling it.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  35. Vinny

    Hey Jack, Hillary got angry on Saturday and today, she was "emotional" and "teary eyed." Give me a break! She expected the primary process to be her "coronation" and it's not working out at all like that! People see her for what she is- a calculating, cold, nasty person who will do ANYTHING to get elected. And can someone please tell me why she keeps saying that she has "35 years of experience"? Doing what?? Being the governor's wife? being the President's wife? WHAT? Why don't Obama and Edwards challenge her on that to come up with REAL facts about her so called "experience"?

    January 7, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  36. Dr. K Bates

    Will Hillary Clinton's angry response at the debate on Saturday hurt her chances in New Hampshire? There's only one answer to that: it depends on how the media manipulates the event! Since when is it inappropriate to have an angry response when it is appropriate? I want my representatives to feel; I want them to get mad and sad because that IS the appropriate emotional response in today's world!! Maybe Hillary is the right person for the job or maybe not, but the answer does not rest on whether she can hide her feelings, especially when they are appropriate to the moment. Besides, Bush has 0 emotional intelligence and it hasn't seemed to hurt him!

    Dr. K
    San Marcos, CA

    January 7, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  37. Den in Gwinn, MI

    She's married to Bill- she is probably angry 24/7...so what makes this news?

    January 7, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  38. Diane Palmer

    I am sick and tired of all you media pundits slamming Hillary at everything she does. Why can't she get mad when her opponents are bashing her? Wouldn't you? Anyone would defend themselves that has a backbone. Just because she's a woman she's judged far more critically than the male candidates.

    Get off HIllary for goodness sakes! How sexist!

    January 7, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  39. D-Dog

    Bake cookies? Cafferty I've really liked your independent, pull no punches approach, however you've just shown yourself to be sexist and stuck in the 1950's with that comment. A woman says whats on her mind and all of a sudden she is the b-word. If she has taken on drug, oil, insurance companies then I applaude her guts.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  40. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Yes, Hillary's angry response will hurt her in N.H. having reacted like a spoiled priviledge child who has never had a spanking and you better not give her one or you'll get the tongue lashing of your life without presidential diplomacy.

    January 7, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  41. Vinnie Vino

    Jack,
    Hillary will survive this blunder in Saturday's debate with a surprise win or close second place finish in N ew Hampshire. Then go on to steam roll the rest of the pack to win the Democratic nomination. All you have to do Jack is follow the money... I am a Edwards fan...

    January 7, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  42. Richard Sternagel

    Jack,I am a person for whom "Hope springs Eternal" and when Senator Clinton made a veiled attack on Senator Obama that didn't sit well with me.Our country needs to have hope before Congress can put into action all the programs that Senator Obama advocates.Hope is something that has been lost the last 7 years! Go Obama!

    January 7, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  43. Mary Steele

    She's not angry there, but we are considering some of the health care changes that make us pay for adults and childrens' families that make well above the poverty line. There is NO justification for covering a person or family that makes $50-60k/year.

    We are also paying for illegals' health care and other social benefits.

    When is she going to represent US?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  44. Ed

    Whoever Hillary fights, the oil companies, health insurance or the drug companies triple their prices. We know Hillarys change. Obama’s change is the same brand of change So they’ll fight over the same bone. While NH decides which candidate gets the bone. I hope they don’t miss the angry candidate offering America a stake. Ron Paul.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  45. Greg from PA

    Hillary was not the only angry candidate at that debate so don't pick on her. She and Richardson seemed angry at the voters for considering anything besides their resume when deciding who to vote for. Edwards was angry with Hillary and big business. Giuliani was upset because his 9/11 credentials are not making up for his lack of conservative social vales. Romney, McCain and Thompson were in a pissing contest with each other. Ron Paul was upset with the Bush doctrine that seems to be the mindset of the Republican party. Only Huckabee and Obama seemed to act presidential and above the bickering.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  46. Jenny from New York

    Yes. She's trying everything to try to win and nothing's working. Last week she used Obama's line that she's "fired up and ready to go" and just today she was on the verge of tears but managed to use Edwards' lines, "Thhis is very personal for me," and "America needs a fighter..." I don't think there's anything she can do or say to change her slide. Say goodnight, Hillary.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  47. Jayne

    I'm in New Hampshire and it's hurt her chances with me. Of course, there wasn't much of a chance to begin with. Vote Obama!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  48. Gino

    It could be that the comments Senator Clinton has made, may hurt her... unfortunately, I did not listen to the Democratic debate in NH, I was totally disgusted the way some politicos were debating when I heard the beginning of the Republican debate... I weish I could have seen a Pinocchio cartoon, as the debaters acted as if they were a bunch of crazy loons, attacking each other, being impolite to each other, it was a circus and I had to turn them off, they acted quite often like Pinocchio, except that their nose did not grow! Anyway regarding to the topic in question regarding Senator Clinton's riposte, my feeling is that hopefully, voters will use their grey matter when they go to vote... let's face it she has made changes for the better of the populace as she was able to get together with other Senators and together they brought about changes. The only thing that I would weigh if I were a New Hampshire voter and would go to the polls Tuesday, if whether Senator Clinton is going to get rid of all, and I mean all the special interests that help her and may demand this and that favour from her... and the same goes for Senator Obama, if there are special interests that help him out in his quest for the Presidential "seat" – I am sarcastic about politicians, period... I feel that after serving one year or more under the present conditions our country is, i.e., under the "influence" of big business and the likes, a Senator is bound to owe something to those special interests if he/she wants to remain in his/her cushy position! Senator Obama has only been a Senator for 2 years, I think, so he may not be as corrupted as any other politician who has been his/her hands greased by the special interests... but then, according to what I heard yesterday as I woke up and listened to former President Clinton speak to a group of people at Bow (NH), Senator Clinton will get rid of all those special interests... if this is true, well, great... let the people know about this before they go to vote, let them make up their mind... Mrs. Clinton has done a lot to help the U.S. citizens, she has experience... if she gets peeved for being put on the wall regarding "making changes", well, and she does have a right to confront those who say she did not. That should not make hurt her, i.e., if voters use their brains and think a little about who did what so far to help the U.S.A.!
    By the way, I wish that former President’s Clinton’s talk to the people at BOW would have gone national; he knows how to speak without blubbering, without a piece of paper before him, he is fluent in his speech, and uses good grammar... talking about grammar, I heard someone, on CNN or another channel interviewing former Governor Huckabee... in his answer, this person who is supposedly well educated, used the word “irregardless” – what does this mean? The word he used, I mean!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  49. Ken KS

    Hillary can't claim to be tough if she doesn't exhibit toughness and perhaps she was justified to come to her own defense. She's behind and she has to go back onto the offensive, She is not out by any means. She has organization and the best advisor money can buy, the ultimate politician of the 20th Cnetury, Former President William Jefferson Clinton–AND, he's not charging her a cent. Hillary is still the person to beat and if Obama and Edwards think otherwise, they'll find that a foolish and disasterous shortcoming. By the way, I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  50. jacob

    Well she reminds me of an ex girlfriend who always wants it her way or the highway

    January 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  51. -30-

    I certainly hope so!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  52. Charlie Mack

    Would it be considered politically incorrect to point out to Ms. Clinton that Ed Muskie was forced out of the race when he cried in New Hampshire?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  53. Cody B

    I think Hillary's response could be considered angry and probably will hurt her chances, but I think her response was profound. She was correct in stating what she has done. I am still voting for Obama however.

    -Cody Brinkerhoff
    Flagstaff, AZ

    January 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  54. nick

    just saw the clip for the first time, and the emotional piece. she should have been stronger and softer earlier. overall she would make a good president, but.......i support edwards

    ps – gwb's tantrums are much better than hillary's 🙂

    January 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  55. Don Peake

    Jack, you didn't show us how angry John Edwards has been for weeks now; I guess it's just "being strong" when a guy does it. With Mrs. Clinton, it's a huge fault of some kind. Yeah, we all know the ladies should never getted riled up; goodness, what if they forgot their place?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  56. Kris Nelson

    We have already had two terms with a "my way or the highway" president. Hilary Clinton's angry outburst sounds like more of the same.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  57. Jason

    HEY, JACK

    Your "time to stay home baking cookies" comment at the start of your most recent CNN segment (about 4:10 PM) was sexist and offensive. Period. And Jake Tapper from ABC News has NEVER posted anything remotely positive about the Clintons, so I am also puzzled as to why you would cite him as some sort of source, as if his opinion was unbiased somehow.

    Let the voters interpret Hillary's answer as they may. I personally think it will help more than it will hurt.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  58. Tres Johnston

    Absolutely! It screams of desperation, and more fear mongering. Obama's message of hope will shine through.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  59. Brian

    One minute she's angry; another minutes she's crying. Is she bi-polar or just cold and calculating? Either way, she does not belong in the White House. I see the true colors shining through and I think America is starting to see it as well.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  60. Brian Crooks

    As a recent graduate of the University of Iowa, I had a chance to see the campaign unfold firsthand. Hillary Clinton's angry response is just one in a long list of moments during her campaign in which the cracks have begun to show in her "inevitable" veneer. This most recent moment only serves to show her tone, attitude, and demeanor in stark contrast with that of the other three candidates; each of whom remained calm and under control throughout the debate.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  61. Joe

    Hillary Clinton is the epitome of the term "plastic candidate". She will say anything to get elected. I am not swayed by her fake tears. She is trying to use a 'sympathy tactic' because she is realizing that her words are as hollow as her heart. America is not fooled. We will not settle for a 30-year Bush-Clinton dynasty.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  62. Etta Farney

    Jack, I think it's time for you to go home and clean the garage, the basement, whatever. Hilary had a right to get angry, she's worked hard all her adult life and your smug comments fit right in with you 1950's view of the world!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  63. Erma

    Why should her anger deter anyone? Both Dem & Rep men were short, discourteous & sarcastic in their speech, why should she be held to a different standard?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  64. Wylie D. McAbee

    Jack,
    Your question deserves an honest response! As a white male, 62 believe it or not I am supporting Hillary and I don't believe that hurst her at all! Change? What ever happened to Experience that brings change, that's who Hillary is Jack! I don't care if people like her or not, at least we know her! Look what happened when Bush was elected and we didn't know him and we don't know Barack Obama and I am not wiling to run the chance again!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  65. Edgar

    I remember the audience clapping when Clinton finished that speech and I thought it was heartfelt. However, the media immediately began to spin it so drastically afterward to make it seem as if she was "angry" and "stubborn" that it will undoubtedly influence the electorate... now.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  66. janet parker

    I hope not–if she was a man and came across that strong, people would just say she was powerful. Because she is a woman, she is judged differently. I think she was wonderful.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  67. freddy

    r u kidding???

    you media guys look like angry white men.....

    I am not a hillary supporter, and will probably vote republican... but you guys have forgotten what it means to be a jouranlist.... speciall you JACK! have you critisized Obama for one thing yet? do you know where he stands on issues???? he is a great SPEAKER.... what has he done.....

    take a breath.... we want Obaama to win... easier for us to beat in general election...

    January 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  68. Dave Tucson

    Way to go Hilary! She needs to stand up for herself just like any other candiate. We (the media and others) call it angry and like thats a bad thing just because she's a woman. She's a woman in a mans world and doing a damn go job.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  69. Bailey Robertson

    I commend Hillary for what the media vultures are calling her "outburst." She's the very first candidate who got up there and gave proof of her strong career in public service–she isn't like Edwards and Obama who insist speaking in vague ideals which there is no indication they can follow through on.

    All of this talk about Hillary representing the "status quo" is absurd. She is a liberal, and, not to mention, a female! She is the antithesis of the American political status quo!

    I'm still backing Hillary. That's that.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  70. Shirley Ross

    Will Hillary's actions at the debate hurt her? No, not as much as what most politicians in Washington stand for: Taxes to pay for their raises while our infrastructures fall apart and our people suffer like those still waiting for help after Katrina. We aren't tired of taxes. We are tired of what they have been paying for and Hillary and Bill Clinton are an example.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  71. Ramsi

    Listen Jack...why is it when people stand up for themselves in elections, the media has to turn it into a bad thiing ? why do you expect people to just sit there with their thumbs in their mouths to "play nice" ... besides...how whimpy are people ? hillary didn't have an outburst...she just raised the tone of her voice to make a point.. the media shouldn't act like such babies....too many eggshells on the floor anymore ...
    let's get some back bone !
    Thanks and have a great day!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  72. Andrea

    Listen, i think a man raises his voice, he's passionate. A woman raises her voice, like last night and shes angry. You people need to take a closer look, she meant what she was saying and she knows as well as most of us do: Yes change is possible, and you get it and can expect it quicker and with quality, with and from someone who has proof they are capable.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  73. Lynda Chapple

    I think her response shows passion for the change she intends on igniting.
    An angry outburst .. sounds a bit sensational from the media...
    She may have been a tad defensive towards individuals who have not provided a track record anything close to Sen. Clintons.
    Obama has charm that is for sure. However, charm is a far cry from substance.
    Hopefully Americans will be smart this time around in their choice.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  74. Charles

    I don't think Clinton's "outburst" as you seem to suggest it was, portrays her in any negative light. Or at least independents and Democrats shouldn't feel so. In fact, I believe she was putting her case before the voters in New Hampshire and America at large in a lucid, forceful manner backing up her argument with fact over fiction, fantasy, and untested theory unlike our sitting quack in chief or her fellow rivals.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  75. Beverly

    As a long time Democrat, I am not supporting any of the Democratic
    candidates right now, but I will point out that while in the Senate, Obama
    has voted 100% the same as Hillary, so, where does that point out he is
    for change? And Edwards is not any different with his voting history, she is right, look at their
    voting records and tell us where their votes have indicated a HUGE change
    from the Democratic party status quo? You in the news reporting business
    seem to be giving both men a pass on inspecting their careers while you dump
    on her, shame on YOU for that!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  76. ron

    Hillery may have just blown her chance.. Crying not allowed .. She know she is done. No one buying her change. only change she knows is ,big business money from one pocket to another.. Good riddance.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  77. Shae Smith

    ON HILLARY CLINTON:

    From those that know her Hillary is a "nice" "warm" woman – its not coming across to the public. I would like to support the first woman President (I am an African American woman).

    I want to believe she can make changes – but the time for "change" is not during your campaign – it makes her seem undone by Obama's impact. Is there a way for Obama to have his own impact and for her to carve her own WITHOUT demolishing his accomplishments?

    I need a reason to vote FOR Hillary – not AGAINST her opponents. There is something to be said for being gracious to acknowledge that he is leading change by bringing new voters to Iowa... and without diminishing that.... highlight what Hillary WILL DO for America.

    On the question of attitude of "entitlement" – it would help if she spoke about America and its people instead of her consistent "I should be president message". Where are the American people in her message??? This position is making Obama more authentic.

    In response to her and Bill Clinton’s indictment of the media’s coverage – to that I say look at the impact Obama is having. If she is so “experienced” how is it that Obama is having a bigger impact. Wouldn’t her experience be able to generate this?

    "Change" your message Hillary. Please. She can't fight Obama saying you've been in Washington for 35 YEARS. Who is advising you thats the way to go in the midst of Obama's constant rising poll numbers?!

    Put simply its true that Obama's movement is largely based on a "feeling" he is creating. But on the contrary you are touting 35 years of change that people cannot see or feel from you. BILL's accomplishments ARE NOT HERS!!!!!

    .... just my two cents

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  78. Chris Drennen

    Jack, I don't know about New Hampshire, but as a South Carolinian independent, I'm glad Hillary struck back. She's mad as hell, she's not gonna take it anymore, and that's why she'll get my vote.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  79. Linda

    I hope it hurts Hillary. I just can not understand why anyone in America would want 4 or possibly 8 more years of what we have had for the past 20 years. Isn't 4 years of Bush Sr, 8 years of Clinton Mr. and 8 years of Bush Jr enough........it is time for a change even if it is a Democrate that wins, as long as it is not a Clinton.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  80. mo ulicny

    Angry? Come on. That wasn't angry. If she was a he, speaking in a baritone, no one would have noticed!
    Mo

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  81. Juan

    No Jack, I don't believe that this will hurt her in New Hampshire. What I do believe is that because of the sole fact that she is a woman and had to raise her voice to be heard she will be penalized. I don't believe you would be posing this question if Obama or Edwards or as a matter of fact any male candidate had reacted to the double teaming that occured at the debate on Saturday. I believe we need someone like Hillary, that has the backing and experience to get something accomplished coming into the White House. We don't need someone who "brands" themselves as someone who gives "hope". How far is hope going to get you when you are fighting the status-quo of the republicans in Washington? The real questions that need to be asked of these candidates is, what have you done, what will you do, and how will you do it? Those should be the questions asked and until we do so, we will continue to have the same type of government that does what it wants without this countries approval.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  82. Ashley

    I am a former Clinton supporter and now Obama backer, but Hillary left all the men on the stage stumped. Her record is great but her reaction is a clear example of how she will not generate change. While I was impressed with her response I began to dislike her more and more every second she spoke. Lets face it stop yelling and stop crying Hillary because women cannot have emotions in politics. It may not be fair but it is the truth.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  83. Sandy Dickinson

    If it hurts her chances, then people aren't looking at the total picture. We need a president that's strong in their beliefs and not afraid to be forceful/angry. You need that to be heard and taken seriously.

    You Go Hilary!!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  84. Doris

    Jack, i think hillary would be a good president, and as far as her attacking her rivals "obama" Give her a break look how he goes after her, with more of the same, we couldn't be so lucky the defiect would be gone there would be probably be 4000 troops alive and bush's play house in bagdad would still be in one piece.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  85. Kermit

    This outburst will hurt her a great deal. By the way Jack, why is it that none of the candiates from either party haven't brought up term limits for congress which we despertly need?. I guess I just can't vote for anyone this time.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  86. Joseph

    I think it is ridiculous when someone gets angry that they should be attacked for it. She is labled as the experience candidate but not the change candidate. She is mad that people refuse to acknowledge the change that she has made in her political life. When Bush gets mad he makes bad arguments to defend why he is getting mad, I don't think Senator Clinton made a bad argument for getting mad during the debate.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  87. Terry

    I don't have any idea if Hillary's temper tantrum will hurt her or not, but the look Jack gave Wolfe on the tearing up comment was priceless.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  88. Richard Alan

    While Hillary made a logical point about the things that she has bullied through, that is not what America is calling for. We don't want a bully anymore. We don't want someone that is embroiled and knowledgeable in how to say the right answer. We want someone who is HONEST. That is why I and many other people will vote Barack Obama into the White House. Thank you.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  89. Patti Victorson

    I think her emotions, tears and anger show that she cares and is deeply committed to this country. I did not hear anyone question John Edwards when he has shown anger or aggression. When men speak forcefully with passion it is regarded positively, when women do it they are judged, criticized and called the 'b' word. Knock it off; you are smarter than that. I have not decided between Barack and Hillary but judge her fairly and please do not resort to the age-old attack on women when they show any passion or forcefulness at all.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  90. Peter Harris

    This begs another question: When she loses tomorrow, will Hillary get angry or just cry?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  91. Carol

    Jack, I love you, but here you guys go again! If a man had made the same comments ge would have been perceived entirely differently!! NO, it won't hurt her chances anywhere as far as I'm concerned. I'm voting for Billary!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  92. Brenda Lister

    Jack, you should be ashamed of yourself! Obama and Edwards sat there and cast all manner of dispersions at Sen. Clinton. She responded to get the discussion back to reality: she has demonstrated her ability to lead change. What is Obama's record? Edwards is a late-comer to populism; his senate voting record provides no evidence of his "change agentry." We need a president who has visited other countries and met other leaders and is used to the "slash and burn" attacks of the "grand OLD Party." What if Republicans are supporting Obama so that he wins the nomination and the south and the true republicans win overwhelmingly.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  93. leigh

    If Ms. Clinton had responded in the same way but was a man, she would have been appluaded for a bold, strong retort. If she hadn't interrupted the emotionally laden b.s. coming from Edwards and Obama , I would have turned the TV off. Can we please talk issues which does include experience! Stop the sexist commentary and let the candidates speak for themselves.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  94. Tom

    What's it going to be. First the media says she is cold, now you say she is too emotional and sensitive.

    Her being angry? She was just answering the question. She says she is about change, has experience, and was just defending her position.

    Get off or her back

    And this is coming from a Republican,

    Tom

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  95. greg of tucson

    jack, if something like this hurts a presidential candidate, then we should be ashamed of ourselves. why don't voters turn to the facts instead of something they saw on t.v. into factors that sway their decision?! i could care less what these candidates say in these debates anymore because it is all for show. tv can be manipulative.

    cheers

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  96. Scott, California

    Jack,

    From Independent voter in California:

    Campaigns rarely give voters unscripted looks into what the candidates are like. Senator Clinton widely touts that she's "ready to lead on Day 1."

    Is this what America can expect on Day 2 if our country is challenged? I've afraid we finally saw how the true Senator Clinton reacts when she's challenged. I for one would like to have someone who acts like a mature leader in the White House. We've had the opposite for 8 years and it's time for a change.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  97. Jon

    Is todays emotional outburst a page out of the heather Mills guide to Public relations management ?

    It didnt work.

    The good senator from the state of new york is out.

    she seems to have the emotional stability of britney spears too.

    Plus she has no vision for the USA, she just really really wants this job on her resume.

    Where did she come out with the number of 35 years of change. 35 years ! Wow its like an ever growing fish story.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  98. Jordan - Cedar Rapids, IA

    I can't imagine that it will Hurt her much, Jack. After all, the media has yet again managed to ignore Edwards after a 2nd place showing here in Iowa and an amazing Debate performance Saturday. Heaven forbid people get to hear about all the candidates. Can't have well informed VOTERS, it might just disturb the "Showdown" between Hillary & Obama the media's been pushing since they announced.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  99. Miles

    Well Hilliary, with 35 years of experience making change, my questions to you is, why is this country going to hell in a handbasket? This country is falling apart at the seams and your change has gotten us nowhere! Oh by the way, I loved the 'weeping' displayed today.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  100. Chris Griffith

    Jack,
    Yes, I believe Sen. Clinton is on a downward spiral that she will not be able to recover from. From the debate on Saturday to the emotional breakdown this afternoon. Sen. Clinton's campaign for the presidency ended at 9:34pm on Saturday night.
    Chris
    Garden City,MI

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  101. Randall

    Hillary had every right to show her anger after receiving such a political attack. If anything it shows that she will not take accusations laying down. Unlike Mr. Bush she did respond with attacks toward her attacker (full of half truths)....but instead defended her record.

    Anger shows passion.....and it will not be over-interpreted by knowledgeable people.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  102. Bob

    Jack, Hillary is showing the effects of the front runner that just got overhauled before the running even got serious. This is the point where a thoroughbred either digs in and rattles back OR spits the bit, breaks stride and bolts to the outside fence. Its a long way to the finish line Jack... Obama re-acted like a champion thoroughbred when he was behind...
    Can Hillary do the same?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  103. Karen

    I felt she was the strongest at the debate. The reality check is needed. I'm bored by these sappy men with their whiny/emotional/wimpy speeches. I absolutely support Obama for President. I am one of those annoying American's that actually looks at voting records. He is extremely qualified to be President. Get him out of the Senate before he does anymore damage. While we're at it.... there are over 400 more up on the hill that are perfectly qualified to be President. I only wish we were voting them all for President tomorrow so that we could get them out of the way and solve America's issues.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  104. Gwyn

    It doesn't matter to me if Hillary gets mad or not because she's already lost my vote even though I voted for Bill twice. As in independent, I don't see where she's IMPROVED anything in the areas of health care, insurance or big oil. And what has turned me totally off from her is calling ILLEGAL aliens "undocumented workers"! The fact that several democrates don't seem to want to uphold the Immigration Laws of this country is making me, for the first time in my 57 years, look at two Republicans – Ron Paul and Huckebee.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  105. Chris Greer

    Do we really want another 4 years of a "president-in-training" or do we want someone with the experience to get our country out of this mess? Hillary Clinton has that experience and knows the ropes. Please, consider your vote carefully. A wish and a promise won't get you very far these days. Experience will.
    Chris, Abingdon, VA

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  106. David Baker

    Jack,

    I think Clinton's outburst towards the other democratic hopefuls is an insight to her would-be term in office. We already have a president that does not care about what other people say or do. The last thing we need is one that cares too much. I dont want a president that is so quick to "push the button" if someone challenges her polices or ideals.

    -David Baker (R)
    Chesapeake, VA

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  107. Matthew Lerch

    Hillary’s response was not angry or unjustified. She was defending her record against unwarranted attacks. I do not believe that the media, including your program, is treating her fairly at all. Her “emotional” moment today was an expression of her sincerity and concern regarding the future of this nation. I really cannot help but wonder if this type of reporting is focused on Clinton because of her gender.

    We should all remember times in the past that the Democrats have chosen with their hearts—particularly in 72 and 84. These were disastrous elections for the Democratic party, and it would not hurt to choose a candidate who is ready for the Republican attack machine next fall.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  108. John

    If Hillary Clinton is at all worried about her lack of "likability" during her campaign, snapping at those who give her the tough questions is going to push more people toward candidates with a more uplifting message. People tend to be driven more by emotion than substance– that is why Obama has been so successful despite his lack of experience.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  109. Frank

    I don't necessarily think it will hurt her. If anything, it might help her. It just comes to show that she is a fighter for her beliefs and will not be taken down as easily as some as her other rivals want her too. I actually give her more credit considering she is also the only woman running for president in this presidential election.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  110. Nate

    At first I use to wonder why people say "she acts as if she's entitled". The anger that she's losing clarified that for me. And now she plays her "ace of spades", the always useful, tears. No matter what happens I will never vote for HRC.

    I pray that the final ticket will be Obama / Edwards!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  111. Jeanne Dyer

    In a fair world, her angry response wouldn't hurt her one iota more than Mitt Romney's angry response to John McCain. Bye the way, why didn't you ask "Will Mitt Romney's angry response at the debate hurt his chances in New Hampshire?"

    Emotion is human. I worry more about the automatons.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  112. Linda Sharp

    Well, it will if the media keeps interpreting it as anger, rather than genuine passion about the campaign. How did our presidential election process become a congeniality process? If I needed a medical attention for a life threatening condition, do you really think that I or any other sound minded individual would select the doctor based on whether or not I found him/her likable? Heavens no, any sane person would want the most qualified, most experienced doctor they could find. Why should the standard for selecting the leader of the most important country in the free world be any less?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  113. mike

    It looked to me that she was just holding her own in a tuff debate.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  114. Lynda Chapple

    I think her response shows passion for the change she intends on igniting.
    An angry outburst .. sounds a bit sensational from the media…
    She may have been a tad defensive towards individuals who have not provided a track record anything close to Sen. Clintons.
    Obama has charm that is for sure. However, charm is a far cry from substance.
    Hopefully Americans will be smart this time around in their choice.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  115. Sherry

    No, Hillary is simply letting the fellas know she is not backing down and does in fact have the experience they have yet to prove. You go gal!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  116. Craig in Brunswick GA

    Saturday night she was a bully who was mad that she should be questioned. Today she is a cry baby who is unhappy she can't have things HER way. I swear I am not anti women (I have 5 daughters) but with emotional swings like these can I trust HER to be president??

    Craig Eisele

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  117. Todd

    Jack,

    Senator Clinton is the only cnadidate talking about a real record and the media and other candidates insult her for it. When she's not assertive the media calls her phony and scripted, when you get a real moment you call her "angry." How about turning some of the scrutiny and intense fault-finding on Obama and Edwards? "Change "is a nice word, but where's the beef?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  118. NewDem

    This is just another example of the same old same old. Hillary is showing a prime example why people love her or hate her. If she thinks getting upset and showing us her mean streak is going to further her cause she is dead wrong. I am a Republican and have been my entire life until this year. I can no longer tolerate business as usual from the republican party.

    That said I am not going to extend my vote to a Dem who is cut from the same mold of old school thinking and ways of attacking people.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  119. val

    I'd say she will be pulling a Howard Dean with her emotions and rapid sinking, except she hasn't won anything yet.

    It's a nomination, not a coronation.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  120. Mitchell Larkins

    I feel that Hillary Clinton showed her true colors during the debate on saturday night. She came off as angry, powerful, and somewhat self indulgent. She keeps claiming that she has 35 years experience. I specifically remember Bill Clinton being President not Hillary. I definetly now feel my vote is going for Obama/Edwards ticket in 2008. The people in my home state, Illinois, have been somewhat divided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Both have strong ties to the state and political pull around the area. But the people in Illinois, know what great efforts Barack did for our community and they also remember what kind of tactics and negative attack adds Hillary Clinton keeps dishing out. We dont need another Family Election, We already had 2 Bushs in the past 20 years and we dont need another Clinton.. The change the people want is not her records, we need someone who is fresh to Washington, with fresh ideas. He will lead us to a better United States.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  121. Eileen Lichtenfeld

    Jack I totally disagree. I haven't decided who I'm voiting for, but seeing Hillary get passionate showed me her strength and conviction – and yes frustration at all the rhetoric vs deeds. I don't see the similarity of this to our current president who doesn't tolerate any criticism and likens it to treason at worst or not being patriotic at best. Hillary wasn't reacting to criticism – but to the concept that she stands for the status quo and not change. I thought her point was passionate and impactful.

    If NH voters are as "independent" as you in the media keep saying – I think they'll see the difference.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  122. Jack Daniels

    There is an Obama wave washing across this country.

    He won Iowa, he will win New Hampshire and I do not see any stopping him.

    Lets give somebody other than a Bush or a Clinton a chance to run this great country.

    Lets move forward from the w disaster.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  123. Bill Mahon

    Hillary's propensity to get angry and show it publicly, coupled with what appears to be a tendancy to become overly emotional while campaigning and trying to explain her position , are both traits that we definitely do not need in a president. With everything that is going on in the world today, not the least of which is today's provocation of the US Navy by Iranian military boats, we need an even handed leader that leaves his or her emotions at home and that does not take them to the Oval Office and influence world altering decisions.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  124. Bonnie

    She didn't appear angry to me.
    But some people will mistake her being assertive for anger.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  125. Janella

    I don't think Hillary's comment was out of place at all. It was reassurance for me to know she stands up for what she thinks and I think it was important for the listeners to know that she wasn't just going to sit back and take the negative comments addressed to her.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  126. Mike O

    Watching the debates Hilary did sound angry and targeted Obama and Edwards, instead of saying what she stood for. All of them would be way better than bush, but right now I find Obama the most likeable, and the best speaker.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  127. Jim Blevins

    People normally get angry because something has touched on a fear. Obama is talking about changes that Clinton is afraid to make. Hopefully, people will insist that the USA starts treating Muslims and Christians equally, something Clinton cannot do.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  128. Linda

    It's funny that when Hillary shows strong emotion, she's judged angry, when she shows touching emotion, she's deemed weak. I call her capable and real. I believe she's a strong woman who isn't afraid to show vulnerability.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  129. Doris

    Bully for Hillary! It's about time she responded to the carping of Edwards and Barack insinuating that she is in favor of the status quo. They should talk about what they plan to change–specifically–and not drive people crazy repeating "change," "change", "change" like parrots.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  130. Chris George

    Obama in in position to run the table now. That moment was the end of Hillary. But there's more....McCain has the same angry streak and sense of entitlement that Clinton displayed, and Obama knows how to push those buttons. Temper was McCain's undoing in 2000.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  131. Aidyn, NY

    It was not an angry response.It was a response that came from the heart. She was defending what she morally believes, she needed to react the way she did becuase it showed me that she really did care. It is sad that this powerful moment by this woman is been seen as negative. She stood her own and that alone shows courage and I admire this in her.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  132. Tim W

    I don't call Hilary's response angry but rather passionate. You cannot compare her to Bush, Hillary is way smarter and can articulate her thoughts in very clear and consise manner unlike President Bush.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  133. ALI DICKSON

    I didn't see Hillary's response so much as angry but determined, convicted, even frustrated that no one seems to understand that the way you make change is to ACT, not just talk, or hope. Neither of those other guys have any real change to show, but she has years and years of records proving she IS a change agent. No, I don't think her reaction will hurt her at all! On the contrary, she needs to show that fire in the belly all the way to the White House!

    Ali / Dallas

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  134. Rob

    Hillary's response was strong and comprised of concrete examples of change that she has initiated and achieved–in my mind, that's a refreshing departure from the totally vague "change" talk by Obama who almost never talks details. Edwards talks details, but where are the measurable results of his work? Hillary's response in the debate was appropriately critical of her opponents. If New Hampshire voters was substance, then her performance in that debate should very much help her candidacy.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  135. Carol in Monterey

    Sen. Clinton very rightly got angry at the smary double talk of her opponents who were less than honest about their so-called change. Try pinning those guys down on the details and they slide off into their political rhetoric desgined to raise emotions in those who can't face the solid reality that Clinton presents.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  136. Judy Zone

    I wouldn't say Hillary displayed the same kind of arrogance we see from George W. What I feel from her is a sense of entitlement - she slogged through a lot in her husband's presidency He is paying her back now, and perhaps she feels the American people need to pay her back. In her crying moment today, it seemed she was saying that she is the only person running who is smart enough to fix this mess. She just may be the smartest –but she is also the most divisive. If she's the candidate, Dems have a really good chance of losing this election.. and then in my opinion, there won't be anybody who WANTS to fix this mess on the other side of the political aisle.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  137. Suzy

    YUP! That will hurt Hillary just as much as Bill saying he can't make her a man, taller or younger. What he said was a clear case of "CYA" on his part to show that It's not his fault she is loosing!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  138. Sue in Los Angeles

    Jack:

    You ought to be ashamed of yourself. For the past eight years you've complained (rightly) about the Bush Administration's failed politics, and now that we have a candidate who is actually capable of beating a Republican, and has the experience and skill to undo most of the damage Bush created, you attack her for taking a firm position on an issue?

    If she were a man you'd have called that passion and charisma. But because she's a woman, you belittle her taking a strong stance and putting Edwards in his place for talking out of his behind.

    Then on the other hand, you criticize her for showing emotion? What emotion? I saw that clip and didn't see a single tear, or hear her voice crack. She was thoughtful, rational and human. She's absolutely right to have strong feelings about our country "falling backwards" considering how devastating George Bush's damage has been.

    I think you ought to go bake cookies! And save us all your condescending B.S.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  139. Stephen Detlefs

    I also saw many Bushisms out of Senator Clinton Saturday night during her outburst. It was evident that she saw the walls collapsing in on her Nomination Hopes. Today watching her "emotional" speech in NH it seemed very convenient that she had this emotional change as the primary is hours away and she is realizing that she has this whole time been unable to connect to the populous. To say today that she sees what Americans need is nothing more than a last attempt to try and save her campaign. Being an Iowan and watching the candidates closely the last several weeks the thing that stood out since she started her run was her initial "I'm in it to Win it" nothing will disconnect you from people faster than basing your run on what sounds like a very personal vendetta at taking control of the White House and not a quest to help America and its people.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  140. Andrew Kerris

    Absolutely, the last thing Americans want to see is the other side of the same coin. That's right, Hillary would continue to divide this country just as Bush has and likely take it in a direction that would leave both sides of America flustered. Imagine replacing the word security with the word change in Bush's speeches; nothing more than empty words from an empty candidate.

    -Vote Obama

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  141. Jared

    It was only a matter of time before Hilary snapped back. If everyone from both sides of the aisle are taking punches at you, eventually smiling and turning the other cheek only lasts so long. It was just a matter of time before she started firing back. Even the emotion she showed today was bent out of frustration from everyone firing volleys at her.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  142. Wes

    Hillary's anger is legendary, what the camera captures and what happens behind closed doors are a stark contrast. She is famous for her belittling of staffers and those who criticize her. Everything she does for the camera is an act, and many people are seeing through it.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  143. Brian Weber

    It won't hurt her chances...unless you keep playing it ad infinitum in an attempt to manipulate the election... like you did with the Howard Dean scream. When you watch the whole debate, which I did, she didn't seem all that angry.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  144. Jackie Waldorf

    Jack: I can only hope that it will. I have been following these campaigns daily on CNN from what seems an extremely long time and I never know which Hillary is going to show up on my screen from day to day. She has reinvented herself countless times and will stop at nothing to win this election. By the way, I was wondering whose voice Hillary was using during her tearful entreaty earlier today.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  145. Omar

    Hillary's response should have a positive effect. It's about time the media, you and the rest of the pundits gave a free ride to Obama. Hillary showed not just that we need change but that she has a proven track record of bringing about change. Obama and Edwards are all talk and no results and Hillary showed why on the debate.

    PS How about you start showing some neutrality in your reporting? Your bias is quite obvious.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  146. michele

    I think Hillary Clinton hurt her chances for the N.H. caucus. I'm for Obama. He's about change. Electing Hillary is voting for Bill, and he already had his 2 terms in office. I've made up my mind and I'm not a young voter either; I'm 54,retired,and on a fixed income. If we have another attack God forbid,I want a man in office, not someone having a PMS attack, take some hormones, Hillary,

    Michele
    Clearlake,California

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  147. Lillian T Ciarrochi

    I am shocked at the blatent sexism surrounding Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.. From the immature gangup by the two "juvenile delinquents" at the debate to comments I have been hearing from male television characters. You said that Hillary's angry statements would hurt her – if one of her male challengers had uttered the same words, you would have said they are bold and decisive. Obama and Edwards are so not ready for prime time , but the media will do all they can to knock out a woman. We will still be aganizing again in four years over a tragic mistake. Hope Hillary keeps giving them hell,

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  148. Ray

    How dare you compare her to BUSH!!! She was responding to Edwards and his attempt to push her out of this race. I have lost all respect for you!!!!!

    She was not angry, just feed up!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  149. Kathy

    Give it up Jack.....you and Wolf are so biased against Hillary it makes me sick. Hopefully all the Independents in NH can see through your spin. When Barack's oratorical skills were described as "emotional" I didn't see you two jump on the chance to defame him....but Hillary speaks from the heart and you attack her. Lay off.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  150. Brandon Sheats

    Saturday's debate proves that Mrs. Clinton cannot deal with the assertion that she's a relic of a failing system. Anger stems form some form of fear, and her anger that night proves that she fears we won't go for the same type of government that tells us what we can do and aspire to anymore. She assumes we'll fall for the same facade that politicians use time and time again, and we won't.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  151. Christine from California

    Yes, it will hurt her in New Hampshire and beyond. Unfortunately, when Hillary gets backed into the corner she comes across as "_itchy" and today's weepy performance comes off as disingenuous. This is a shame as her actions perpetuate the stereotype of a strong woman getting over emotional. But, she'll keep on fighting, although Obama will get the nomination because he is young, dynamic and charismatic. Her less than stellar showing in Iowa and her current poll numbers show that the country is tired of the past and wants to look to a new future. Just looking at the old folks behind her in Iowa and the young ones behind Obama – these pictures tell a thousand words. The young people just need to keep coming out to vote.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  152. Nancy M

    No –I think many people can empathize with how frustrating it must be for Hillary to have worked so hard her entire life on issues that were controversial and to have come under tremendous fire from the neo-cons, only to have Barack Obama come out of left field claiming to be THE agent of change.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  153. Brian Weber

    It won’t hurt her chances…unless you keep playing it ad infinitum in an attempt to manipulate the election… like you did with the Howard Dean scream. When you watch the whole debate, which I did, she didn’t seem all that angry.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  154. Nicholas (Washington State)

    Time and time again I have heard people say "Is Hillary strong enough to lead the country?" With her standing strong during the debate shows she will not ack down to tough decisions. Hillary is trying to make a stand in a role where it has been led by men, and she must show the American people she has what it takes to lead. She shows the American people she will not be walked all over. I would prefer to have a leader who knows what she is talking about than having to guess
    what to do when elected.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  155. Denise in Peoria

    No. Hillary voiced the truth. Hillary is just not competing with Obama and Edwards. She is up against an biased press. The press follows Obama around like JFK. He has the advantage. It's back to the Nixon-Kenendy deabates... media counts. I feel betrayed by the media. And Hillary and Edwards SHOULD feel betrayed by the press.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  156. Gloria in PA

    Exactly what experience is it that Hillary Clinton keeps referring to? Including his years in office in Illinois, Barack Obama has spent more time as an elected official than has Hillary. I'm also very much bothered by her dismissal of words building up false hopes. Perhaps she's forgotten "I have a dream." Many of us still have a dream. Apparently, hers has become a nightmare.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  157. Anne

    Was Hillary angry during the debates? I thought she was passionate and gave a great summary of her accomplishments. She's really in a no win situation. If she doesn't speak up for herself she is viewed as weak; when she does she is viewed as angry. This really sounds like a gender issue!. There were plenty of words from the males in the debate that didn't get this much attention. She has the experience, the passion, the smarts and I will be voting for her!!!!

    A.M.
    Seattle

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  158. Grace Tatarsky

    Jack,
    Have you never had an issue you've been deeply committed to? Comparing Hillary Clinton to George W. Bush is an insult to all women who have the courage to speak up for themselves. If she said nothing and let herself be steamrolled over you would call her a wimp. She stands up to accusations and itemizes the work she had done and you call her a "_itch" in so many words. Lets face it, you just like to be a crabby old man who does not want to give women the credit for the good they have done. Good Old Glass Ceiling Cafferty!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  159. drika

    Are you kidding? Hillary responded strongly and entirely appropriately to the pile on from her fellow candidates and the media. Have you suggested that John Edwards returns to the kitchen to bake cookies for his angry tirades? This is blatant sexism and a reflection of the rampant misogyny in this country.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  160. Frank G.

    Heck, NO!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  161. Boris

    Jack, for months we've been watching Hillary spout out pre-rehearsed lines and sound-bite ready responses. Sometimes, she even comes off as a lecturing grandma. It was actually refreshing to see her let go and get real for a little while. I think she was aggressive and that just might help her win over those voters who are looking for a "human" candidate. In the end, she doesn't stand a chance if we nominate Ron Paul to run against her.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  162. Robbi

    Good Grief! Get ahold of yourself! Clinton was just defending herself and her accomplishments! Much ado about nothing.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  163. Erik Meinhardt

    Wouldn't you be angry if an emotionally-charged opponent paints an untrue picture about your past for political gain? Hillary Clinton was spot-on at the debate and her emotion revealed a rightful passion that she has about her record. This vigorous defense against being double teamed just shows she has strength to stand up to the Republicans in '08.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  164. Linda Hennessee

    Jack, you are just wrong. What you call an "outburst" was her clearly saying that talking about change, hoping for change is NOT enough. To compare her to George Bush is off the wall!!! Hillary has been involved with the Childrens Defense Fund for decades. She helped salvage Legal Aid in this country. She helped the children in Arkansas on education and children across America with health insurance. She has always proven to be a problem solver. I think the people of New Hampshire will not be blindly by the aura of "hope" and go with a proven leader.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  165. Hamish Todd

    Yes, I think it will. What is this 35 years of experience? She says that a lot, but she never says what, unlike Barack, who goes all the way back to working with churches in Chicago. Being the spouse of the governor, or the spouse of a president isn't the same as filling those positions themselves. She's down and her back is up.
    She voted for the war and she's never adequately explained that move. Now she's suffering the consequences.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  166. Ron Vaillant

    Will Hillary's display of "anger" hurt her chances in New Hampshire is a misguided question. Hillary did not come off as angry – she came off as an impassioned politician. When Obama, who I support by the way, raises his voice and wags his index finger, nobody says he's angry. Wolf, Jack and the boys are either too lazy to disect and analyze the contrasts among the candidate's policy plans, or CNN doesn't think the American television watchers are engaged or smart enough to care about what really matters.

    Ron
    Los Angeles

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  167. R. Hickok

    Not only will it hurt in New Hampshire, but thoughout the remaining campaign.
    She comes across as combative, angry and not able to control her emotions.
    Not a good start for a Commander In Chief.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  168. Monica Medice

    Hillary reminded me of Kathleen Blanco during Hurricane Katrina. We all know what a disatarous perfomance she had. If Hillary want to be our Presidents she needs to Grow Up. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. I as a woman sympathizes with her, but when Feb. 5th rolls around BARAMAS my guy.

    Monica in Ca.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  169. verla davis

    Hilary's response should not offend New Hamshire voters, she is pointing out that change is not some pie-in-the-sky goal, but can and has happened through her efforts. By the way – why isn't anyone acknowledging that "change" wo n't happen without congressional effort – the president really doesn't have power over what congress changes or doesn't. Get back to real issues, education, healh care, etc.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  170. JC Brillant

    Hillary, Hillary, Hillary... well she's pretty much done! First the outburst Saturday night during the debate, then she almost cried this morning! That's not going to help...

    That was one of my biggest issues about voting for Clinton... I was afraid that she would get emotional under pressure... I thought she could be as strong Condi Rice! Well right now I'm up in the air between Obama, Edwards... and believe it or NOT HUCKABEE... I know he's a republican... but, I like him... so I pray that Obama & Edwards are on one ticket and they really win mine & everybody else's vote in America's vote...

    J.C. Brillant
    Brooklyn, NY

    January 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  171. Ian

    Jack, Hilary's angry response is simply another ill-fated attempt by the Clinton campaign to portray Barack Obama as a naive and inexperienced joke of a candidate. Given the fact that Obama has held an elected office for a longer period of time than Hilary, this tactic demonstrates Clinton's lack of substance. She was the first lady for a governor and the first lady of a president prior to becoming a senator. Under Hilary's world concept, Laura Bush is more experienced than Barack Obama. After 8 years of the bush administration, the american public is saavy to political hogwash.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  172. Dr. Claudia Johnsen

    Hey, Jack – I love you, but how come any time a woman gets a little emotional someone calls her out on it? What about Mitt Romney? He was snide and even darn right nasty in his remarks to McCain that same night, but that seems to be ok. Keep on bashing Hillary and we will all have to pay the $17,000 per year to private health insurance that dear sweet Mitt has forced our family to pay here at home in Massachusetts.

    Dr. Claudia
    Massachusetts

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  173. terri

    Dear Jack,

    Your hate for Hilary Clinton is unbelievable. I don't hear you slaming John Edwards when he's ranting like a mad man. He's the most mean spirited person I have ever seen. I don't care who you vote for but as a newsperson I think you should at least keep your hatefulness to yourself.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  174. J. O'Connor

    I can't tell you how disappointed I am in your comments. It is quite evident that you are not a Hillary fan. That's too bad as she is more likely to defeat any Republican running. If any male on the panel had reacted as she did with truth and evidence of change - you would have applauded.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  175. Jeff Wickline

    It doesn't seem to matter what Senator Clinton says or does because she is attacked one minute for being too stoic and now for showing emotion. It is very easy for the press and people to judge someone else's behavior. She has shown remarkable composure for all that comes at her. When it comes down to it, Senator Clinton is the one who can offer more than words. She can back up her words with proven action and the conviction to go forward for America.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  176. Mark

    Angry response? Geez, Jack, the minute a woman raises her voice half a decibel, the media attack her as "angry." To a sane person, she just sounded passionate. I'm an Obama supporter, but I'd hate to see him get the nomination just because people like you have views on gender that were antiquated 40 years ago.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  177. Mike

    I think her obvious anger will hurt her with some people. She seems to claim responsibility for all the good things that happen in the Senate but none of the bad things. She said 7,000 kids in New Hampshire have health insurance because of her. How many don't have health insurance because of her? She is now using the term "this is personal" which I'm sure she will take full credit for when in fact it was Edwards who was the one preaching how "personal" this is for him. She is saying what she thinks people want to hear. She is polarizing, unbelievable, and un-electable. If the Democrats want to bring out Republicans to the polls then put Hillary in as your candidate. Nothing would make us more happy.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  178. Isaac R Hargett

    Jack, Media types like you make more out of issues such as anger than the voters do. Fact is , you seem mad most of the time and I still watch you.
    Barack Obama is on his way to victory and it is to his credit and no fault of Hilary. She has a lot to offer as Senator from New York.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  179. Marita M

    how experienced can she be if the whole time she has been a senator our nation has plunged further into chaos (in areas such as the environment, public health, the economy, education...) partly b/c of her pro-war vote? she knew what bush was up to b/c her husband, president clinton, was pitched the iraq war "plan" in 1998 by cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, etc. and all the other members of the project for a new american century. so she should have vigorously stood up against it and spoke the truth about it.
    and i guess change is what motivated her when she was on the board of wal-mart for 6 years as they perfected their "cheap-leaded-goods-made-in-china" business model that has worked so well. that was a great change for our country: losing jobs and gaining cheap, chemical-laden imports.
    calling the movement of obama "false hopes" just shows how much a part of the typical machine she is. she is saber-rattling as though our country will implode when obama is inaugurated. sounds like cheney.
    obama has been more successful in less time, than she has in this 35 years. plus, she is behind all major republicans in the general election polls, where as obama is ahead of all of them. he will win, she will lose. she is not electable.
    she has received more money from corporate america than any other candidate. she is not change and her "experience" has allowed her to get us into a war at george bush's request. she knew better and cannot be playing the fool now.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  180. gloria walden

    Please cut this woman some slack. Of course everyone is upset because it was felt she was inevitable. But who assigned that description to her? The media. I have been a Hillary watcher for a long time and I don't recall ever hearing her say that about herself. She gets slammed if she speaks too loudly, wears frumpy clothes, exposes cleavage, defends herself. What the H–l do you folks want from her? Why not take the time to scrutinize the menfolk this way and see how stupid it sounds. Just judge all candidates with the same yardstick, shall we?
    Gloria Walden
    Negaunee, MI 49866

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  181. Mark

    Getting angry certainly hurt her, but getting emotional and shedding some tears is even worse. We can't have our Command-in-Chief shedding tears and getting ultra emotional over tour decisions. Hillary's true self is rising to the surface. If she gets her way she is OK, but if not, she cries an pouts and gets angry. I don't need a President like that.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  182. Mensah Koduah, Bronx, New York

    Jack,
    You have alongside the Washington talking heads showed your bias. We know that those of you on Television like Obama to win badly and have not scrutinized as much as Hillary.
    What about Obama's record of voting "present" in Illinois senate?. Did you ask questions on that?.
    You have showed your preference in this campaign. The Republicans are gonna destroy him in two ads if he wins the Democratic nomination.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  183. Ray

    and I think it will HELP her Tuesday!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  184. John

    Hillary’s anger is probably going to help her – she is angry like many Americans that we’re stuck with a useless executive branch. Unlike most Americans she’s qualified, ready, and able to fix it – so letting some anger show when that opportunity starts slipping away is justified.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  185. len

    Am a loyal observer and love your insight. What I am curious about is why isn't John Edwards doing better ?? When he speaks, he is right on and the part about no lobbyist's is wonderful.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  186. David

    Just like you to say she is angry. Before she did not show emotions. I am an independent and have not decided however, I am a senior and I am getting sick and tired that you and people like you attack a person just because they are a Democrat or just because they are a Clinton. Grow up this country needs somebody that can lead a person like Clinton, Macain, and yes even Romey.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  187. Cathie S.

    Jack,

    I am shocked that you would have the audacity to equate Hillary Clinton with GWB.
    Why doesn't the press stop editorializing and just report on the factsand let the voters decide for themselves? The press should not be picking the next president. We need not worry about a violent assasination attempt against Hillary, as we saw with Benazir Bhutto.
    The press is doing that with words and pictures.

    Cathie

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  188. Winny Kazan

    I am a Lebanese born, Canadian Citizen living in Montreal and I follow American politics, namely the elections, very very closely. If I were given the voting priviledge, I would vote OBAMA, without hesitation. He is what America and the world need.
    Best of luck to Obama from a christian Lebano/Canadian.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  189. Karin

    This is not the only time she has gotten angry when confronted. At a recent overnight stop in Des Moines at her favorite hotel, she became angry when the management would not give her the executive suite that she always used because it was currently occupied by a honeymoon couple. She expected them to relocate the honeymoon couple so she could have HER suite. This is not the type of personality we need in the White House again.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  190. Elaine

    What's going on? I usually agree with your opinion. But, did I really just hear you compare Hillary Clinton's fightin' words to George W. Bush's frequent tantrums? Clinton's outburst is the result of a hard-working and intelligent candidate responding to an attack. Bush whines because someone has taken the silver spoon out of his mouth.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  191. Louise Whited

    Judging by the recent poll numbers, Hillary's vitriolic outburst has definitely hurt her chances of winning the primary race tomorrow. Add to that her husband's whining and her sob story today,where she tried to shed a phony tear, doesn't help her either. It is quite apparent from her attacks on Obama that she is still listening to that Penn person, who she was suppose to have sacked.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  192. Karri Kline

    Senator Clinton passionately responded with examples of actual accomplishments. Please, stop pulling the "angry woman" card. Furthmore, I am dismayed by your personally opinions implying that she is in anyway like President Bush. Do you think people won't blog with you unless you sound like an "angry man?"

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  193. stephanie

    absolutely not...here you men go again...if Obama, or Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, etc raise their voice...that's passion...if Hillary raises her voice, it's shrill...the problem with the media is that they are so used to using the male gender card that they don't even realize...she won’t be going home baking cookies…she is the Senator from New York...the media has used a constant double standard against Hillary Clinton...she has been bombarded from all sides and everyone with a speck of honesty knows it...she is a strong, passionate, intelligent woman and she will fight on to the end...no matter what happens Hillary Clinton is a winner...

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  194. Ken in Ohio

    It was priceless to see the clip of Hillary Clinton showing her anger and feeling of superiority. But what was more priceless was to see Wolf Blitzer try to compare her outburst of Anger which was real and genuine...with the concocted and fake tears ( Non Visible but reportedby Wolf Blitzer as real ) and a trembling voice...what a joke Wolf...the look that Caferty gave you...when you mention that clip...was worth one thousand words...I understood them as Wolf only you believe her....don't patronize the viewing audience or they will know that you are the Clinton News Network.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  195. Kristen

    I think Hillary's angry response during the debate and her "choking up" during an interview today will not only hurt her in the New Hampshire caucus, but she'll also suffer overall, in her race for the White House.

    The angry smile she got on her face when John Edwards started "attacking" her during the debate was reminiscent of childhood experiences, when I had really pissed my mom off.

    Scary.

    I think her emotional responses will create fear in the minds of voters, that Hillary will be more of a "mom" in the White House than a president...scolding those who don't mind her and doting over those who do.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  196. Claudia

    Hillary just seems to be experiencing menopause. How else can you explain her abrupt mood swings?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  197. Isha

    Well it didn't help Dean when he showed too much emotion. Is it any different because Senator Clinton is a woman? So its alright to have an emotional person as president as long as its a woman? I don't think America isn't ready for a female president, I believe this woman is not ready to be the President of The United States. One minute she is angry the next she is crying. It's like she's giving us a preview of the drama we will have to endure. No way, not now.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  198. sarah eustis

    Jack, I thought Hillary's answer was a great answer, and it came at the right time. You think she was angry? She was firm, she was strong, she was resolute. I detect sexism here Jack. Why are you asking this question only about Hillary? Have you asked John Edwards this question? He gets angry, so do, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani. Come on, are you media people so anti-Clinton, and desperate for a story, that you concoct this crap?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  199. Kym Lamb

    Why is it that when a woman takes control of a situation and assertively states her position, she is considered angry or emotional? Hilary gained points with me by making it very clear that change – the catch word of the day – isn't just a word for her; it's grounded in her experience.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  200. Kate

    I'm not sure if that specific angry response will hurt Clinton, but if it does negatively affect her showing, I think it will be just "one more thing" that is going wrong for the Clinton Machine. That moment in the debate, especially paired with today's teary-eyed moment, seems to be evidence of a breakdown, which is something voters do *not* want to witness. Seeing Hillary get angry and then nearly start crying makes me uncomfortable, not fired-up or sympathetic. She seems to be going about this campaign all wrong. Watching her, you get the feeling that all she wants to do is throw a temper-tantrum and start crying, "This is supposed to be MINE! Not HIS!" She's attempting to take what "belongs" to Obama–"change," "hope," young voters–and continues to act on the defense, which she, frankly, is not good at. She needs to stop trying to convince people that words don't matter, that Obama's rhetoric is a bunch of "false hope." That sort of negativity in her campaign is what is going to hurt her the most, because the other choices–Obama and even Edwards–exude a freshness that's full of generosity.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  201. George Lowe

    I think her dispaly of such high emotion on such a light issue is alarming, what will happen if she elected, will she get emotional when the country is in distress? Is that what we need to see? I think she could fold under pressure, she is losing strength in her campaign with this emotional roller coaster she is taking everyone on, we don't need that as a country! WE NEED STRENGTH!! NOT JUST EXPERIENCE!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  202. caitlin

    This is the most incredibly sexist response to what was said. Why is it when a woman forcefully defends her position, it's seen as a gendered vice? If anything shows that Hillary Clinton is decidedly *not* establishment, this does.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  203. Jack in West Virginia

    I'm an Obama man, but I thought Hillary was entitled to step it up and
    belt it out on her record. People praise Edwards when he gets testy and
    Obama when he has a vision; at least give Hillary points for being proud of her record. And good grief, don't compare her to George Bush.
    (Are you groggy from a weekend of really good football?)

    –Jack in West Virginia

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  204. Craig in Brunswick GA

    Hey Jack.. BTW... I am getting sick and tired of the Wolf Blitzer Hillary Clinton Show!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  205. Roy Birdzell

    Yes Jack, it will undoubtedly hurt her chances with the NH voters. But, she should be angry, and so should we democrats that know we must win the 2008 presidential election or risk losing it all. But, here we go again, heading down that yellow brick way just like lemmings and, once again, plunge off the cliff wondering why we lost another presidential election. Obama is correct in that words are powerful, but without a path defined by changed objectives/goals, and identified methods/processes of achieving those objectives/goals, those words are as Hillary recapped it – just words. Jack, it is like someone who is tired of working, decides to hit Vegas to win the big bucks, jumps in the car and heads out – but without a map or any money to get there. Quickly, the exhilaration evaporates; he’s lost in Four Corners Nowhere, no idea how he got there, no idea what direction to go, and no means to go anywhere. The siren of change is seductive, but without the stated definitions of change and methodology of that change, his candidacy will be quickly sunk in a blizzard of attack ads of liberalism, tax and spend, lax homeland security, and total lack of experience. The moderate independents and moderate republicans will desert him at the voting box and we will be stuck with another republican president and all the potential consequences that such event will bring about.

    Change means many things to many different people. George Bush in 2000 emphasized change – how he would change Washington, how he would work with both Democrats and Republicans, how he would change the inside Washington Beltway. And, what did we get. Barack MUST state HOW is going to unite evangelicals with secularists, how he is going to meld tax and spend advocates with fiscal, anti-government, anti-entitlement conservatives, pro-life and pro-choice opponents, and all the other divisive issues that are dividing us today. Not to do so, will simply outrage those who are wanting change because they did not get the change they had anticipated, and we will just be back to where we are today. We are angered, exasperated, and distrustful of Washington and our politicians today. DUH – it’s not Washington or the politicians – it is us! We sent those politicians to Washington and they are performing exactly as why we voted them into office. We ourselves do want compromise, and without the change person identifying the changes or change agenda and how those changes will be achieved, we will continue not to accept compromise no matter how good the siren of change sounds and once again desend into divisiveness and conflict.

    Roy
    Florida

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  206. Ed Unaitis

    We have just seen the past seven years of a president serving his apprenticeship. He did not know one end one end of a rope from the other,or anything in between. Can we afford another president to serve their apprenticeship at the expence of our country. Ed Unaitis

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  207. Tina

    To compare Hillary's "little outburst" to Bush's dissent-quashing strategy is ridiculous. She's 100% right to be fed up with Obama's and Edwards' all-talk-no-action platforms, and I'm glad she showed her willingness to call them on it. Don't those guys realize the president doesn't just wave a magic wand to make campaign promises materialize?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  208. Mary

    I thank goodness she spoke up for herself! The other two "boys" were just "picking" on her and I am glad she responded the way she did! The "boys" keep talking about change, but they dont have any clue how much of a fight they will have on their hands from the republicans when they get to where they think they should be. She has the experience and her history. She fought when she was in the White House for heath care and education but the republicans stopped her every chance they got, which was alot because they were the majority. She will make the changes they speak of as well as them and just like them, so their picking on her actually made me change my mind as to who to vote for. They made me feel like the good old boys club is trying to shut her out and that makes me mad!!! Hillary now has my vote!
    Sincerely,
    Mary
    T.O. CA.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  209. Robert Andropolis

    Jack:
    When so much of a candidate's success depends on appearances (Edwards' $400.00 haircuts) and vocal intonation, the impression given by the senator from New York is more like Shrillary than Hillary. Her cynical and condescending tone speaks more to her character than her words ever will.

    Robert
    Montgomery, IL

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  210. Philip

    Jack, I just hate to be so unsymphathetic to poor Hillary, but come on, you gotta admit this is pretty amusing. Senator Clinton has been running on the platform of inevitibility for far almost a year now, but much to her dismay, she is learning that this is, in fact, still a democracy... and nothing is inevitable. I'm weary of voting for a candidate who will let her emotions get the best of her whenever the times get tough.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  211. Julie

    I am sick of the media trying to make stories out of non-issues. So what if Hillary showed some emotion? She became a little defensive when she felt herself unfairly under attack. Why is this being discussed on the national news? And if she loses votes because of it, then our country is in a lot more trouble than anyone realizes. I would be significantly more concerned if a candidate never showed any emotion. Newsflash: she's HUMAN!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  212. Jose

    You guys in yhe Media are amazing! If a male candidate would have answered in the way Hillary responded you would call it "character". But because she is a female candidate " she is angry'. Stop complaining about her pant suits and other silly things and start talking about her intelligence and character: things that are really necessary for a good President. I listened to the debate twice(ABC and CNN) and I think she did better than the others. Why you don't ask Barack how he is going to implement change if he doe not control Congress? It is easy to say change.....I like him but I don't think he knows the playfield yet.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  213. Donna J Forrest

    I BELIEVE we need some of that anger directed towards what is going on with our current administration. In my eyes, Hillary is the one we (the people) need to bring back some order to this country. GOOD FOR YOU HILLARY, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  214. Wendy in Louisville

    Absolutely it hurt her & not just in NH.

    She simply doesn't get it. ...
    Every time she says that she is best equipped to handle Republican attacks she reminds everyone what another Clinton Presidency will look like. She simply comes off like she wants revenge more than anything else.

    If Obama's time has not yet arrived, then Hillary's time is over.
    Where was she in 2004?
    Democrats & Independents were mad enough then to sic her on Bush.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  215. Steve

    Yes it will hurt her. Not only because of her anger, but because Sen. Clinton is not communicating what change she will make. She criticizes Sen. Obama talking about change and says, "The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I’ve already made.” Well, change already made is no predictor of change to come – it's the status quo. Merely speaking is how we chose our politicians, and as the last 7 years have shown, a leader's inability to do so can be disastrous.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  216. Lin Daniel

    President Bush gets angry, and he whines, pleads, and claims the job is hard. Senator Clinton gets angry, so called, and lists specific things, deeds done, challenges attempted. I realize, Jack, you don't like Clinton, but she doesn't whine and snivel.
    Oh, and oil is $100 under a Republican President, and until 2006, a Republican Senate AND House. And President Bush has never hidden the fact he is good buddies with major oil producers, the Saudi ruling family, and was an oil promoter himself.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  217. Anne

    All I see on the news are male candidates – Republican and Democrats, speaking about how Hillary Clinton represents the nothing new and how they represent “change.” Give me a break! There is nothing new here. More men getting a job with less experience. Same old story if you ask me.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  218. Joe Krider

    Will Hillary Clinton's "outburst" hurt her? It depends on whether people were actually listening to her words, and whether people actually believe you can change Washington from inside the White House. I heard her say that she had been changing things for 35 years. Well, IF that is so, her "change" isn't the "change" the voters are apparently looking for. I don't think it does her any GOOD, because the "Pro-Hillarys" will remain "Pro-Hillarys" and the "Anti-Hillarys" will remain "Anti-Hillarys." But I don't think it harms her very much either.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  219. Mitchell L

    Hillary Clinton came off as negative, on the defensive, and totally out of the loop on what the people really want. She goes on and on about how she brings change, but after seeing all those old politicians standing behind her in the Iowa Caucus Speech when announcing defeat, It reminded me of the Clinton Era, where we often had hearings and scandals. I listened to a report by Dick Morris and he was informing the media that Bill and Hillary had this planned out in 1988, for both of them to become President within the next 20 years. I am sorry to say, but the people do not want anymore of the Clinton years or their negative attack adds against their opponents.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  220. DAL in Florida

    Jack, unfortunately your question and comments reveal the worst of male chauvanism today. If one of the male contenders got angry (which John Edwards did on Saturday night, for example), you would say it shows strength and toughness ("give 'em hell, Harry). But because Hillary Clinton spoke up for herself, it's a "little outburst" that somehow unbelievably compares her to George Bush. Shame on you! I find your comments and suggestions out of step with the times. I congratulate Hillary for speaking up for herself and clarifying her position.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  221. Jenny

    I believe that the American people have had enough of the Clintons. But I am concerned about an email I received regarding Obama. Can you find out if it is true that his father was a radical islamic and his mother was an athesist? He doesn't place his hand over his heart when pledging alegiance to the flag and he used the koran when elected to the Senate. Don't we need to know more about him before allowing him to be president. I have major concerns that I would like to have the answers to. Thank you and may God bless America.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  222. Beth in Florida

    I hope it won't. The media's opinion of Hillary is that she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Up until now, she's been portrayed as cold and calculating, but this week when she showed anger and sadness, she was immediately jumped on as being weak or emotional. This kind of scrutiny is a double standard not applied to male candidates.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  223. J mullette

    Why is Hillary's every reaction being overanalyzed and critized? Obama, Edwards, and others have attacked, been angry, and more, and this question hasn't been asked about them. This country is looking as though racism isn't as important
    to us as sexism. Obama is a charismatic lightweight with a mean streak, but it
    would seem too many Americans would rather see him in office than a woman. The
    vilification of Hillary is a warning to all women in this country.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  224. Jim

    Somebody needs to tell Hillary that her "experience" does not include being President. When she cites that resume, she needs to remember that it was Bill that was President, not her.

    I remember that her "experience" includes authorizing Bush's immoral war of choice in Iraq, and providing funding, time and again, for Bush's Blunder to the point of endangering the future economic stability of our country. That's not the kind of change I'm looking for.

    I don't need her angry outbursts about her 35 years of experience.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  225. sarah Johnson

    Clinton was responding not to Obama's being ahead, but to Edward's nasty remark attacking her as being part of the "entrenched status quo," which I don't think is a fair characterization at all . All three of the top Democratic candidates want "change," and I think it's totally unfair that Clinton has somehow come to painted as resistant to change. I strongly feel that Obama has been given a pass by the media. I just saw Wolf Blitzer interview someone who thinks Hilary needs to show herself including her "soul." That's nonsense! She needs to show she is strong, resourseful, dedicated and experienced, and that's what she has done!

    Sarah Johnson, New York

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  226. Sarah Hays

    No, Jack. Hillary was completely justified in her response during the debate. She was completely ganged up on and has been bullied by the media and other canidates to a nauseating degree. She is the most qualified canidate because of her role in new health care policies and foreign matters. She helped bring peace to Ireland, which she was even thanked for by an Irishman during a debate in NH. I expected more respect and dignity from CNN than to treat a canidate like this. All other news broadcasts are portraying Hillary Clinton in a more positive light than CNN. Lighten up she is human and an amazing respectable woman with the signs of postive change on her resume to prove it.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  227. Helen MacKain

    The anger was the true Hillary, at last!
    Hillary in tears? Give me a break! She will use every ruse she can to win.
    This is just the beginning!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  228. Joyce

    Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton's behavior may play into the unfortunate stereotype that women are overly emotional and not to be trusted with serious decision making. John Edwards' non-verbal "What are you talking about girl?" response reinforced audience doubts about the appropriateness of Mrs. Clinton's response. In the end, Americans want a president who is not only caring and compassionate, but also level-headed, strong and cool in all situations.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  229. Alan

    The same words out of a man's mouth would be seen as "tough," "fighting back," "showing passion." But when the words are from Hillary, it's seen as anger or a "hissy fit." Time to stay home and bake cookies, eh? Are they double chocolate chip, or double standard?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  230. Mario Rodriguez (Premont, Tx.)

    I don't think that Hillary's outburst or what some may think was
    an angry outburst during the Saturday debate will not hurt her,
    in fact it makes her look presidential. She is right, you just cannot
    talk about change, you have to do it. I respect her for her candor
    for being the human being that she showed today with her
    emotion. What we have in the White House now is a non-
    communicator in George W. Bush, if were are looking for the best
    orator, which Borack Obama is, that will not turn this country
    around and lift us from all the harm that this Administration will
    leave at the doorstep when they leave in Jan. 09. Hillary is the
    answer.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  231. Bonnie Burns Price, Ph.D.

    Clinton should have responded as she did. Anything less would have allowed her opponents to continue to claim the notion of change for themselves. She has demonstrated that she knows how to bring change; they have not.

    Be reminded that people voted for Carter for inspirational oratory and high ideals. Carter was stymied when he was elected because he did not have the Washington experience to actually bring the changes he promised.

    One final point: I am angry that you cast Clinton as angry. Had she been a man, you would have commended him for defending his position!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  232. Ron

    Jack, has anyone taken five minutes to look into Hillary Clinton's claims of the things she claims she has done to affect "change"? Did she take an active role in developing the legislation or simply sign on to it because it had political value?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  233. Gayle

    Hillary Clinton's frustration was evident during the debate. While Obama and Edwards can show no real change achieved during their public service careers, Hillary can. When the voters would rather listen to a blow-hard and a pretty-boy instead of fact and reason; well, it's enough to make anyone frustrated.

    Frankly, I'm glad she stearnly said her peace, otherwise she would have been tagged a submissive female unable to stand-up to a bunch of bullies!

    Bottom line: She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't! What a country!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  234. Tony Dollenz

    No, it won't, but I can understand Senator Clinton's frustration. If the presidency was a dictatorship then Senator Obama could make all the changes that he proposes. People are dreaming if they think that Obama or anyone else can change our system over 4 or 8 years. The only way to do it is by taking the money out of politics and this is not possible now or in the near future. We are stuck with this until we make political contributions and lobbying illegal.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  235. Karen Luckritz

    I am sosick and tired of all of the candidates and all of the media–mostly all men–picking apart everything that Hillary Clinton says, looks, reacts. Big deal–so she has feelings and she shows them. She is criticized for showing feelings or being cold–now which is it?

    Whatever Hillary Clinton does–it is not right, according to you. And I did not appreciate the CNN "jokes" about how Bill Clinton was going to have a bad night after the Iowa caucases. You wouldn't say that about a male candidate.

    Barack Obama has ruined the only chance–so far–for a capable woman to become president. 43 male presidents have not all been perfect.

    I would love to hear some criticism about Obama or Edwards, etc.
    Obama was in the Illinois House for 8 years–and didn't get anything accomplished concerning the CTA crisis which is about to explode–here in Chicago and effect many people's lives in a very negative way.

    Hillary did not start this negativism–she was above board–for a long time–until she was bombarded with negativity from Obama and Edwards, and every one else.

    If Obama gets the nomination, I will vote Republican for the 2nd time in my life–

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  236. Perry

    Hillary's sweet and cutsey before Iowa...ranting and raving during the New Hampshire debate...and now she's crying on the campaign trail...

    Is a bipolar President really what America needs right now?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  237. Anne

    Until the debate and campaigning this weekend, I held a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton. However since she has lost the lead in the polls, she has shown her worst side which apparently is that of a spoiled child who turns to pouting and finger-pointing when s/he doesn't get their way. She is accusing Obama of being incapable of leadership and empty words, yet her actions bespeak nothing of what I want this country to aspire to. Courage, honesty, the ability to see forward and act accordingly is what we need, not wallowing in self-pity and old thinking. She has made a grievous error in showing this real side, and we should be thankful. Pay attention voters in New Hampshire. Pay attention voters everywhere.

    I have always been for Barack Obama, not against anyone else. That changed as of this weekend.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  238. Robert Radelat

    The most complimentary comment I can make about Hillary is that she bears a strong resemblance to Shirley Jones, actress/singer/philanthropist.

    As much as I have enjoyed Ms.Jones in 'Music Man', 'Oklahoma', 'The Partridge Family', and others, I would not vote for her for President.

    'Nuff said.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  239. Artist3d

    I think both Hillary and Richardson had every right to emphasize their record and experience, it is an important qualifying factor that was sorely overlooked with George Bush. I think we always have to analyse the pattern of a person's experiences passed and as Hillary points out, it is likely to be the pattern of experience in the future. Voting for the war in Iraq was Hillary Clinton's worst decision and showed that gullibility is possible even with experience. In not voting for the Iraq war Obama showed that "inexperience' is not always a handicap.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  240. Don Peake

    (interesting that my response is still "being moderated" this long after being submitted. Maybe Jack's screeners don't like anything suggesting he's wrong?)

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  241. Cynthie Hatchet

    You know Jack....people love to say that this is American democracy at work, but really it is NOT. In parallel with speeches and debates by the candidates, and vote casting by the electorate, there ia a powerful media out there trying their very best to be "kingmakers."
    They say that candidates must pay for advertising, but there are TV channels out there doing full time (24-hour) advertising for some candidates.
    The bias and hatchet jobs are so flagrant, the efforts to manipulate the public so egregious, that there should be consequences.
    Look at your very question: Hillary choked up because she is losing??????

    Barack is behind....he is encouraged to attack Hillary
    Hillary is behind....she dare not EVEN defend herself, nor highlight differences.

    If this is what democracy is, America will continue its free fall into obscurantism and mediocrity.
    America got George Bush, because that is exactly what America deserves, and believe me it won't stop there!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  242. Kathy Kyriakou

    I hope not. As it reads, she is simply stating her record assertively. I say, You Go for it Hillary. Here's a suggestion; perhaps it is more about some who cannot handle a woman who assertively expresses herself based on the facts. If she was another gender, she would be called forceful leader material. Puh-leese! Then I can almost hear the glee in Sen Edwards response on Clinton's well of emotion driven by passion. No Sen. Edwards, passion shown is not weakness – stop shaking your finger. So, which is it guys – is she cold and lacking passion or is she someone for whom this country means everything. If I recall Sept 11, there were a lot of patriots with tears in their eyes. I was undecided before now, now my vote is for Hillary – I'm betting on her passion and her experience. Eloquent but unproven Obama can wait his turn.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  243. violet montgomery

    Jack: Hillary should get out of the kitchen now – it is beginning to heat up. Yes, I too feel she should stay home and bake 'brownies' per her comment against Barbara Bush a few years ago. If she should lose her bid for President – tell Slick Willie to go and hide. His life will be miserable.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  244. Marie K. Pollick

    What Hillary did was based in her ego, and / or her political expertise. I heard her try to use her womanhood for sympathy and/or/or both use her wits to try to win. Either way, I believe she revealed both her tremendous sensitivity to criticism/defeat, a la George Bush; and her gigantic ambition to be the first woman president of the U. S. ( which I think is a large part of the reason why she is (and still is ) Mrs. Clinton. As a woman I beleive a female president is desirable, definitely, but not this one. Obama with his capacity to energize the county, and help us rejoin the world, is my choice hands down. I have not been this excited by an election, since 1968. I am 76 years old. I've seen a lot. And he is what we Need Now for me.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  245. Sara Bhatt

    Well...Media truly conspiring to make Obama Democratic nominee (Including you). If a MAN gets mad & responds to attacks...he has courage, NOT a wimp..stands up for himself. If a women does the same..she is branded as an ANGRY women. YOU HAVE DOUBEL STANDARDS..Because YOU GOOD OLD BOYS DON"T WANT A WOMEN TO BE THE President of this country. Well.....your Media conspiracy is working & she is falling behind in Polls. YOU WILL GET A GOOD OLD BOY (most probably a Republican) as a President SINCE Obama is not electable. So...this is a huge Media / Republican conspiracy not to get Clinton be the Democratic nominee......YOU ARE WINNING.,,,American People are LOSING.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  246. Carolyn Wallin

    It is so interesting when a male becomes angry he is strong and showing leadership and passion for his cause.

    When a woman does the same she is portrayed as just angry and desperate. Women who have worked outside the home have experienced this same double standard.

    She has every right to to discuss her achievements. Men and especially men running for president do it all the time. You just chose to overlook it.

    Get off of Hillary's case. You guys at CNN have been beating her up since the beginning of this election process.

    Could it be because she is female?

    Carolyn
    Lawarenceville NJ

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  247. Diana

    No, it will not hurt to show honest emotion. I don't understand how Obama can be touting change. Haven't we had an inexperienced, former drinker, former drugger, former (?) slacker, false promise maker (uniter not divider) in the White House for seven years now. Where is the change?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  248. Barbara in Texas

    why is everyone so ready to attack sen. clinton, when if you show the whole clip
    you will see she was only responding to edwards attack on her.
    good for her!
    and during debates oboma is nice, but what about all the slams to hillary when
    he is out talking to the people, he takes every shot he can get in.
    just saw the clip on his grandmother in africa, since she doesn't want to leave her
    home jack, will we have to get involved there next?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  249. Judith

    Hillary's anger is my anger. What really hurts is that I am one of those old folks who has been doing the work of making change for the past forty years, creating an America where it is possible for an African-American man and a Caucasian woman to run for President in 2008.
    I don't think that when Hillary says that she has been working for change for thirty-five years, the young people understand what she is actually saying. They don't seem to realize or know what this country was like back in those days. They do not remember that African-Americans were not allowed to vote at all in many places. They do not remember Jim Crow laws in the South, the crushing poverty in the "Colored Towns" that were a reality of every town and city in American. There was strict segregation.
    Women were not allowed to own property in their own names, to get a loan, to have their own charge cards, to divorce a man even if he beat her and raped her children. There were no shelters for women then. There was NO JUSTICE for women, blacks and gays. There was a draft that sent our young men off to fight in Viet Nam where thousands and thousands were killed and maimed on a scale that was terrifying.
    These things did not change just because time passed. We FOUGHT for all of it. We fought on the streets, in the courts and in the legislature.
    We, Hillary's generation, my generation, we were the change makers then and we are continuing to fight to make change today. I have worked for women's rights, for justice for African-American people, for gays and lesbians and all minorities. We made it possible for this amazing election to take place.
    Please don't write us off. We are not done. You need our wisdom, our experience and our guidance, my young friends, in this still dangerous world.
    We'd appreciate your gratitude and your respect as well. Vote for change AND experience!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  250. Terry

    Hillary has shown that she's under the pressure and is trying to be the new come back kid but the question is she can she do it? Hillary is not bill she can't be running off of her husband credits any more its not working but now it seems that the american people is fed up of the bush and clinton in the white house. She just keep taking about her experience which every one knowsshe have. we are tired of hearing about the great clinton machine. it's time for hillary to show the human side of her and not the great clinton machine that we have all come to recongnize,so until then. bye to the great clinton machine we are going with obama and edwards.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  251. Rachel

    To compare Clinton's outburst to Bush's incompetence is ludicrous. Frankly, I want a president who is as reasonable as they are effective. Obama has charisma and is inspirational, but his potential will go to waste cleaning up after Bush's mess. If New Hampshire voters have enough sense to weed through CNN's distracting coverage and pay attention to the facts, Clinton should be fine. The race is NOT over, so stop acting like it is.

    Rachel
    Hatboro, PA

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  252. Edwin (North Carolina)

    Jack,

    I don't think Hillary's response will hurt her presidential chances. It was great to see her show some passionate emotion during the debate. I think it is hypocritical for the media to portray the same voice/hand/facial actions from other democratic candidates as "passionate" and then call Hillary's response "angry".
    I'm still torn between voting for Obama or Hillary, though I could easily support either one.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  253. Norm Pope

    You imply she spoke in anger. I respectfully disagree. The woman feels deeply about the issues and how they will affect our country. Because of that, she spoke with emotion. Do we want a president devoid of emotion? I, for one, do not!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  254. jennifer

    Hillary Clinton's response, in my opinion, was right on. She should get angry when her opponents criticize her for not representing change. She has made a great deal of change in her career. I hope people recognize that her "outburst" was a defense against an attack that was unfounded and I believe she did the right thing in defending herself and making others aware that she represents change, but she also represents experience, and that combination is beneficial for higher office.
    Barack Obama has not the experience, nor the realist approach necessary to be president. His idealistic speeches do not represent action. I want a president who understands that there is no utopia and sacrifice as well as a greater understanding of human nature and the world are necessary to help to compromise to do the best we can with what we have... i believe that person is Hillary Clinton.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  255. JoAnn Hardy--Iowa

    Yes, it hurts her. She looks mean at a time when Obama is seeking to bring us together. The bigger problem with Hillary is all of the campaigning with Bill which serves to remind us that she has already had 8 years in the White House. They are a team and that team has already had a turn. They were pretty good, but they don't get another turn. 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush. Enough!! She might make a good president, but she is part of the past and Obama is the future and he will be a spectacular president. We have to get past the divisions of the past and Obama inspires us. He makes us want to participate in our government and he makes us want to work together to seek the common good.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  256. Brian

    During the debate she got mad and today she was close to tears ... or was she.

    I think todays show of emotion was planned, written and rehearsed like everything else, except losing, in her campaign.

    On the emotion, her script was just too close to the words of Edwards during the debate.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  257. Frank Cavestani

    I think Hiliary's anger is perfect and in fact helps her. Every adult in this country should be very angry about the way this nation has been run for the last six years. We need some one as experinced and as strong as Hiliary. Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, a nice man with loads of good intentions but without the ability, knowledge and experience to beat the devil and the corruption in Washington.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  258. Larry Davis

    Hillary's "angry" response at the debate was just what America needed to hear. I'm amazed at the people who have fallen in love with change without knowing a thing about what kind of change is being promised. I don't want a president who will try to find compromise with the kind of Republicans now in power in Washington. Their morally bankrupt principles shouldn't be any part of our future. They need to be squashed like a bug so that a government that cares about the middle class over corporate greed can flourish. If that provides further stalemate then it's up to the people to elect representatives that will work with a Democratic president, not the other way around.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  259. Leita

    No i don't think she will be hurt by showing strength in the face of being bullied by men who are afraid of women in power.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  260. Rand Walker

    Hillary comes across as someone who is angry about the fact that she gets no respect. She keeps saying look at her record of the last 35 years where she has 'changed' America by correcting many of the ills including providing new healthcare for children and reservists.
    She was not elected to a public office until she became Senator from New York, a state where she never lived before her husband left the Presidency. Her residence is a house that was paid for by supporters.
    If you want respect, please run on the things you have done, not because you think that respect is owed to you.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  261. Carol in Monterey

    Clinton was NOT angry at someone disagreeing with her–she was angry at two people trying to pull the wool over the voters' eyes through misdirection. And I'M angry at Cafferty's obvious sexist attitiude!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  262. Lesley

    Frankly I think that Obama would be a GREAT president – after 8 years of the Clintons, because Bill comes WITH Hillary. Whether you care for his morals or don't give a hoot, he did a LOT for this country, all ofwhich has been destroyed in the past 8 years. They say Hillary can't talk about family values because of Bill's indiscretions, but I think that is a perfect subject, precisely because she stood by him, and together they have raised a daughter who seems to be making a success of her life.
    I HOPE Hillary can pick up her lead again. We want her to be soft, she's soft. We want her to be tough, she's tough We want her to be experienced, she's experienced. We want her to be a woman, she's a woman. The only things she can't be are black and brand new on the political scene. It's the brand new that worries me.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  263. victoria

    I think all the candidates are getting tired and testy. I am disappointed in the narrow frame of references the media is using in sound-bytes. "Change" could mean a dictator. The media is letting Obama and Edwards get away with this. Obama has a very poor senate voting record with many no shows/ no votes. He was a surfing drug addict in his much younger days. Edwards got rich off of big corporations and average citizens in his law firm. I would take Hillary's "change" over theirs anytime.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  264. carole

    Cut her some slack. She is a human being and she showed it. You talking heads damn her if she shows humanity and if she doesn:t. I remember Jimmy Carter and the mess he got us into.He ran on the same platform as Obama is running on and had about as much experience. Frankly, I don:t think that the US is ready for a black person as a president and possibly not a woman. Bloomburg is starting to look better and better.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  265. Mary Gydesen

    Yes, it will probably hurt her,but I can see where she was coming from. Here is a woman who has given her all to her country and really thought she had a chance at becoming our first woman President, and now to see it all going away because of a newcomer who has nothing to offer but change, and no real ideas. He must be some kind of Pied Piper for every one to be jumping on his band wagon the way they are. Hopefully people will wise up and go with someone who has as much to offer as Hillary does.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  266. Kimber Clark

    We can only hope that Hillary’s actions over the past few days hurt her. Her new tactics of showing emotion is an act to coerce voters in her favor. She is reactive and NOT sincere no matter how she plays the political game today.

    How could a voter, in good conscious, vote for someone who changes their views daily based on media feedback? Hillary is out of control and the American voters can see right through her – no matter what she says today.

    No for Hillary – Yes to Edwards and Obama

    January 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  267. Jarrett

    Jack, Jack, Jack ...

    Hilary should be angry, ... but with the media for being cast aside as an ineffective old-timer, knowing that her energy as well as her solid record of working for the American people are important to voters. Given that you too are an "old-timer", I'm surprised how quickly you've jumped on this media bandwagon, turning every miniscule comment she's made into some kind of flaw and virtually conceding this election to the "Oprah-Obamas" before the rest of the country has had an opportunity to weigh-in. Funny thing about Obama though, ... I never heard all this talk of change until he decided to run for President. If he really is an agent of change, why hadn't he used these skills in the Senate to get us out of Iraq or to provide health care for our disadvantaged children. Where was the reaching across the isle back then?

    Jarrett

    January 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  268. R Hayward

    I honestly don't think it will hurt her in the least. I didn't see a woman having some sort of a temper tantrum, I saw someone who is tired of the constant rhetoric of "change" by others who have very little of it (on a national scale) to their credit and rather forcefully gave examples of what she had done. As long as everyone remains civil (and frankly, especially in comparison to the Republican side, the Democrats have barely gone past the "Mom, he's touching me!" stage rather than full fledge assault) I don't mind seeing that the candidates actually have some spark to them. Now I'll grant you that I have three sons under the age of 10 so my idea of interpersonal warfare may be a bit skewed, but I think everyone is doing a fairly good job of staying out of each others personal space.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  269. joe m

    jack,

    that little bit of anger was a glimpse of the true hillary. her anger was sparked by being challenged, rather than the question at hand. she's built herself up for all this time as the democratic nominee and iowa told her differently. she must be even angrier today that obama's lead is much greater. i saw her little display of vulmerability and i have to wonder. at the risk of sounding too cynical, it almost looked rehearsed ( but this may just be me ). does she have experience, no question. but is she change, i don't think so. hope is a powerful emotion and this is what obama offers in contrast to her experience. as things are going now, i think the country really wants the person who can offer hope. too many find themselves in that proverbial "hand basket" and they are hoping for someone who can help them out of it.

    joe

    January 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  270. Marie Le Fevre

    Prior to her election to the Senate 8 years ago, what office did Mrs. Clinton hold? How does she accumulate 35 years of "change"....had Rudy not been stricken with cancer we wouldn't be dealing with this maniac now. No Hillary, you are not entitled to the Presidency just because you stuck by a serial philanderer for over 30 years. And how about all those Lincoln Bedroom rentals? And Travelgate? and 'whitewater?
    I'm voting for Obama....and guess what: he has all the charisma and good looks of JFK but along with morals and ethics.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  271. Rob

    Poor Bill. If she throws a fit like that because she's a little behind in the polls, can you imagine what her husband received over the Monica Lewinsky affair?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  272. Jeff Erno

    I did not view Hillary Clinton's forceful and direct responses at the New Hampshire debates as "outbursts of anger." Senators Obama and Edwards had teamed up with one another to attack her, and she was merely defending herself. If the candidate in question had been male, his responses would not be labeled as outbursts but would instead be hailed as indications of his strength. I am a Michigan Democrat who probably would vote for Obama if I were to be afforded the opportunity, but this does not mean that I condone the slanted media coverage which depicts Hillary as a crybaby or whiner simply because she speaks up to defend herself. I applaud her passion and her commitment. After the debate Saturday I'm more likely to support her than either of the other two leading candidates.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  273. Michael Massa

    Dear Jack,

    Once again we see the dreams of our founders play out in our American Democracy. It was founded by the people for the people. We the people are taking our country back. No one can stop it--–After tomorrow the Clinton's should join with us and embrace the peoples choice to united us all. I am proud to be an American.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  274. bernice

    why is all the media jumping on hillary ? I think shes the one to be president. I cry always when people are beating on her. I LOVE YOU HILLARY

    January 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  275. linda bertinelli

    Jak, I never do this however, I must tell you I am thru listening to Hilary bashing! She beats the other "hands down" and I am proud to see that she will stand up for herself. Of course, she is a woman so that MUST mean she is a B___. What a joke. Isn't it about time to REALLY listen to what she is trying to say. That is the fact that she has been around the game a long time, not in the leadership role , but watching and interacting all along. Do you really think that Barak's smooth talk will take him anywhere in Washington? I don' t think so. Remember, the incredible scrutiny and bashing the Clinton's endured. So you think those experiences haven't built knowledge and the character of EXPERIENCE??? She deserves the chance to show what she can do IN the leadership role! GO,GIVE EM HELL, HILARY!!!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  276. Elizabeth Caswell

    The "anger" Hillary Clinton showed was in response to the 2-on1 attack by
    the 2 gentlemen at the debate. Debates are suppossed to be a time when you can show passion and commitment about the subject being discussed, which is what she did. I wonder if you would be asking this same question if the "anger" was displayed by one of the gentlemen?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  277. Carol Andresen

    Wait a minute Jack! I normally agree with you, but not on this one. Didn't you see what happened just before she got angry? I don't blame her! I'm glad she stood up for herself! John Edwards, (whom I like) just made a statement teaming himself up with Obama, and criticizing Clinton, by name, calling her the "Status Quo!" That would have made me furious, too!

    It was really unfair of you, to compare her to Bush! Please!

    Thanks,
    Carol from Sacramento

    January 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  278. Marty

    I am a freshman at the University of Illinois, and have listened and admired Obama since his senate campaign. However, after listening to Hillary on Saturday's debate, I now support Hillary. Hillary's 'outburst' was much needed. She's trying to open the eyes and ears of people who have jumped on the Obama bandwagon solely on his messages of 'change' and 'hope.' Instead of taking the attractive gamble of Obama's campaign of 'change', I feel more comfortable supporting Hillary who is campaigning for 'change' with 35 years of experience of making 'change'.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  279. Donald, Butte Montana

    To some it may, but if so, that indicates what little faith someone has in their candidate and can be easily swayed.

    She was making a point about her record over the other candidates. The format of these so-called debates is disgusting. You can't expect a candidate to make their case in 30 second sound-bites .

    The value of these 'debates' and Iowa/NH is not newsworthy of the attention they're garnered from all new media outlets to swell their ratings.

    Provide the people with honest, worth-while debates where the candidates can be held to a higher standard and not their whinning, repetitive sound-bites.

    I say give'em hell Hillary. These candidates are running for the highest elected office in this land. Its not supposed to be a cake-walk. If Obama and Edwards can't stand the heat then they need to get out of the kitchen themselves.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  280. Jessica McNeil

    I had a different take.... she expressed passion for her accomplishments. Anger? No. Frustration? Yes. I admire Hillary for her tenacity to try to help this country.
    I believe in Hillary, Edward, and Obama. They all have qualities suitable for becoming President. Campaigning is grueling and none of them will make it through the next few weeks without bruises. I hope they will not alienate one another, because one of them needs to be the Presidential candidate and one needs to be the VP candidate to create a winning team to beat the Republicans.

    Jessica McNeil
    Ellenton, FL

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  281. Sushma

    I don't understand why this is becoming an issue, Edwards directly attacked her values and criticized her, she reacted by emphasizing her stance. Maybe she could've been less threatening but, looking at her points, she seems to be right. She does have the experience and as is an example of change. . I thought her outburst showed cracked her hard exterior and showed a little emotion. This was actually good for her who was initially perceived to be distant.

    Also I was disappointed with Obama's elusive remarks towards the end, he was just reiterating the need for change. I thought Hillary Clinton made a better argument by emphasizing the advantages of experience.

    While we're on the subject of Clinton's outburst, what about Edwards accusation of Clinton's need to attack Obama, it was quite juvenile and unnecessary. At least Clinton's argument about Obama's elusive stance was relevant to determine the validity of his campaign.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  282. dick kidd

    I think Hillary's response was very appropriate considering what was stated before her comment. Every presidential candidate talks about change. What else is there to say if you are new and want to appeal to the masses. Action of change should speak louder than the words of change which is the point she was making.

    Hillary's frustration is natural and if she were a man would be looked at as being strong and in command. Thats what she looked like to me. It wasn't anger as much as frustration for those candidates that are pulling the wool over our eye with the new buzz word CHANGE. Now even Romney is using Obama new word.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  283. jean

    Telling the truth (which she did) shouldn't cost her but it probably will. She has certainly proven she has been a hard worker for change in this country. And she has worked for that change even during times when I'm sure she probably wished to stay in bed with the covers over head. But, then men like Jack (and 90% of male press) can't stand smart women they bruise their over inflated ego.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  284. Sean

    Jack, I think so and you make an excellent point. Being a candidate "of the people" and "for the people" is more that just a slogan. To say that you have been "about change for the past 35 years," to me, would mean that there had to have been times when someone did not agree with you. What did you do in those instances? Lashing out when pressured is never the right thing to do. I learned that in Corporate America 101.

    A wise person once asked me what came out of an orange when it is squeezed. I gave the obvious responses but the answer was this: What ever is on the inside.

    The American people need to pay close attention to each candidate as they are pressured or squeezed. No matter how much they smile – Whatever is on the inside (is what) will come out.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  285. Riley Kirk

    Shame on the media! If Hillary does not get the nomination it will be because the media is spending all its time bullying Hillary when she in fact has the best chance to win the national election! Obama is too inexperienced. I think the media needs to show some respect to Hillary who has been working miracles and bettering this country for over a 30 year period in her political career. Was Obama still in college when she was out making peace in Ireland? The media should be ashamed of how they are portraying Senator Clinton.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  286. Bruce

    Jack, As always your reports are on target. The question on most voters minds is whether candidates 1) have the right vision, 2) can execute that vision. We have had 8 years of a president that has shown his true colors of intolerance and a stubborn support of corporate special interests over the needs of the American people. I can't speak for other voters, but this voter is sick of it. Anything that remotely smacks of 'Washington as Usual" is a complete turnoff. We need a vision to bring our country back, inspire us, and bring us together again. Hillary seems to represent the same political money games in different packaging.

    Bruce
    Evanston, IL

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  287. gail

    I believe that Hillary will lead our country with passion and dignity. She stays on message, and is the candidate that has the most thought out answers that will deliver results. She will prevail, she must!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  288. ALI DICKSON

    Here's another thing, Jack. Do your research! Are you aware that speechwriters write Obama's speeches?? That's why they sound so good. Look at him in the debates, where he has to think on his feet. Totally different picture! He can't do it! He uhs and ahs and stumbles through an answer. He doesn't have a teleprompter in the debates! He does when he gives those speeches!

    It is a scary damn thought that an inexperienced idiot like Obama could win such an incredibly important nomination! The Repubs are backing him, b/c they know they can beat him. They can't beat Hillary. Her response wasn't angry, it was passionate!

    When will Americans learn to vote for the person who can actually do the job?? I will completely give up if that KID is the nominee. There will be no hope for us then.

    The media is stirring this anti-Clinton BS. THEY – YOU – have created Obama.

    Ali / Dallas

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  289. Tom Bulger

    I like Hillary. I suspect she is a really good person anybody would be lucky to have as a friend. I'm sure she is a terrific senator, deserves our thanks and respect, but ever sense she started trying to out RAmbo RAmbo and was duped twice by George Bush, I'm not interested in her running the country.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  290. Kris

    Does a one-legged duck swim in a circle? Most definetly her angry response will affect her in the NH primaries, and I wouldn't doubt it affect her in a more national sense, too. Hillary losing her cool is too much a reminder of the current disappointment in the White House.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  291. Marie

    jack,
    Get out from under your rock, Hillary is not any different from all the other candidates that put forth an answer to a question that indicated everyone wants change. Its easy to get up there and state you are for change when that is only an election strategy that every candidate uses. Let get real Obama is like a kindergartener in college and has a muslim religion base which no one questions him about. How do we know he will not be sympathetic to the very people who are trying to kill every american. We also don't need someone who is running on the endorsements of the likes of Oprah who is the biggest leader of the mindless in this country liken to the cabbage patch fiasco. When are the people of this country going to wake up and read between the lines and learn that what comes out of the mouths of all candidates is lies just to get elected and then its back to the good ole boy syndrome. I listen to your comments jack and take most with a grain of salt. To bad the idiots that really believe your comments all vote. Thanks marie

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  292. marcia herman

    Hillary Clinton talking about her accomplishments will not hurt her chances. Afterall, it is pretty clear that you are unable to see or say anything positive about her or her campaign. Did you know, or mention that actually, Hillary is ahead in the national delegate count:? Even in IA, Obama got 16 delegates, Hillary 15 and Edwards 14. And this is a delegate game. But I would not expect to hear anything positive from you about Hillary. I find your double standard upsetting.
    And sadly, you probably don't even hear yourself.
    Well, I hear you. And other viewers hear you. And we are getting pretty fed up with your anti-Hillary barrage. You have practically annointed Obama. Well, I am from California, and in my state, only Democrats can vote for the Democratic nominee. And I don't plan to settle on a nominee other than my choice: Hillary Clinton. The only candidate who brings experience AND change.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  293. lml

    You think that was an angry response? Wow - if one of the other candidates on the democratic side speaks like that it's called emphasizing a point. I've seen the republicans talk like that - Senator McCain does it regularly.

    GET REAL, JACK and ask substantive questions for your little polls.

    Hillary - you go, girl!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  294. Brenda in Dallas

    There you men go, again! When a male shows anger, you say "he shows passion for his beliefs." When Sen. Clinton responds to the sarcasm and distortion of her record by Obama and Edwards, she is termed, "angry." We are on the precipice of war, recession, a healthcare cost crisis and our reputation around the world is the lowest it has ever been. Not the time to trust platitudes and pomp over tried and proven experience. Come'on people, wake up!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  295. Natasha

    Shame on the media for targetting Senator Clinton for being a human being. It seems as though this is an attack to depict her as the "typical emotional woman." As a woman, I certainly hope the voters in N.H. are intelligent enough to recognize this ploy and can keep their opinions focused on the issues and experience. Hillary has what we need, and I am proud to see the human side of her- other politicians could take a lesson.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  296. Trenton Sims

    Yes Jack, a clear case of Sour Grapes turning into WHINE right infront of New Hampshire & The World.. She is simply an extremely frustrated poor looser. As further evidenced with her teary "Cry-Baby" act today which is actually a re-written, re-run and 2nd attempt at a similar performance a week ago.
    Do we want a President that will break down and whine & cry when her intenational policies are rejected in whole or part. by an Internationl peer or the International community ?? I don't think so...
    She cant even handle the pressures of the primaries?
    She just cant seem to comprehend how anyone could prefer someone 'inferior" to her. After all she has been the wife of a Governor & a President. She must of learned something??? After 35 years of sharing a bedroom with Bill surely something must have worn off on her. LMAO
    Monica Lewenski spent more time in the Oval Office.
    Heck..."Billary" wouldn't even be a senator if she was not Bill's girl.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  297. J.Hanson

    Dear Jack,
    Senator Clinton may be above using the sexism card, but someone needs to. Even the more enlightened men are still reacting to a powerful woman's authentic expression of fact and conviction with sexist condemnation and chagrin. If a man speaks out the way Hillary did, he is passionate and inspiring. When Senator Clinton speaks out passionately, she is angry and petty. When she was being more moderate in her expression, she was labelled as controlled, disingenuous and cold. By simplely being her natural self, Hillary is showing the strength of convictions and the true brilliance of her talent to effect change.
    Do you have daughters? Please consider these comments in light of their ability to communicate fully and effectively in this world.
    J. Hanson

    January 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  298. n morberg

    Perhaps, because the media attention to her response is making her to be the only candidate to show anger.

    There has been an unequal critique between her campaign and any of the male candidates.

    Why aren't you asking this question about the other candidates?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  299. Natasha

    Shame on the media for targeting Senator Clinton for being a human being. It seems as though this is an attack to depict her as the "typical emotional woman." As a woman, I certainly hope the voters in N.H. are intelligent enough to recognize this ploy and can keep their opinions focused on the issues and experience. Hillary has what we need, and I am proud to see the human side of her- other politicians could take a lesson.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  300. Wendy Cass in MN

    While not being in favor of Hillary for President, I find the attention she is getting regarding her forceful response during the debates completely sexist. Had a response like Hillary's come from one of the guys, it would have been regarded simply as moxie and passion. If Obama or Edwards had an almost tearful moment while answering a question, it would most likely be viewed as sincerity and a valiant show of sensitivity.

    Contrary to popular stereotypes, women are more than emotions and hormones. The fact that this is even making the news shows that while we have come a long way, the women of this country are still being held back by unfortunate sexist views.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  301. Tami

    I think the blogger is confusing anger with passion. Why wasn't the same said for Edwards when he spoke passionately about his family. If she wears her feelings on her sleeve, she's weak; but if she speaks passionately, she's angry. Thank you for helping me to make my final decision. I’m voting for Hillary. I love the underdog.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  302. Mary

    Jack,

    Unfortunately, I think her angry outburst will cost her votes in NH, because her diatribe did not make sense.
    Again someone needs to ask her, how will you get rid of special interest if they finance ur campaign?
    Besides, she's shifting her message based on polls, it doesn't make her an authentic agent for change.
    A more concilliatory approach may help as attacks on Obama will hurt her becos he is so much more liked.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  303. Anne Cox

    It seems to me that when Hillary is strong the media, including CNN, calls her angry. When she let her feelings show this morning, more criticism. The unsaid reference to angry then (implied) weak is a veiled reference in my mind to the age old critique about women and hormones. Do we need to dissect constantly?

    When we do dissect, I continue to be interested in dissecting how the candidates might achieve their goals! I want to know how they can bring the Congress with them! I count on media to challenge ideas and realities of how promises can truly be delivered.

    I want to know how one candidate can promise to appoint only judges who are "strict constructionists". I believe each judge does his/her own interpreting, of course, since many issues are not connected to the Constitution. I thought we at least pretended to support the best qualified.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  304. Abe

    Jack, it shows her true colors. What experience? 8 years in the senate? Thats a long way from 35. I knew she was the one that was really running the country when her hubby was in. I am a veteran of the Iraq war and currently deployed there. There is no way I would ever support her

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  305. Adan

    I think your attempt to reduce Hillary Clinton to President Bush does her a grave injustice on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. I personally prefer the heated response from her, the alternative was to sit their and let Obama, and Edwards continue their assault on her.
    This is coming from a Republican, who is considering voting for Clinton should she actually get the nomination.
    When you read between the lines, she actually seems to be the most formidable candidate to compete against the Republican Party.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  306. Sherry

    What is the big deal about showing a little emotion. Do we what our politicians to be robots! Why can't a future president show that they are human without CNN trying to say it is a sign of weakness. Only if Bush could shed ONE TEAR for all the lives we have lost!

    Proud vet standing for HILLARY!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  307. linda bertinelli

    GIVE EM HELL<HILARY!!!!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  308. Penny M.

    Surprise, Jack! Hillary has emotions–like the rest of us. If you even have to raise the issue, you're spending too much time among the plastic bobble-heads that read the news–John King excepted, of course.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  309. Russell

    Oh how touching. A tear shed by Hillary. This New Hampshireite is not fooled by anything she says. Anyone who believes the crap that spews out of her mouth needs to examine their way of thinking. Ron Paul. A true American.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  310. Denny

    Yes, Jack, I think it will hurt her chances in New Hampshire. If she would only direct her angry responses toward President Bush, the country would benefit more from that, than at her fellow democrats.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  311. Sarah Birdsall

    Shame on you, Jack, for suggesting that when a woman gets tough it's time for her to "stay home and bake cookies." That kind of thinking needs to go the way of the dinosaurs, and I was quite disappointed to see it on my favorite news program.

    Sarah Birdsall
    Talkeetna, Alaska

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  312. suzie from atlanta, GA

    Jack, you are so predictable. I knew you would say this. So if she gets angry she is ready to go home and bake cookies, and reminds you of Bush? And I suppose if she gets emotional she is weak? Edwards gets angry all the time. Why no comment from you on that? And if anyone sounds like Bush, it's Obama. Right down to the "nuke" issue. So why are you not talking about ANGER on the campaign trail in all the people running? Why just her?
    Frankly, I want to see some anger. I am angry as hell. Look at this mess. She is offering real programs that will work, not just floating words. She has worked for change her entire life, INCLUDING in health care. She fails, yes, as we all do, but she still goes after change. And I thought her anger was justified. Jack! YOU get angry, YOU are touchy when others disagree with you. Should YOU go bake cookies? What should she do? What will satisfy you? She is either too cold, or too angry, or what???? Too female? Too married to Bill? Jack, I depend on you to talk about ISSUES. You are letting a lot of people down. Especially me, and I am one of your greatest supporters. Why not actually investigate the man who is a lobbyist for Pharma? Who is he, and is he the reason Obama's health plan leaves out 15 MILLION people? Obama is Black, and yes that is a change. But should it be the ONLY reason to vote for him? Other than his words, which mean nothing, what is his reason to be President? I will NOT vote for anyone, regardless of color or creed who is not experienced enough to navigate the very dangerous world Bush has created. And I will not put MY life in the hands of Obama. Neither should YOU. Obama is talking about NUKING Iran.......well, THAT'S a change...no, wait.......Bush just said that. JACK!!! Wake up!!! It's either McCain or Clinton, and that's our choice. They alone can make the tough choices.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  313. Bob

    I don't think it will hurt her...at least it shouldn't. She not only has the right, but she should fight back and be strong and passionate about her record. She also obviously has the ability to show a more caring and sensitive side as she did this morning...which is more than I can say for the current president. It convinces me more than ever that she is one smart, caring and passionate candidate that wants the very best for this country.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  314. Doug geib

    I think what we saw at saturdays debate with hillarys outburst was passion. I think she genuinlly wants to make the changes that the american people are looking for. Unfortunatly she is viewed by alot of voters as "the status quo". Americans are sick and tired of politicians getting in the white house and selling out to the lobbyists and big business. The american people want change and Barrack Obama represents that change. I think his lack of experience actually benefits him because he doesnt appear as the typical carrer politician who will tell us what he needs to in order to get elected, then sell out those that voted for him by catering to the rich and big business. I welcome the change!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  315. Barbara Henley

    Oh, please!! The folks who should go home and bake cookies are the members of the media who are doing everything in their power to help Obama win the Democratic nomination.
    I'm sure Obama is a fine person and will someday make a good president, but 2008 should not be his year. He needs time and experience in matters dealing with everything from the economy to foreign affairs. The media seems overwhelmed by his charisma instead of examing his credentials, or lack there of.
    Hillary has the experience and know how that the country needs to get us back on track. I have been a life long Republican, but no more. If the Democrats will just give me a good candidate, I will race to the polls to vote for that person.
    But please, Democrats and Independents voting in the early primaries, give your vote to the candidate with the ability to step into the job fully prepared on day one. We must restore the White House, Washington, and this nation to sanity. To do that, the individual elected must understand how Washington works (or doesn't work) and HOW to change it.
    The fact that Hillary showed some emotion in answering a question in New Hampshire only shows that she is human. More importantly she understands that she is human which is a refreshing change from most politicians, and especially
    Bush.
    So, Mr. Cafferty, go bake your cookies. Give us newscasters and commentators who can at least pretend to be impartial.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  316. Scott Kensey

    Some of Hillary Clinton's critics are confusing strength and firmness with anger. No, when I was watching the debate, "anger" didn't even come to mind. If she was a man, this silly discussion wouldn't even be taking place. How often are men accused of what she's accused of – "mean, cool, distant, etc."? Let's not give credence to the misogynics who really do want her to "stay home and bake cookies." If she did, this country would lose an incredibly talented public servant.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  317. Nancy M

    No - it must be incredibly frustrating for Hillary to have worked so hard on many controversial issues, only to have Barack Obama come out of left field acting like he's the big agent of change. He hasn't been around long enough to have accomplished anything concrete or to have a history of trying.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  318. Kemit-Soul Jallow

    Jack, Hillary's angry response describe who she is as a person and who she is not as a leader. Dirty campaining and sound bites are things of the past. People are looking forward to the future and Barack Obama is the future. The people of New Hampshire will not be moved by her latest attacks on Senator Barack Obama. It will really hurt her tomorrow and fortunately that's not too far from now. Obama took the high road making him even more presidential. I think CNN should go to some facts change in order for the viewers to understand that what Hillary said was not the truth. I know the Obama campain team is working on it right now. Hillary's last minute emotional outburst is very theatrical and does not look honest and tomorrow Wolf Blitzer will be disappointed again. Another victory for Obama is on the way. Jack sorry for your friend Wolf, he looks really desperate while using CNN to campain for Hillary.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  319. Mike Murray

    I did not find Hillary's response to be angry. I found it to be defending a long history for working for the people and producing results. The next time I want a drinking buddy or casual non-passionate American (?), I'll call George Bush. The next time I want nothing more than a "hope"-rhetoric politician, I'll call Barack Obama

    January 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  320. Vicki Blankenship

    Hillary is too often damned for holding her emotions back and called cold and calculating; and damned if she reveals them and told "to stay home and bake cookies;" she is damned for marrying and staying with her husband by the very people who place a primary value on family and loyalty, and damned by professional women when she strives to acheive goals that no other woman has achieved in America.

    But she keeps going like an energizer bunny, regardless of all you ney-sayers. That's what we as a country and a culture have to do in the face of obstacles at home and all around the world. There is no one better to lead us there?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  321. Jay

    I am curious, what makes you think the comments were out of anger? They seemed to be the typical tone that is heard in any debate. Politicians typically spend 50% of their campaigning to acuse and point the finger regarding experience, history, morals and anything else they can get their hands on. The other half the time they actually campaign. If Hillary Clinton took umbrage at false implications, she seemed to handle it with a stong and determined mind to respond to it and correct what she thought was false. She also took a few stabs at the other politicians regarding "false hopes", but I find comments like that common in these debates.
    This was the first time I got to see how Clinton handled herself and that type of situation and I was impressed. Before the last few weeks, I have been swinging toward Obama. But he is looking weaker and weaker as a candidate. Now he seems timid with a lack of quick wit. He seems to "want" a lot of change but I never hear what ideas he has to go about it. I am actually swinging more towards Clinton now.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  322. pam holt

    It just takes a a bias media to sway the stupid voters. I remeber watching the news poke fun at Howard Dean, every 20 SECONDS, in the time period of 1/2 hour. (I haven;'t watched Diane Sawyer since)Tthey wanted to sway the voters. How many people thought he was really screaming alone like a crazy man?People actually remember this piece as truth, instead of distorted media crap spin. Diane adventually appoligized for doing this once, at a time when there was no viewerswatching TV. I hate seeing someone repeat this. Hillary being emotional is once again media distortion. Do you always take things out of context and make something up so she will look weak?
    Which makes me think the Republicans fear her in office over Obama. You have just helped me make my vote. I was unsure till I saw you on TV. Republicans have put us into a tail spin so I guess my Democrat of choice will be Hillary.
    Keep distorting the news Cafferty

    January 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  323. Robert & Isabel Martin

    Jack, let us be fair, EVERY Candidate has gotten ANGRY why are all of you men singling out Hillary??
    Hopefully NOT because she is a WOMAN??
    Hillary, is smart, has experience, Can MAKE change happen which she has been doing.
    All the Candidates have had spurts of ANGER.
    Republicans do not like Clinton BECAUSE she CAN BEAT them.

    Tough to please some of the men and very tough for them to back her.
    Let us be fair...PLEASE
    Thanks Jack,

    January 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  324. Judith Love

    Bake cookies? C'mon Jack! It was offensive sarcasm when Hillary spoke of cookies the first time around and is even more so coming from you now, in these troubled and urgent times-Will it hurt her chances? yes, it probably will, but you asked the wrong question-I would rather respond to whether it should hurt her chances and yes, I think it should, because the anger was expressed in a strident rather than assertive way–we have had eight years of AGGRESSIVE "leadership" and need now to elect an ASSERTIVE, passionate and inspirational leader–I am not ready to cast my vote yet-but I do practice saying "President Obama" and it sounds pretty darn good.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  325. alex corbin

    you guys are something else. a Kabul of testosterone whose gender racism runs deep. why does passion at a debate denote anger? because a woman emoted and, you know, woman are just loosey goosey. why not comment about ron paul's whine? you want angry? talk to us about the stump speech of quintessential anger that edwards trots out every minute, such it's beginning to look like his heartbreak over his wife's health is turning his passion into bitterness.

    but most of all, tell us about the horrendously cold, mean spirited put down that only a man could have levied against a woman in the most base sense, a moment when we had a chance to really see through the perfectly global resume of mr. obama, "Hillary, you're likable enough." not even looking at her. bully stuff right out of a highschool corridor.

    and maybe she has a point, we've all heard about change.. big deal. name a race that hasn't beaten that word to death. but what's he gonna do with his aphorisms when he gets to the white house and has to turn it into legislation? what's he gonna do when he hasn't got a clue how to work the hill..

    after all, despite the media's need to promote him to icon out of what is looking more and more like expiation of cultural guilt, he is after all, nothing but a man.. you need more than one word and a slogan. but true meanness, i'm not so sure that fits the image. maybe it's a window into this man's real working persona apart from the good ole boy thing he's romancing you with.

    think mr. cafferty and friends about where your commentary is really coming from. after all the politesse about possible racism, this is a race that ends up to be deeply racist after all and the sitckiest form at that: gender racism,,, obama is lucky,,, you are making hillary this man's protective shield. you should be ashamed.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  326. Karen- Kansas City

    I chalked it up to normal frustration. Those who like her will either not care or will feel sympathy. Those who don't like her will perceive it as an example of weakness. Politics at this level, at any level, is blood sport.

    Maybe she should promote that AP picture of all the leading Dems where Hillary and the guys (Obama, Richardson and Edwards) look like an ethnically diverse Gladys Knight and the Pips. She looks really confident and happy there.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  327. Grace

    Jack, your comment about "baking cookies" is sexist and offensive.
    As for Clinton's anger, she isn't the only one who is getting tired of the free pass the media is giving to Obama on the substance of his candidacy.
    He talks of hope, bringing the country together, etc. but not of how he will actually get things done!
    The next president is going to need a lot more than "hope" to deal with terrorism, foreign relations, the economy, and other major issues facing our country. If Clinton's anger bothers you, calm her down by asking Obama substantive questions and requiring substantive answers.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  328. Wrenzola Estes

    I think that Hillary's little 'breakdown' will definitely hurt her. How can we as Americans put our trust in someone that buckles under the relatively light pressure she's dealing with now, compared to what she would have to deal with as the our Commander and Chief?

    If, as President ,she's meeting with foreign leaders, is she going to get all teary eyed, so that she can get her way?

    Hillary showed her hand, and she is definitely not carrying a full house. She showed weakness. This is America! We are a force to be reckoned with, we do not cry in the face of adversity!

    I am a female, and an ex-Marine, and I say to Hillary: "if you can't stand the politics, get out of the election!"

    January 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  329. Rudy Tiggs

    Jack:

    Get REAL! The question rings of BIAS. Angry response?.......Does everyone
    consider her response as "angry"? Or just those of you who don't like her anyway.
    But that's O.K. All the little sneaky remarks like your "maybe it's time to bake cookies" or simular remark leading into the question. It was an "angry" response because "JACK" who is on T.V. said so. And they get on Fox for claming to be "Fair and Balanced". But then YOU NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. My Bad

    January 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  330. Sid

    Women "should stay home and bake cookies?"...what a male chauvinist you are, Jack!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  331. Gala Gastineau

    An American President needs strong inner confidence and the ability to empower others, beginning with personal dignity and respect for humanity; plus the experience making tough decisions which affect our citizens and the world citizens.

    Hillary Clinton has the best qualities, best experience, best personal standards of all the candidates. She has not lost an inch, or a cookie, for stating her record with full intention without any reservations. If the difference between anger and intention isn't clear with the other candidates, as evidenced by John Roberts' response to Ms. Clinton's statement of the facts, where does dignity, respect and humanity rate in their attributes and character?

    I was all for Edwards and even Obama, perhaps as a team for the top offices of our country. But now, how are they going to respond to the need for empowerment of our people and the respect needed to bring about change?

    Edwards and Obama showed their "unders" by treating Hillary Clinton with arrogance, distain and stinking male delutions. Forget them.

    Remember Hillary Clinton's dignity and ability to get action where it is most needed.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  332. susannah jones

    forget all the comments about Hillary being emotional because Obama is winning....doesn't anyone remember "04 when the evangelical 'surge' won Bush another disastrous four years ....Hillary is just plain frustrated....the same thing as '04 is now happening with the smooth but inexperienced Obama. As a country we CANNOT afford another blunder by choosing someone on hype alone!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  333. Diane E

    Obama's Background of Wealth and Privilege.

    No public school education - all exclusive private schools. $2million book advance right out of Law School. Father Harvard PHD. Maternal grandparents afforded most exclusive private school in Hawaii for Obama. Teenage bouts with alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine that many poor blacks are serving time for. Rich kids are confused, poor kids are criminals. All this info is available on the simplest internet biography search. Why doesn't the media mention it.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  334. Vickie

    Taken in context probably not. Remember that Mr. "$400 a haircut – Me Too, I'm for change" had just tag-teamed her. I think her reaction was appropriate.

    One other note – for the longest time her label has been "Ice Queen" and now she's "Angry", next it will be she's too "Emotional." This is not Entertainment Weekly – where are the issues?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  335. Garry Beckham

    Jack
    The reason Hillary is having wild emotional swings is she has finally figured out that she isn't the Queen of the Ball, but the ugly step mother. Her Saturday outburst would lead an uninformed voter to believe she makes the Senate jump. Reality is some times tough to swallow when you have lived the life of a queen on the back of Bill. She is toast!
    Garry
    Stuttgart, Germany

    January 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  336. Mary Esther Salinas

    Obama showed his weakness in lack of foriegn affairs, lack of experience, and sounds more like a sermon than a political stance. I didn't see Hillary as angry, but as a fighter for the hopes of her country. We don't need another inexperience president, again. Obama and Oprah have everything in common, they both want a prosperous Africa more than the U.S and they are both opening schools in Africa. Hillary will win the Southwest because were tired of the East coast nominating the wrong nominee.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  337. Louis

    This question wouldn't even have come up if she were a man. However, since it has been asked, here is an answer for you. Her "outburst' was anything but negative. She was acting out of the same frustration Kerry and Gore felt running against the current simpleton that is our president. She has the vision, the knowledge and the experience to bring the "change" that this country needs. Being able to give a good speech and looking good on television, doesn't mean they would be a good president. We elected a president, twice because he was "the guy we would most likely want to have a beer with." She knows that electing Obama would be doing the same thing. Great speech giving doesn't equal great leadership, especially when there is nothing of substance behind them. Obama would get crushed in the debates against any republican. Without his written and planned out words, "fired up and ready to go" he looks lost and confused. Does this remind you of anyone? I hope we don't make the same mistake three times in a row.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  338. eric mcpherson

    I do not think Hillary Clinton's perceived anger in Saturday night's debate will hurt her. I think it helps as she clearly made the point how she has reached across party lines to get things done and to bring about change. However, you in the media never bring that up in your negative coverage of Sen. Clinton. I would like to know when if at all the media will scrutinize Sen. Obama the way you do Sen. Clinton and Gov. Romney. After all, how could someone with no experience and no specifics on how to bring about change go without any kind of scrutiny? The media needs to be fair, impartial and not try to minipulate and mislead the voters with all of their phony polls and the pundits that go along with those polls.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  339. Tony C

    What I think has hurt Senator Clinton in her campaign is a perception among an increasing number of voters that she is less than genuine, that she crafts an ever-changng, calculated, slippery message according to what polls tell her handlers that any given audience wants to hear. In fact, I think most politicians do this; it's just that Hillary seems to be really bad at it for some reason. She ends up coming off as plastic, as insincere, as all package and no substance.

    Given that, my sense is that her "outburst" at the debate, along with her emotional "breakdown" at an appearance this afternoon, will actually help her cause, not hurt it, because they will be seen by most people as the first evidence in months that Hillary Clinton is a human being and not an automaton. At this point it may be too late, but I think she needs more of this stuff, not less.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  340. Sally

    I think that Hillary Clinton has a right to be angry. All the negativity is being cast around her, what about Obama ? Why is no one talking about his drug use? They certainly have talked enough about the the skeleton's in the Clinton's closets!! I am a middle/low income person and under the Clinton administration, I lived very well. I know what the Clinton's can do. I don't have any idea what the other candidates will do only what they promise to do. And if you go by promises, just look at President Bush's record.!!! That is the problem with this country, Maybe a woman can run it efficiently, because it is obvious that having a man in for the last 8 years has certainly taken the country down hill and we have lost respect because of him!!!!! Let a woman have a chance-- especially one like Senator Clinton.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  341. William King

    I would like to ask a question of the canidates– Would they write a bill that would requrie the Senators and Congressmen to abide by the same code of ethics that is required of other Civil Servants?

    This would solve some of the problems created by Lobbiest and Special Interest groups.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  342. joan niantic, ct.

    Boo Hoo Hoo Poor Hillary cried to show how human she is-–NOT _ When en Maines candidate Muskie cried it was considered a sign of weakness. Now Shillary wants us to think she has a warm side. She is not fooling anyone.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  343. Susan Lynch

    I agree with Elena (above). I thought Hilary's so called "outburst" was fine. She was just stating the facts. If I were her, I would run pictures of herself when she was going around Washington (with a black headband on her head) trying to get Health Care Reform. She has worked for change!

    When I first saw the clip of Hilary today displaying more emotion, I thought ...good! This will help her likeability issue. Also, I thought she was going after John Edward's line of "it's personal for me" and the line worked well for her too. Perhaps that's why John Edwards shot back with a negative remark.

    Finally, I do like Obama but I think he will be a better candidate with more experience behind him. John F. Kennedy (who Obama is often compared to) became President with the help of his father. Joseph Kennedy knew politics and power. JFK also had his brothers to rely on. It seems to me that Obama should be more accurately compared with President Clinton, who was a Washington outsider!

    Hilary is a hard worker and bright with experience/understanding to bring about the change that is desperately needed in this country.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  344. Joseph Cammarano

    What will hurt Hillary more than her anger is her bold-face lie about 35 years of
    making important decisions for the country. Is there no end to the Clinton obfuscation? Didn't the junior senator from New York win her first elective office in 2000? Is the wife of a surgeon able to practice medicine because of her husband's experience? Is being a former First Lady enough credential for making such ridiculous claims?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  345. Brian

    Hillary does not represent the change so desperately needed and desired by U.S. Citizens. Obama will beat Hillary, he is a fresh new face talking about change. My main man Ron Paul has a better chance than Hillary. President Ron Paul will take our country into the future. He will carry the message of the people, not corporate special interest, he takes a stand on EVERY issue unlike the rest who may be great speakers, but never give straight answers.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  346. Karen

    I have worked with a lot of women like Ms. Clinton, her fangs didn't come out until she started slipping in the polls. Sure, she has experience but it seems so far America is lookings for honesty, integrity, intelligence as well as experience. He seems to have been smart enough to know how to energize the voters. Americans aren't dumb and they are tired of being tricked into voting for people out of of fear.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  347. Mitchell Larkins - Illinois

    The Debate showed us 2 things.. First, Hillary Clinton came off as angry and on the defensive. Secondly, It appears the Change is happening as many would think Obama/Edwards is the best ticket to give the people back their country.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  348. sarah eustis

    Jack, this question is sexist. Her answer was strong and resolute. Have you ever asked this of Edwards? McCain? Giuliani? I guess only men can show forceful personalities.....

    January 7, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  349. CS

    We may like to consider ourselves "evoled" as a society when a black male can be a legitimate contender for the presidency, but have we really come all that far if a female candidate's assertive explanation of the firm background of experiene she has to offer is seen as "anger," or a "flash of emotion" (i.e., a negative), when a similar assertion on the part of a male candidate would be seen as a "strong" response? I'm particularly disappointed with John Edwards' response to Hillary's emotional response to a question at a campaign event today, indicating it was somehow a sign of weakness, unbefitting a commander in chief, to feel deeply and emotionally about this country. Is he insinuating that a president should not have any real, human feelings in the conduct of the job? I usually agree with Edwards more often than not, and respect him greatly, but this is truly beneath him.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  350. Rachel from Hatboro, PA

    I hope Clinton's so-called "outburst" brings more attention to what is at stake in this election. I believe that Clinton will be able to effect much more change than Obama, at least at this point in our nation's history. Republicans reportedly "like" Obama more, but you have to wonder why. I doubt it is because they want Obama to lead the country, rather it may be because they think they can take advantage of an inexperienced president and a broken, institutionalized system.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  351. J Emmons

    hillary all the way Jack

    How do expecet her to respond on her last debate sit back and let the males pound her your respnse about staying home and bake cookies is so typical MALE

    Obama as President I doubt it

    By the way the crowds Obama is getting I understand a lot of (Paid???) Republicans would not surprise me

    January 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  352. B Bragg

    She was responding to a VERY VERY angry John Edwards who has done nothing but spit at her with his ridiculous comments on "Change" for weeks. I personally would like to see her LEVEL him.

    At least Barack Obama is a gentleman to her. This is a smart woman. But she is passionate. Everyone says she is heartless and has no emotions. Well – she shows some and now that is a sign of weakness.

    I tell you what that is..............sexism. Because she is a woman simple as that.

    I hope she or Barack Obama become President. If I were either one of them I would put the other on the ticket. They together are UNBEATABLE.

    And they challenge this sexist and racist country. That is true change.

    God bless them both.......... they are exhausted and deserve a good night's sleep.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  353. Nancy Bacon

    Hi Jack,
    My spouse and I like all the leading Dems and we simultaneously said that Hillary will get flack for showing her anger, whereas, Edwards shows deep emotion and there's no comment. Obama's speeches in New Hampshire have shown sleep-deprived confusing comments, but no mention. As a woman, Clinton's not allowed to show anger or tears. She's categorized as a "B" or as weak. Does anyone believe she's weak? Though she's the most experienced, there's still too much prejudice against females, even in the press, for Hillary to get elected.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  354. susan

    I certainly hope not Jack. It's too bad the American public is still wanting the person they would like "to have a beer with", rather than someone with experience.
    If Obama gets the nomination I am sure we will have another Repubican President. Can you imagine the ads from the Republican's if he gets nominated.
    I guess people get what they deserve. And you don't help Jack.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  355. A. Santalla

    Until the "debate" this past Saturday, which was viewed by friends and family at our home in NJ, I as well as those at this viewing were undecided but after witnessing the negative stance demonstrated by Edwards, which seemed almost rehearsed with Obama, it is easier for me as a Veteran, as a Latino-American and as father of 3 son's and 2 daughters, to support Hilary Clinton

    The majority of the viewers at our home at this debate were female mid 30 to 60 years of age and I usually dissagree with what is sometimes said at our get togethers but we were unanimous on this one.

    I need a strong leader to be our next President and the two democratic leaders coming out of Iowa demonstrated , to us anyway, that they represented the "status quo, weak men who need others to do their dirty work for them (i.e. Edwards attack on Clinton for Obama). This did not sit well with us and we need a leader who will defend themselves with honor.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  356. Rohan

    It will not hurt her. Her response shows how passionate she is and it also shows she is a normal human being. People should realize why she responded in that way. The situation made her respond like that. Obama and Edward were speechless for a while by her response. She also showed, how emotional she is, in a round table meeting today. Giving speeches isn't enough to qualify someone as a president. Her response only shows that she is courageous and she is ready for any attacks (such as double attack by Obama and Edward) and questions. If you are really passionate about something and someone denies it or falsely accuse, you would get angry and you should get angry. That is human nature.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  357. Melissa

    It's not "anger" it's called "emotion". As a lifelong democrat it's alarming for me to say that I know not one of Obama's points, plans or goals. While Hillary hits the ground sprinting Obama will be dazed and confused (like his high school years) without cameras constantly fixed on his plastic smile. Shame on you, America. After all these years of having a president considered not so bright and being all talk no action, you're embracing the same hoax-again.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  358. Carol Ann Weber

    Dear Mr. Cafferty:

    "Stay home and bake cookies"? What kind of chauvinist comment is that? I'm angry at YOU for taking such a cheap shot that is sexist and totally uncalled for, which shows you represent the underlying bias against Hillary based on nothing more than her gender. You wouldn't dare make any racially-charged comments about Obama on air, (i.e., like the "fried chicken and collard greens" comment made about Tiger Woods by Fuzzy Zoeller) but you feel completely comfortable suggesting Hillary should "stay home and bake cookies." I've lost respect for you.

    Now to answer your question. Because Hillary defended herself against an ill-conceived attack by John Edwards, who apparently is attempting to ride on the coattails of Obama's popularity surge, shows she can and should defend herself when attacked unjustly. She does not represent the status quo who, as Edwards charged, attacks anyone who speaks of change. She began her campaign refusing to "go negative" but as the attacks against her began, she fought back. Hillary has been instituting change before the other two front runners were even old enough to vote! Good for HIllary. Fighting back shows she can stand up for herself.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  359. Donna

    Jack, I get so sick of you independents bashy Hillary so much. I don't think her "angry" response, as you call it, will hurt her it only shows that she is human and a caring person. Unlike what we have in the White House now. Look at Edwards, for Gods sake, you want angry listen to him for a minute or two, and I like Edwards.
    For you to compare Hillary with Bush and his angry responses is like comparing a Jack Rabbit to a Turtle.
    YOU HAVE TO ADMIT, wether you like Hillary or not, She has the most experience of any of the candiates. Rep or Dem. Living in the White House for 8 years and being in politics as long as she has, she has to have the most experience.
    I have nothing against Obama I just don't think he is ready for everything that comes with being President. I hope the younger crowd, that don't usually get involved in elections, is not just looking at him as some rock star and get caught up in the music. We need a change for sure, but not the wrong change.

    Donna
    Georgia

    January 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  360. Ann Rasey-Bunker

    Why should Mrs. Clinton not get angry when the male opponents conveniently ignore her record – as she points out – on health care reform?? If a male candidate becomes angry and shows it, "he feels strongly -", if a woman does, "oh maybe it is time to stay home and bake cookies", her two closest rivals have trumpeted the need for change, however, they have already broken the promises not to do business the old pol way and they are not even elected – they are teaming up to defeat her simply because they were behind; now, Obama says that only because she is losing does she make the statements she is making. How dumb do these guys think we are??? She has been saying the same things for years that she is saying now! both men would do well not to underestimate the mentality of the majority of American voters – we will elect the candidate who has been making the same good decisions right along. While I am at it, why do you not grow up and can the old cliche's about baking cookies?? A hell of a lot of men bake cookies!!! On weekends, after a hard week's work. Can you??

    January 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  361. Amanda

    Stay home and bake cookies? Orwell was correct; men are pigs. Well, "men are pigs" is bound to be a true statement if I base my judgement on your bit about Clinton's "anger." Your cheap and thinly veiled sexist remark made me want to throw my tv out the window. Of course, I'm the fool watching CNN. I think I'll go back to paper – then I can skip all the stupid remarks.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  362. Andy in New Hampshire

    Enough already! This madness has got to stop! Hilly is beyond damage control at this point. Although it's obvious that Hilly's outburst Sat night was genuine, this afternoon's faux cry was ridicuous. She's circling the drain and she knows it. Tomorrow will continue to prove that her supporters are leaving in droves now that America has had a chance to peek behind the curtains. Cafferty's expression towards Wolf was classic!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  363. Deborah Krug

    When has anger ever produced a positive result? If anything, it points out the fact that she's desperate. Let's face it Hilary, we are so entitled to a real change.....we're tired of the same old rhetoric...Give up!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  364. ruby

    Absolutely not!!! She is simply showing her strength. There is no comparison to Bush and his ways. What about his teary expressions? Hillery is going to be a great president, and her record shows that she has made many accomplishments that have been to the benefit of several people in our country.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  365. cindy

    I can't wait to hear how you handle this poll. The vast majority of the responses show that you are way off the mark and the comment about it may be time for someone to go home and bake cookies was really unprofessional. Why is the media so critical of Mrs. Clinton.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  366. Tony

    I am absolutely agitated at you Jack. Barack Obama throws around these catch phrases about change and unity without any substance and you greet him like the second coming. It is absolutely ridiculous. You should be asking yourself how he intends to do this. Hilary has more experience at both than Barack can ever dream of. Why don't you start looking at his record and questioning that instead of just anointing him president. We do not need you in the media rubberstamping another President like George W. Bush. You in the media need to start taking a closer look at Obama and scrutinizing his experience and record. There needs to be some substance behind his catch phrases of Change and Unity!!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  367. Ramona LeBlanc

    Obviously, Hillary's response to attacks from Edwards and Obama at the debate has hurt her in the polls. I don't think it was an angry response, as you say, making it sound personal. It was time for her to tell the American people to get REAL. I've always liked your show and thought you were unbiased but I see now that you are just as biased and sexist as the shock jocks on radio. As soon as I heard you say "It's time to stay home and bake cookies", I knew what was coming. Hillary showed STRENGTH and if she didn't defend her platform, you'd say she was weak. Hillary has withstood attacks since before Bill Clinton won the White House and I believe your "cookie" reference is from that time. Shame on you.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  368. Philip W. Conti

    hello Jack,

    I beleive Hillary`s outburst was a desperate and unfortuate moment in her quest for votes in the NH primary...(please correct me if I am wrong...but, wasn`t NIXON the last president we saw cry on TV...???)...OOOOOPPPPS...she did it again 😦

    Sal,

    R.I.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  369. Harry in Virginia

    Jack, let's consider what's at stake here. Electing the next president consists of a leader confronted with challenges requiring a real backbone. A message of an "inspiration to change" doesn't have that backbone. Though fortunate to have great democrats running for president, Hillary had to make the point to the Americans that her real conviction of change involves her deep working experience in public service, rather than just a change attitude. This very election is way too important just for inspiration talk...

    January 7, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  370. Cathey Thomas

    I don't know that Hillary's unpleasantly defensive outburst will surprise or even bother as many people as her shameless padding of her resume ...claiming to have already effected "35 years of change".

    Oh please....she was sitting on the freaking board of WAL-MART for at least 6 of those years!

    I like Obama's brand of Audacity a lot better than Hillary's.

    But seriously, I don't think I can stand to watch and listen to this highly unlikable and often unpleasant candidate for another 11 months, let alone another 4 years after that.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  371. Ashley

    I understand the double standard many of you are suggesting, but the reality is the nation has not changed that much. It is going to end up blowing up in the face because you either love her or hater. It is difficult to convince people to support Hillary, unlike Obama. So what happens when we need a few GOPs to switch sides and Hillary can't make that happen...again it may not be fair but she has to cool it with her emotions. Besides why try and change the talk about women's emotions now...it just doesn't make sense to do something like that now.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  372. Reg

    Not only was that not a good show of restraint under stress, but her tearing up today at a meeting does not favor a positive outlook for women who want to hold a higher position. Tearing up in public because one is losing, to me, is not a sign of strength but a sign of weakness and vulnerability, which is not what we need to represent our country.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  373. Susan

    Jack,
    It's time for you to retire. Your "old man" POV is tired.
    If Hillary Clinton loses this nomination, it will be largely due to the shameful anti-woman bias that you and other cable news personalities continue to demonstrate.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  374. Eric

    When Hillary and her campaign finally wakes up from their experienced induced coma, they will come to realization that Obama is not Hillary's biggest problem. It's Hillary, she is clueless to how to get out of her own way.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  375. Sandy

    Hillary had every right to get angry – she was being attacked, as she is every day. She IS the most qualified and I, for one, am not interested in having a "rock star" as the President of the United States. Who is this man? All this talk about people not liking her is ridiculous. They don't know her personally, all they know is what they see on a TV screen. Her record is great! And, remember where electing a "likable" man, who people felt they could have a beer with, got us.

    P.S. Please stop calling her responses "emotional." When a man responds vigorously he is praised for his strong convictions.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  376. Dan

    Come on Jack, lighten up on Hillary's anger at the debate. YOu get your panties in a wad every afternoon but I dont think it makes you less effective in your job...in fact that" is " your job" and I would expect Hillary to get angry as president every time she needs to express it. Anger and emotion is not exclusive to expression.
    That also goes for George Bush.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  377. John

    Yes, it will hurt her. It will be used to emphasize her flip-flopping which ever way the political wind blows. After her emotionless (victory?) speech in Iowa, her tirade was meant to rebut Obama's and Edward's charismatic speeches in Iowa. Now that Obama and Edwards made powerful statements about heartfelt passion, she tries to make a teary eyed statement, "I don't want us to fall back." She is simply expressing the grace of a clinton chameleon.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  378. Kevin Oxendine

    I didn't sense anger in the segment aired. What I did pick up on is genuine passion for doing what's right for this country and its citizens. If anything hurts Hillary's campaign, it will be how the media misrepresents her and the remaining Democratic and Republican candidates.

    Kevin
    Johnson City, TN

    January 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  379. Eric McPherson

    I do not believe the perceived anger of Sen. Clinton in Saturday's debate will hurt. I think it actually helps as she clearly pointed out her accomplishments and how she reached across party lines, and how she has brought about change. But you in the media will never reflect that part, you only continue to scriutinize Sen. Clinton unfairly while Sen. Obama gets no scrutiny whatsoever, in fact all he gest is 100% favorable coverage from the media. Sen. Obama with no experience, no specifics on how he will bring change or what he would change gets no scrutiny?? Seems to me there is nothing but bias in the media. Seems to me that the media is very selective when it comes to equality. N scrutiny for Sen. Obama but Sen. Clinton and Gov. Romey get over scrutized. It's time you in the media stopped trying to minipulate the voters with all your phony polls and the pundits that go along with them.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  380. Dolores Ward

    No, Jack, that isn't what will hurt Hillary, it's people like you that have hurt her. You criticize her no matter what she does. She certainly has a right to get a little angry in the debate after what edwards/obama did to her. "your likeable enough Hillary, and I was surprised that edwards didn't hug and kiss obama. The press has been Hillarys worse enemy. And you have been one of the leaders. Let's hear you read this one.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  381. Linda Hornbach

    The only thing that is hurting Hilary is YOU, the media!!!! Why shouldn't she defend herself against two men. If a man were being attacked the question wouldn't even be asked!! Shame on you for being so biased!! I am going with experience rather than smooth talk and I'm not even old!!!!!

    Linda
    Indiana

    January 7, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
  382. Tom Gilmartin

    Jack,

    January 7, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
  383. DAK

    No, Jack, it shouldn't. By now most voters realize the tremendous strain all candidates have and will have until one is chosen from each party. I believe we can see more angry moments as long as it does not come out too negative then voters may revolt. What strikes me even more though,is the angry negative attacks made during the Republican candidate debate that appear to have gone almost unnoticed. In particular, Senator McCain, was in attack mode and NOT very attractive with his cackling and sarcasim while he gave little on his own ideas. This bothers me from someone I used to respect!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
  384. Noah Mullette-Gillman

    Jack,

    I usually enjoy your curmudgeonly reporting, but I have to say that I am offended by the way that you (among other television "reporters") are attempting to shape the news more than report it lately. This is a leading question about Hilary, and not the first. Its intended to get us to stop and think about if what Hilary has done is "bad." I don't see you asking similar questions about Obama or Edwards.

    Why not ask us if Obama's grudging allowance that Hilary is "likable enough" will hurt him or help him?

    Why not ask if the relevation that Obama voted for the patriot act and to fund the war will hurt or help him?

    The media assasinated Dukakis, Gore, Dean, Kerry. Bill and Hilary are the only democrats at the presidential level who've survived the attacks this far and the media at large HATES them for it! I can only wait until Obama gets the nomination and then SUDDENLY you all turn on him! I've watched long enough to see how this game works. There's no drama like the fall of a hero....

    January 7, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
  385. Michele

    Are you kidding me? If Hillary is being misrepresented she has every right to state her point of view. That is after all what the debates are for, is it not?

    If one listens to the media Hillary is either too cold or too aloof, or too forward and 'giggly'. She's either too direct or not direct enough. She either not addressing the question or giving too much information. She's accused of 'playing the gender card' while the media describes her as a harridan.

    In the meantime Obama promises pie in the sky and the media clamors for a bigger and bigger piece. He tells us to just trust him. If he's asked for specifics he tells us to just hope, just believe. Where have we heard that before?

    Eight years ago the media helped usher in one the worst presidents in US history. They were quite clear as to their preferences, their likes and dislikes, and now they are doing the same, again, and of course all the while pretending to be impartial.

    God help us all.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  386. Lydia Scott

    HI Jack,
    I don't know if Hillary's anger will concern or turn away New Hampshires voters. What should concern all voters, New Hampshire and nationwide is her ability to not answer the question and speak for hours without saying anything important. HIllary has an uncanny ability to say one thing and do another, like her continual support and congressional voting record in supporting the war while she says the opposite. Guess who is # of 2007 most corrupt politicians posted last week by factcheck.org? YOu guessed it, Hillary Clinton is #1, but she has the company of 3 other candidates running for president that are also on the list. I must have been on vacation when corruption was made mandatory for being a politician. Thanks,Lydia

    January 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  387. fabooj

    Will it?

    The debate was two days ago and the polls show that it has hurt her.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  388. gary

    Hillary came across as someone who can't believe that voters could be so dumb that they would support someone she feels isn't as good as she is. She indicated that she knew what she would do from day 1 as President but that Obama didn't. Well, since he's been thinking about it since kindergarten he's got a headstart on Hillary and I suspect he'll do just fine.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  389. John

    Until Obama offers some substance to back up his claims of change, I’ll stick to my daily horoscope for my inspiration. It also usually tells me exactly what I want to hear with the same lack of details or actions he offers. If he decides to move beyond the platitudes of unity we hear during every election, I might change my mind. But for now I’ll stick with the experience and track record of Clinton. Hey, I loved the 90s!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  390. Jim Carney

    Jack you are silly as hell. Hillary's was not mad nor was her response angry. Her answer was great and showed a lot of knowledge and strength. Why would you characterize her response as angry? Your characterization is so much BS.

    Jack, how about some questions about Obama. How about Obama employing a drug company lobbyist, or Obama only talking in gereralities, specifically what is Obama going to change? isn't it hipricrotcal for Obama to vote for some $300 billion to fund the Iraq war when he is campaingning against the war so agressively? etc., etc.

    Jack two elections with so few people. Remember lots of people have lost Iowa and New Hampshire and still won. Get another horse to berate.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  391. Chris

    You guys can't make up your mind: you criticize candidates for not fighting back and setting the record straight when they're under attack then criticisize them for when they do. Hillary was trying to convey that this "change" business is more than words, but has to be backed up by action – something other candidates can't claim to the same extent as Hillary. I say it won't hurt her, because she showed a sense of passion in her beliefs, and is finally taking a stand on what she views as real change.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  392. JC

    Clinton's upset. Clinton's emotional. McCain's a hero. Edwards is "sincere." Huckaby is a preacher. Ya-da-da, ya-d-da.

    Hey, Jack. When will we get to hear anyone publicly force a straight answer from any of these "guys" as to whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture; how they justify legislating the killing over a million people in Iraq who never did anything to us before we attacked their country; how they justify energy and trade "policies" which worked so well the price of middle east oil rose from $28/barrel to over $100 deflated US dollars on their watch?

    Hey, Jack. Think you could get some face time with any of our presidential hopefuls to ask a question or two?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  393. koolkat

    HA !! Mr. Jack Cafferty I am going to call you out. I have always been a Independent that leans a little more to the Democrats. Yes I'm still young but I have always voted but where I live in Nevada a Independent can't even get on the ticket because the Republicans & Democrats will not allow a Independent to run on the ticket.

    Why am I calling you out Jack because you say you are a Independent but your
    not your just pulling the wool over are eyes. You are a Hillary that is fed up
    with Bush. You jumped on my Independent band wagon because your also fed
    up with Congress but after the smoke clears you go back to being a Republican.

    Heres my proof when Mr. Wolf Blitzer tore Mr.Guliani apart & made him look
    like a babbling moron you blindly defended him like a true Republican not a
    Independent.

    Now your talking trash about Hillary for sticking to her guns . I wish the other candidates would stick to there guns like Hillary . The truth is Jack you are
    still a Die-Hard Republican that thinks women should stay at home and make babies. I am for the best for the country wither they are Republican or Democrat
    and I think Hillary is the best for are country that is until a real Independent Iis
    allowed to run.

    KOOLKAT : STOP & MAKE YOU THINK

    January 7, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  394. Ms. Elizabeth Browning

    I admire Senator Hillary Clinton. In my opinion, Senator Hillary Clinton is a very intelligent, brave, and regal lady. Just because he was expressing her opinion,
    you have the audacity to speak unkindly about her.

    I am very disappointed with your opinion.

    How come no one says that Senator Hillary Clinton has 18 years of experience
    in domestic as well as foreign affairs.

    I hope that she wins the primary or Senator John Edwards!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  395. Onebrightsnowflower

    I like Hillary Clinton. I am 54 years old never voted before, but would vote for Hillary. also, I don't like Obama because he is a muslum and have heard that this man won't put his hand on his heart to say the p.o.l. This I grew up with and said it everyday at school. I don't like Oprah either. She has so much money she can't spend it all. I really feel that a women is a great change for america, and its time for ONE. What makes me mad, is all these men at the white house makes promises to everyone in the US and can't keep those promises. This is why I never VOTED. I would vote for Hillary and when every one talks about change, they have to show this change. My husband and I have been married for 36 years and is very happy. We both and are 3 children that hasn't voted are willing to vote for Hillary. I can not belive how any one wants to vote for a MUSLUM. I also see the news people giving Mr. Obama air time and not Hillary. I also glad she got ANGRY because most men are butt holes and think that they rule the white house. I hope she wins. The US people vote for Obama, we all will see things that won't be fair and some changes we won't like.
    I just hope people will see that Obama is not the one we all want. And if Obama gets in the white house and don't see changes, I CAN SAY I NEVER VOTED FOR HIM.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
  396. Carol in Monterey

    Cookies? What is that supposed to mean? Voters should stay home because someone shows a little passion about presenting reality? When Obama was doing his "stand with me" rap, you didn't tell voters to stay home and just make daisy chains out of the political platitudes.
    Clinton is the candidate who faced up to making change in Washington with health care reform efforts 16 years ago, who has learned a great deal in the process, and who now can present a seasoned, experienced view of the possible–and she does that in detail!
    Edwards certainly got passionate about his personal commitment to health care reform, but you know what? That total vilification of insurers and providers is going to make him totally ineffective when it comes to the reality of negotiation. Clinton is the one with the knoweldge, the ability, and the program to actually make something happen.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
  397. Bruce Marshall

    No Jack her chances in New Hampshire were gone before she got there. She thinks we don't remember all the jobs to India, and the trade deals. Bush or Clinton they are just spelled different.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
  398. Jerry Wilson

    There you go again, Jack. If Hillary shows strenght, she's angry. If she shows a soft side, she's phony. When she debates she's argumentitive.

    If your such a great judge of character, where were you when Bush ran? When character assassination could have saved the nation from a unnecessary war? Jack your just seven years, and one character assassination too late.

    Jerry Wilson

    January 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
  399. Joan

    I thing that is a completely unfair analysis of Sen. Clinton's reaction. John Edwards was accussing her in a substantially harsh tone of being the status quo candidate. If she stands up for herself in face of finger-pointing she is the one being uncompromisingly stubborn. How silly is that?
    Sen. Clinton is expected to show soul and when she does she isn't strong enough. When she shows strength, she is accussed of not having a soul. When she tries to do both, she is told to by the media to make up her mind. Why can't a woman be both strong and soulful?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  400. Jozette

    Hillary just played the female card! She is not a wimpering female by any stretch of the imagination so what was with the choked-up voice and the crocadile tears that I am sure she must have produced behind the onions she ate for lunch! How is that supposed to help her? She is also into borrowing e.g. Barack"s word – change and she took a page from Edwards' book – showing emotion and telling the viewers that the election is not only political – it's personal.

    Give me a break! She is the status quo queen and will never change anything except the presidential gender!

    She says she has experience where Barack doesn't – well, the way I see it...we can't do any worse than Bush so I say give Barack the nod and let him bring about the changes I know he will make!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  401. ed

    Jack,

    I been watching CNN LIKE CRAZY!
    can you ask Wolf a guestion for me? is he a hillary fan? i find he is always asking people guestions in her defense? example Mr. Bradly today.
    if this keeps up i think he should be replace with Al Gore or You?

    January 7, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  402. Phyllis

    Hi Jack,
    I was happy to hear Hiliary get angry and passionate about this whole issue of change. I agree with her 100% . I could have gotten up and cheered; I beleive the talk Hillary gave today was great. She may have been close to tears, but I feel the same way. I understand her frustration with the future of this country . We need a smart ,experienced, intelligent President. We need change from someone who knows how to make it. I think its time voters start to understand what the current President has done to this country of ours and what kind of leader we need to fix it. Also, please don't compare an intelligent woman like Hilary with our current President.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  403. kris

    Whys is it that when Hillary Clinton gets passionate in her responses everyone raises and eyebrow, but when either of the 2 opposing candidates lash out at her, they get an applause? It's ridiculous how people have a double standard when it comes to her. Maybe if everyone got a "whiff" of the tag teaming Senator Obama and Edwards have to resort to in order to gain momentum, they'd realize why she has so much passion when it comes to responding to important issues she feels she can better for the right of our country as a whole. She's a phenomenal person, that has strength, courage, and wisdom that no one can take from her. I believe that with her, through her, this country could once again strive for it's highest potential. She's a fighter and the race isn't over yet. It may look as if she's loosing the battle, BUT she will win the war!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  404. Barbara Ward

    Jack, I think the voters of New Hampshire are more intelligent than to let the other candidates piling on and Hillary showing some emotion to that fact keep them from voting for a realistic candidate. She has helped change things for the better for America and she realizes that it takes working with the Senate and Congress to make change. We have one President that pushes what he wants through without the voters consent. Is this what you want again? I personally want someone with as much experience as possible to get us out of this mess we are in because of Bush.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  405. mark

    jack, After watching hillary;s actions on the news today it looks like we are dealing with a person who has bi- polar problems to tear-up , then become angry ,the next shows me she has issues .............do we need a person running this country like that..........

    January 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  406. Holly M.

    Oh my god, give me a break. NO, it does not hurt her chances in my opinion, instead it displays her passion for her belief's and the fact that she really does feel confident she is the one that can truly make change happen. Hillary displays some emotion and fire and she according to the media still gets it wrong. The media is skewing and spinning anything it can to capture a headline. Maybe those that actually like the "status quo" are propagating this anti-Clinton campaign because she may the only candidate that can actually effect change as a President immediately if elected.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  407. Ahmed Kabil

    While I'm sure Hillary's loyal base will paint her response in the debate as one that exemplifies the strength and aggressiveness she'd bring to the table as Commander-in-Chief, it's hard not to read between the lines and see it as a moment where Miss Clinton unmistakably lost her composure. If New Hampshire voters are as independent-minded as we're told, I find it difficult to fathom that they would not see this response for what it is: an angry and aggravated outburst of someone who is very frustrated at the possibility of being denied that to which she feels entitled.

    -AK from San Antonio, TX.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  408. Donald, Butte Montana

    Onel last comment - with all the newsplay CNN and the Fox Noise Channel is giving her, she's getting plenty of attention of free publicity.

    So, who's taking advantage of who?? Looks to me as if Hillary has gotten your goat.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
  409. Ed

    Jack,

    Hillary Clinton's strong response is more an indication of her requirement to present competence and provide examples of experience that has provided results in the name of "change" , our new favorite word.

    Ed
    Huntington, NY

    January 7, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
  410. Lovell Sewell

    Hi, To everyone

    I want to know why is Hillary Clinton getting tearie. Is it because she thought her experience would make her the candiate? Or she just a soar loser and she do not like loosing a race. When she first started she was so high and mighty know she was the number one candiate. Now when she is sanking she want to get on TV and cry.

    We need a strong President not a cry baby.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
  411. Patrick Flores

    I loved her outburst! As a nervouse supporter, her outburst was like a difibulator in the middle of another boaring debate. I think she needs to show more emotion to help convey her passion.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
  412. Carole

    Now that we have seen "the angry Hillary on Saturday night with her my way or the highway" and today "the emotional actress Hillary" her campaign from henceforth should be titled WHATEVER IT TAKES!!!!!!!!! William Bennett's comments on Hillary Clinton Thursday night after her 29% showing. (I am trying my best to quote him accurately.) This has to be the worst night of Hillary Clinton's life. Senator Obama had better watch his back and knees as the Clintons play hard ball. I hope for his personal sake that Senator Obama has taken note of this.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  413. Robert Radelat

    The most complimentary comment I can make about Hillary is that she bears a strong resemblance to Shirley Jones, actress/singer/philanthropist. As much as I have enjoyed Ms.Jones in ‘Music Man’, ‘Oklahoma’, ‘The Partridge Family’, and others, I would not vote for her for President. ‘Nuff said.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  414. Steven

    Mrs. Clinton's remarks show the nation that not only is she the thoughtful intelligent and patriotic American but that she has a deep committment to our nation's welfare. It is not a temper tandrum to be forceful in support of your ideas and beliefs. Instead of the media giving us comparisons of the candidates plans and polcies the nation hears your colleagues anxiously talking about her emotional outburst. Come on! If Barack or Edwards did it, you would all be saying what a straight talker they are.

    Lets give the American people more facts and less fluff. We do not need to have another fluff, empty head in the White House. Hillary shows she is neither.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  415. bene

    why should her response to a well articulated position in a debate hurt her. would you ask the same question of obama in his catty remark "you are likable 'enough' "

    January 7, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  416. Chris

    Ouch??? First of all, give me a MAJOR break! The media and other candidates can't make up their minds - do you want her to show her "warm and fuzzy, womanly" side, or do you want to see the "tough" side? As to the angry retort in the debate, no - it doesn't remind me of Pres. Bush. He can only aspire to Senator Clinton's class. From all the reports coming out of the White House about how he's run his administration, his iron-fisted and churlish, stiff-necked methods have put our country in greater jeopardy. Further, in my opinion, you've taken an unfair swipe at Senator Clinton. If someone's unfairly tormented enough, they're bound to want to strike back and she did, and if anyone was really paying attention for the last several years, they know she was right. Finally, we have a woman with a brain, a conscience and strength - more things to which our President can only aspire. And no one has said a word about the smarmy, condescending smirk on former Senator Edward's face. That, alone, turned me off to him, once and for all.

    And by the way, you guys seem to forget that this woman has EARNED the title of Senator and I find it repugnant and disrespectful when you consistently refer to her as simply "Hillary". Show some class, yourselves.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  417. Matt Herlihy

    Clearly, the Hillary Clinton campaign is in its "last throws." By changing her message at the last minute, she's lost the majority of New Hampshire voters and now she's running on nothing.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  418. Marian

    What's this completely chauvinist remark about going home and baking cookies!
    Just because a person's voice cracks or a tear wells up in ones
    eye you think it is time to go home a bake cookies. Lets see you go out
    and run for president, and we will see how much bigger the bags get under your
    eyes. With all this nitpicking the press is giving her, could it be the real underlieing
    factor is you are afraid of real change? The concept of having a woman as president
    as apposed to the little woman back home in the kitchen must be too scary for
    a good lot of you.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  419. Jean

    Jack I admire you and never miss listening when your on, even bought your book which is GREAT! However, I do not believe that Hillary was wrong when she retaliated to Edwards remark. She definitely showed leadership strength, had every right to make her remarks. As far as comparing her to Bush, she is nothing at all like him, she listens to all people with compassion. If you want to compare anyone with Bush it would be Mc Cain, I watched him on C-Span where he gave a relatively good speech – THEN when he stepped into the crowd he was quite uncomfortable. Complaining about the music and confetti, asking angrily to stop them. Then a woman asked him a question and he curtly stated, I don't want to talk about that and turned his back on her.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  420. LORETTA

    It shouldn't but the news channels( mostly men of course) will try to make sure that it does. No matter what she says or does it isn't right.. She stands up for herself and raises her voice to make a point and she's having a angry tirade.. If she shows some emotion and has a tear in her eye she decided to do that on purpose or she can't take the pressure...so many different reactions in just 2 days OMG! -I guess it's a good thing she is past the age of menopause or she would be accused of pmsing..

    Right now I am a John Edwards fan but I notice he received a nice positive reaction to his rude response during the debate the other night.

    My son lives in Boston and he went to see Hillary speak in Nashua. According to him she is quite likeable, very knowledgeable and able to answer questions about anything you might ask as to what her plans as president are.

    I certainly believe that she is the most experienced as to how the federal government is run and most likely would be ahead of the game putting her plans into action.

    The press needs to start treating her the same as the men who are running..

    Obama is like a rock star right now. If you aren't trying to get into his stadium you are just not where it's all at. I don't want to be a groupie.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  421. beattie

    At debate, an angry Clinton?

    No, why should it, its alll about being a woman and a woman running for president. She was defending herself...what should she do ....sit back and let people roll over her.

    The press is destroying her campaign, by critizing her every move...unlike any other person running for president.

    Its time for a change and that change is Hillary Clinton.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  422. bill

    Odd...I thought it was her finest moment during the debate...the media paints her as cold and mechanical and then takes her to task when she shows passion...can this woman ever get a break?...and your comparison of Hillary to George Bush is spurious at best...you didn't even bother to include on your blog that to which she was responding...just her comments without context...and I would hardly characterize her comments as an "outburst"

    January 7, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  423. Pat

    Yeah, well, all these guys sound alike, 'vote for me, blah, blah, blah', it doesn't make a different what they say, it all sounds the same. Exception; Obama, was the only one who came up with something, not original, but different...change! Change is what is needed in this country, enough of the same old, same old. He stepped out of the box and now all the others are looking for instructions on (1) what a box is and (2) how to jump.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  424. Shae Smith

    The Break-down of Hilary Clinton...

    From those that know her Hillary is a "nice" "warm" woman – its not coming across to the public. I would like to support the first woman President (I am an African American woman).

    I want to believe she can make changes – but the time for "change" is not during your campaign – it makes her seem undone by Obama's impact. Is there a way for Obama to have his own impact and for her to carve her own WITHOUT demolishing his accomplishments?

    I need a reason to vote FOR Hillary – not AGAINST her opponents. There is something to be said for being gracious to acknowledge that he is leading change by bringing new voters to Iowa... and without diminishing that.... highlight what Hillary WILL DO for America.

    On the question of attitude of "entitlement" – it would help if she spoke about America and its people instead of her consistent "I should be president message". Where are the American people in her message??? This position is making Obama more authentic.

    In response to her and Bill Clinton’s indictment of the media’s coverage – to that I say look at the impact Obama is having. If she is so “experienced” how is it that Obama is having a bigger impact? Wouldn’t her experience be able to generate this? She is not focusing on her own campaign but centrally on combatting his movement. There is no real substance behind her message other than the typical political campaign rhetoric. Her "experience" should have told her that the people would want to be inspired....

    "Change" your message Hillary. Please. She can't fight Obama saying you've been in Washington for 35 YEARS. Who is advising you thats the way to go in the midst of Obama's constant rising poll numbers?!

    Put simply its true that Obama's movement is largely based on a "feeling" he is creating. But on the contrary Hillary are touting 35 years of change that people cannot see or feel from you. BILL's accomplishments ARE NOT HERS!!!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  425. Lillian T Ciarrochi

    I'd only vote for Obama if he were running for preacher man of the year. What has he done? What are his plans for "change" if he becomes President? What is his foreign policy experience? His experience in health care, the Economy, etc. If the public is duped once again (thanks to white male TV types who can't bear the thought of a female "Commander in Chief)? Nominate Obama and the warhawk Republicans will keep the White House. I see more agonizing in 4 years because of a tragic mistake.

    P.S.
    Is this moderate enough for yoy Jack? You ARE an MCP.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  426. Jacqueline Mongeot

    I watched the debate. Hillary's response to a negative attack was justified,. She passionately outlined her past achievements, as well as a well outlined plan for serious changes, what's wrong with that? What will the independent voters from New Hampshire react to the debate? All depends if they are seduced by a new charismatic, intelligent, eloquent voice full of promises, or will listen to another pleading the cause of struggling classes, or if they remember Ms. Clinton's achievements, her promises to work hard to realize her goal and restore confidence in our government. Jacqueline. San Diego

    January 7, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  427. Lloyd

    Well I cannot understand your logic Jack. If you find Hillary is not your Gal then say so. But you cannot expect a candidate not to defend her position, and her reason for running to lead lead this great country. What do you think you would have done if faced with the same situation.Defend your position, defend your life's work, what's wrong with. Jack

    January 7, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  428. Marie Byrne

    You guys were waiting in the wings to attack Hillary at this very moment when Obama took Iowa. But you will all be proven wrong she will pull this out tomorrow and we will never look back. She will make history as the first women president and I should also like to say (GREAT) PRESIDENT. Sorry Cafferty you will be wrong again, your negative opinions drive us crazy we are looking forward to telling you tomorrow "We told you so" GO HILLARY FROM FLORIDA, NEW YORK,CALIFORNIA SUPPORTERS.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  429. Aly

    Dear Jack ,

    Hillary Clinton did a good job ( for the most part) in saturday nights debate. I was dissapointed to see that you just played her response to John Edwards and Barack Obama's Gang up! I DON'T think she responded in anger , but in a very passionate way ! In order to run this country you sometimes have to be stern , and Hillary Clinton was simply responding in that very way.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  430. Lovell Sewell

    Hillary

    Is angry and for the people that think Clinton did a great job less think again. I voted for Bill Clinton but now I find out that the reason jobs or going oversees is because of what he put in plan. The NAFTA.

    Also, Bill Clinton could have made the policy for gays in the Military more clearer. We have lost intelligent people because they was gay and now there have been more discharges for homosexual then it was before he made the policy change.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  431. i betancourt

    I am a woman and I am amazed at the double standard that applies to Hillary Clinton.
    She gets slapped around when she's aggressive and she's slapped around when she shows emotion. Obama and Edwards "double team" her aggressively and reporters seem to let that just slide. Edwards' whining about his rags to riches story and fist to chest claim that he cares about middle America????? Come on!!! Obama sputtering and stuttering to get his point across??? Come on!!! Edwards and Obama look more like compadres than political rivals. Doesn't anyone else see it??? We need a LEADER now.....not a smooth talking follower like Edwards nor an experienced pied piper like Obama. We need someone who can walk the talk.......GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  432. john

    lets be realistic here. cnn is as much a right wing media corporation as faux opinion. they want barack in, because he is fresh meat. the gop will have its best chance to tear him apart. the gop have nothing on clinton. her life has been an open book for 16 years, the gop have attacked her to the point, it is simply boring. i will support any democrat presidential candidate. but, obama is the " the weakest link" the gop will tear his voting record of "present" apart like there is no tomorrow. it is time america quits paying attention to the right wing media like cnn, and start listening to the candidates. obama talks change, but, avoids voting for it.... edwards, has learned well from karl rove, attacking and ganging up on hillary. but the right wing media wont report that, instead, its "clinton gets angry" how many would not get angry, for being ganged up on? we all would

    January 7, 2008 at 4:55 pm |
  433. Erin in California

    Dear Cafferty and CNN,

    As a woman, I am extremely insulted and upset by Cafferty's comment, "It might be time to stay home and bake cookies. And here's why -". After this comment, he showed Senator Clinton's expression of anger on the recent debate. This comment is blatantly sexist. Would he make this comment about Rudy Guliani?? No, he would not and he didn't when he spoke of his poor chance at getting the nomination. He was clearly referring to Senator Clinton and to even suggest that Clinton's rightful place is to be at home baking, is outrageous. Sorry Cafferty, most professional women don't have time to "bake cookies" and it is not our place to do so. If it was a joke, it was not funny and didn't come across as a joke. It seemed like a quote out of a 1950s telecast. Get with the program, watch what you say a little more, and please apologize to women viewers on the air for that inappropriate comment.

    In response to your question about whether Senator Clinton's angry response will hurt her, I don't think it will. I think Senator Clinton showed passion and true emotion during the debate and in her appearances in NH today on the campaign trail. It is obvious she truly cares about this country and has a specific plan for change and improving our image in the world. Of course she is frustrated that Senator Obama is beating her in the polls. Wouldn't you be after a year or more of constant campaigning? She is human for goodness sakes and I'm glad she is showing emotion and her true self in these last few days. It will help her in the polls, I think. Perhaps it is too late for NH, but not for the rest of the country....

    January 7, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
  434. Tom Gilmartin

    Jack,

    To describe what Hilary said and the way she said it as an "outburst" is a classic case of trying to make news where there is none. She simply made a strong point in defense of her record. Last time I looked those were all big boys she is dealing with and, good for her, in not letting them push her around
    In a world that wasn't trying to turn every scrap of news into an event to fill a 24/7 news cycle, this would have passed without notice.
    As some one who has spent 40 years attending business meetings in the Aerospace and Power Generation Industries, if you think that was an outburst, you aint seen nothing yet. And , come to think of it, I bet you may have raised your voice a time or two in a CNN news meeting in defense of a strojngly held position. Lets not get all wimpy on this one.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
  435. Ms. Elizabeth Browning

    I am also sorry that Senator Joe Biden dropped out of the race. In my opinion,
    McCain seems angry all of the time. How come the media doesn't pick up on this?

    Also, I think that most of the media is very biased and only want to express their network's opinions (whom they get their salaries from).

    January 7, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
  436. Mary Esther Salinas

    I know the number one problem facing Hillary is that she's a strong woman that never wasted her valuable time. The problem is the media like you Jack that give all the negatives of Hillary and the positives to Obama. Obama speaks of hope and vision, yet he has done nothing to help Change in the senate. He just talks, talks, talks and does nothing. It's easier said than done.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
  437. Susan

    That was an angry response? I thought it was talking back to a personal attack by Edwards.
    If she had said nothing she would have been considered weak. She can't win either way.
    Obama is a great speaker..but what exactly is the plan?He speaks in generalities and no specifics. Are we all that stupid to buy into idealistic verbage?
    I am disappointed he hardly makes it back to the Senate to actually VOTE on the issues at hand. Yes, the campaign takes time, but "Change" is made by legislation and he has missed important votes.
    I agree, the news media is concentrating too much on him.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
  438. Tom Nelson

    One question I have had is when was the last time Hillary and/or Obama have actually sat in their Senate seat on the Senate Floor. Or have actually been in the Senate building. Most Americans will lose their jobs if they miss a few days of work, but these two can miss work for two years or so. Americans again paying pay checks and health care for government workers that don't even show up for work. But they say they can fix everything they say. A good gig. Tom

    January 7, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
  439. Nancy Bacon

    My spouse and I like all of the Dems, but sexism in our country and even in the press harms Hillary unfairly. When Edwards shows anger, there's no comment. Obama's been making sleep-deprived slip up comments in NH, and no comment.
    But Hillary's not allowed to show emotion or she's branded as too emotional. She's the most qualified, but prejudice may hold her back.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
  440. Larry

    Losing, angry huh.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
  441. Thomas Bell

    I hope it will hurt her chances. Hillary is the most polarizing Democratic candidate. If she is the Democratic nominee people will vote "against" her in the general election. The Democrats need someone people will vote "for" not against.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
  442. Mary Martin

    When Hillary spoke at the NH debate she was responding to a very low comment by Edwards when he criticized her for talking about her experience and being qualified for the job of President. I don't think that it could be called an outburst. She was being assertive (of course that is an unwanted emotion that women show that men don't like to see). But than on the other hand when she was showing emotion today on a softer side, she is slammed by the media for that. I would rather have someone in the White House who can show their emotions whether it be assertive or speaking from the heart than someone who is so cold and stoic afraid of losing control if they should soften. Sure, the Presidency is a tough job and the candidate needs to be tough and strong. Someone should tell Obama and Edwards that it doesn't mean they can't show emotion. And, how dare you compare Hillary to Bush. There is no comparison. I feel that Hillary can heal the wounds that America has on our shores as well as be well received across the waters. I work in Mental Health and I am expected to be firm but caring to help patients make changes in their life. That is what I would expect from a leader in the White House and that are the qualities that Hillary has shown. Support her please, don't tear her down.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
  443. Foncita Eckman

    Why is it that when Edwards or Obama responds like Hillary did, it is considered passionate? I do not consider her response as angry at all. I think she is 100% on targert, when she says that we cannot afford to have on the job training. and as likeable as Obama is, he does not have the experience. What real changes has he already made for our country? Who is asking that of him? We know that Hillary has always had families first. I think it would be awesome to have Hillary and Edwards running our country. Our vote is going for experience. Hillary!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
  444. AZ

    I don't think her response will hurt her, I think all this negative media hurts her. I agree with her response, she had a right to respond that way. Obama is running on a promise... what has he done to prove that he can deliver on this promise? Why is no one talking about the fact that he has missed more votes as a Senator than any other Senator running for office. How can he make changes in the future when he doesn't do it now? Why isn't this being covered in the media?

    I think we need to stop dreaming and believing Obama and put are feet on the ground and look at some facts. What has he done for our country? Who has done a better job as a Senator? What does Obama stand for? I'm still not sure what he stands for besides change.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  445. Mitchell Larkins - Illinois

    Dear Jack, I felt that I displayed a pretty Informing comment and I really think you should of read it!

    January 7, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  446. ALI DICKSON

    Good God, Jack!!! The pro-Hillary comments on this blog wayyyyy outweigh the con comments!! And you read ONE positive email response on the air just now!!

    The media is what is really destroying Hillary, not Hillary herself.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  447. Lynn

    I think it is so classy that Obama doesn’t fight back with dirty politics with Hillary Clinton. Her political campaign is so dated. If she can’t even run a successful campaign without throwing stones and getting so stress out, what will she do under pressure as a US President? She is trying to discredit Obama and show false sensitivity (which she has never shown and I don’t think we would have seen if she didn’t think it would win her votes). I think she underestimated Obama and we don’t need a leader like Hillary, who has bad judgment in not knowing her opponent and doesn’t have the calmness to correct her mistakes without acting like a spoiled child.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
  448. Margaret Ouma

    Jack I want to let you know that pounding on a woman just tells us that you are a woman abuser. Your cafferty file is nothing but calling Hilary names. Shame on you, I do not know if you are married, but Iam sure if you are, you are not happy .Please enough of beating on Hilary she is not the only person running for Presidency.Find some one else,I personally know about Obama, but Iam not out there trying to put him down.Stop being so negative about Hillary. Again shame on you,and try to have some respect for this First Lady.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
  449. Shae Smith

    I am wondering if they realize that showing emotion is okay but the focus should shift from reactionary emotion to thinking of how to see Obama's optimism and raising him on experience. Hillary should reserve her emotion for retooling her message – not during the debates and definitely not to bring Obama down. Give us a reason to be FOR her not just why not to be for Obama. Or else.... it will be Obama & THE PEOPLE vs. The Clintons. She does not want that.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
  450. john

    i knew jack and the right wing cnn would not post my email into the cafferty file, they are afraid of being exposed as the right wing media that they are. lou dobbs independent? ha, as independent as bush or reagan, the two biggest mistakes american politics. i think its about time the right wing media get exposed for what they truly are. does ANYONE remember cnn showing intel which proved bush wrong, when he went on tour like he was a rock band promoting his war of lies? of course not, they supported the war. but hillary shows she isnt taking the attacks from edwards and obama, and suddenly she is an angry woman.....

    January 7, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
  451. Marian

    What's this completely chauvinist remark about going home and baking cookies!
    Just because a person's voice cracks or a tear wells up in ones
    eye you think it is time to go home a bake cookies. Lets see you go out
    and run for president, and we will see how much bigger the bags get under your
    eyes. With all this nitpicking the press is giving her, could it be the real undelying
    factor is you are afraid of real change? The concept of having a woman as president
    as apposed to the little woman back home in the kitchen must be too scary for
    a good lot of you.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
  452. Jacky

    Jack-

    I am surprised at how readily an astute, experienced (emphasis on the word experience here) news person such as yourself is taken in by the "Obama Ether." You and others are all inhaling and getting a high off of a guy who has run the most subtely negative campaign in such an ingenious way that he has taken you all in and given you that drug induced euphoric high perhaps you deserve but at the expense of your self worth, intelligence and due diligence, ie experience.

    Obama is a feel good placebo with charming charisam and no substance all wrapped neatly under the guise of denigrating experience and worthy effort as a negative while elevating himself by mere use of a word called "change" to a sanctimonious status. He is no longer a mere mortal that needs experience to run for the job of president of the United States, after all experience is a negative that sullies the rarefied air of which he breathes.

    I ask you and Obama supporters – – would you send your child to a school with unexperienced teachers? Would you let an unexperienced mechanic work on your car? Would you let an unexperienced doctor operate on you? Would CNN let an unexperienced news commentator run the news? Would you have your current job if it were not for your experience, putting in your time, putting in your effort?

    Think about how negative Obama's message really is to all of us who have worked hard and have worked long to gain the experience to deserve the jobs we hold. The job of president deserves experience.

    I feel very strongly that experience counts, it is not a negative and I wish he would stop running such a negative campaign against all the rest of us who value experience in life and on the job and who are proud of our accomplishments. Running the United States isn't about a feel good message with no substance. It is a sobering and important job that demands highly skilled credentials and a sense of what it means to be in that position.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  453. ruby

    what do you mean by "awaiting moderation"?

    January 7, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  454. Mike Sullivan

    Honest Journalism?, Getting at the Truth? Explain why your old buddy Ed Rollins was caught discussing with Lou Dobbs dirty tricks aimed at Hillary. That's keeping them honest.

    Shame on you for your yellow journalism. The issues facing this nation require careful deliberation. Stick to the issues, not the mudslinging.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  455. Larry Zavaglia

    You guys really start the spin...why the word angry> If was the canidate you favor, like Obama, you would call it emphatic, or not to be pushed around or getting tough! I can't tell anymore what channel I/m watching...perhaps your call letters should be CNNFOX and we should start calling you O'Cafferty. I want a human being for president, not a cut out that fits your liking. Give it a break! Stop with the anaylsis and report the news....not your own bias.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  456. Jackie E

    Please wake up America and put Hillary back on top. Just read the newspapers and watch the news today and become aware of how much EXPERIENCE is needed and going to count. We will be lucky if Bush doesn't get us into a war with Iran or Pakistan before we can get rid of him. If ever we needed someone with the experience to jump in and know how to solve the problems or diffuse these tense situations it is NOW.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
  457. Terri in NYC

    We didn't call Edwards and Obama 'cold' when they attacked Hillary at the debate...and we don't criticize them for being 'emotional'...instead they're 'passionate'.

    Women are allowed to defend and stand defend their records, and they're allowed to be as passionate as the men. Hillary defended herself in the debate just as any man would.

    Stop with the classic male 'snow-job' about Hillary's demeanor and whether or not she has right to be angry. Edwards and Obama attempted to steamroll her and she stood up for herself the way she should have.

    I think she shut them both up nicely and they took notice that tag-teaming her will be dealt with.

    GO HILLARY!

    January 7, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
  458. Ed Chapman

    Having been around Hillary Clinton at the White House for a two year period, it did not take that long to discover that she had a temper, and from all indications not much has changed with her demeanor! She has a long history of losing her temper, and will continue to do so as long as there are obstacles in her way to achieving the highest office in the land! The longer her campaign goes on, it will become abundantly clear that her "temper" will rear it's ugly head once again!
    When she was First Lady her "temper" surfaced on a regular basis, so I am not sure that she is the right person to represent this country at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!

    Ed ,Woodbridge,Va.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  459. Ralph Martin

    John Edwards show emotion with a heart felt speech during the debates, but that's OK because he's a man & it shows convictions.
    Hillary Clinton shows emotional heartfelt response to a supporter's question & "she's an emotional female, unstable, staged for the cameras..." according to CNN.
    If Obama or Edwards get excited during the debates then they are strong, but if Hillary Clinton gets excited than she's an emotional female or a "female dog".

    Typical attitude from old gray haired men with grey faces in grey suits with names like "John" or "Wolf"....SHAME ON YOU CNN for being so blatenly sexist & narrow minded in 2008.

    Retire you old fool!

    January 7, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  460. sarah eustis

    I think the post Judith made at 4:25 PM is absolutely the best post I have ever seen anywhere, anytime.
    You go Judith, and you go Hillary!

    We made it possible for Hillary to run and for Barack to run. Let them never forget!

    Sarah

    January 7, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  461. Bob Enriquez

    Be careful what you ask for, who wants a true freshman running the white house? Not I, give me the senior that knows the offense, knows the situations and does not panic when things are going right. I want Tom Brady, Peyton Manning like leaders. Where is Vince Young today?

    January 7, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  462. Hunter

    IM Sick of everyone running her down, The men are just scared of getting beat by a women. I want a president who will wear a usa flag on there shirt and will put there hand over there heart during the pledge, UNLIKE OBAMA! Its pretty sad that he would even consider being president, I just wish everyone would wake up! COME on everyone we need Hillary for some change not someone who just says anything to get it!

    January 7, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  463. walter ledwith

    Ms Clinton has been suffering for years from battered womans syndrone. Sad but true. I hope she can avoid a britney type public breakdown. There must be a porch and a couple of rockers somewhere for them both. There they can play power games like monopoly and not hurt anyone

    January 7, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  464. Edward

    I don't think that Hillary Clinton was "angry"! It is amazing how the media wants to tell everyone what Hillary was "feeling". She just looked passionate to me! It reminds me of what the media did to Howard Dean a few years ago.

    Taking a sound bite out of context with your "analyzing". The other thing I don't get is that I have not heard one relavent comment as to why Obama is so great.

    No one talks about what he is doing? You always just here people and talking heads say that he is inspiring. No reason why. Just vague feel good conversation.

    Hillary is the real deal! VOTE CLINTON IN 2008!

    January 7, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  465. Janie

    After months of attacks on Hillary by Chris Matthews and other on MSNBC, Jack Cafferty wants to show what a "big Man" he is by putting these offensive, sick comments on air and on his blogs. He WON"T read those that praise Senator Clinton, instead, he sits there in his shirt and tie and slings mud on her as a candidate. The main reason and the nature of these Attacks is that "she is a woman"
    Obama and Edwards were nasty during the debate with their tag team attacks, but Hillary get vilified for reacting.
    I am so sick of the media and the people of Iowa and perhaps New Hampshire for falling for these attacks.
    Hillary is the best qualified candidate on either side, but she is a WOMAN, so she is fair game for these attacks.
    I am a married women with sons and grandsons. We are teaching those sons to respect women...the media pundits were not taught that as children.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  466. woman voter

    I take issue with the men who have responded to this question of the day. They are trying to portray Hillary Clinton as a hormone-laden time bomb. She is most definitely not. I believe she is a woman of strength, intelligence and compassion. Although I do not agree with her stance on immigration, I whole-heartedly want to voice my disagreement with the answers that have been read on air just now. I think it is time for a woman to have a chance at running the country. We have had enough men in there with a cavalier attitude of my way or no way , lying to the house & senate & the country to enter into a war –give a woman a chance to mend the ills of too much testosterone.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  467. Ellen Golub

    Why does this race feel more like reality TV and less like a responsible electorate making wise decisions?

    Barack Obama is the flavor of the week and an easy fix for our racial problems– but he is all promise and JFK wannabe. Hillary Clinton has the experience, the toughness, and the ability to govern.

    I can see Iowans making this mistake, but not my canny neighbors to the North.
    Vote Hillary off the island at your peril, New Hampshire!

    January 7, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  468. Anna

    The problem with Hillary Clinton is simply her message. She chooses to say "I'm ready to fight", but America is tired of fighting. We look to Obama because he wants to bring the country together, and because he listens to what the public has to say. We don't need Clinton crying or yelling– we have our own voices. The American people have been left out of US politics for far too long.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  469. stacy

    You are a male chauvenist pig. As many of the other posters have stated it wouldn't be an issue if she were a man.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  470. J.M.

    No. It was a passionate reponse from her. And I am glad she responded the way she did. It was about time.

    This is not a beauty contest. We the people really have to wake up and look at the candidates differently and evaluate them differently from the way we did in 2000 and 2004. Look at the record of the candidate and the people the candidate is surrouded by. Instead of hearing all these wonderful promises that are being made by candidates go with someone who has a track record of actually doing something good for our country. It's not about the candidate being male or female, white or black, and it's not about how eloquently the candidates can speak; it has to be about "who can get things done?", "who has the experience that included some mistakes but mostly good intentions and ideas for the betterment of the entire country.. the poor, the middle class...everyone?"

    Instead of getting carried away by these polls and popularity contests, I urge everyone, young and old, women and men... please consider carefully. This is our future and our childrens' future. Don't take it lightly or get carried away and go with who is popular. There is no "return policy" once our vote is cast and a candidate is won and did a poor job as the president. We will have to live with the consequences not just for next 4 years ,if last two administrations are any example, then for decades.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  471. CS

    Perhaps Dan Garner would like to pose his same list of questions to the other candidates. (e.g., how many National Security meetings, how many CIA briefings, cabinet meetings, etc.) Hillary has along history of service outside her roles as first lady to support her claims of experience.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  472. Lovell Sewell

    I would like to say one thing else. Hillary saying she don't want to see the country go backward. OK HILLARY, if Obama or Edwards win or you still a DEMOCRATE how would we go backward. You will still be a part of our candiates. Please, people wake up it do not make know sense to me. Bill Clinton was a President ok she is a part of his family you had your chance. Edward ran for Vice President he had a chance. Why not give america some one new to see can they make a change?

    January 7, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  473. B. Ross

    Yes, Hilary is tearing up & why not, she has been close enough to the situation to know what is happening to this country and what we are passing to our children (if we can keep the country safe enough to pass anything at all. I believe Hilary "WALKS THE TALK" and is dedicated to putting our country back together. I like Obama but I feel Hilary is a better leader and I feel that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be a sure winner and impossible to beat. With the proper planning and dedication from both candidates the country would have 16 years to put the country back in order and possibly give our children something to respect and look forward to God Bless her and Obama too. Yes, I AM AN INDEPENDANT.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  474. Bob Enriquez

    Be careful what you ask for, who wants a true freshman running the white house? Not I, give me the senior that knows the offense, knows the situations and does not panic when things are NOT going right. I want Tom Brady, Peyton Manning like leaders. Where is Vince Young today

    January 7, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  475. Donna in ID

    This goes to show that men still don't understand women and emotions. They are still sexist with the remaks about First Ladies just drink tea or go home and bake cookies.
    I think this reaction to Obama at the debate and the emotion reaction shows she is also very human and not the cold fish everyone has tried to make her out.

    Evey talking head in the media has been digging at her for ever. This is going to be another election the media picks our President and there are to many people that aren't thinking for themselves and being brain washed about who is good for this country.
    I for one don't want to be on a flight in to a storm like Bush is leaving behind. with a pilot with a learners permit and an OJT slot . And he has come up with no flight plan or plan of action. He's just a nice looking smooth talker like the old tent preachers that took oney.
    I am an independent and haven't made up my mind but it won't be Obama.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  476. Robert Miller

    Hillary was angry?? No, No..just stating a counter point to the rhetoric of her
    opponents in the debate. (My little sister gets angrier than that over nothing...)

    The "pathos" of Obama is beating the "logos" of Hillary. Emotional language seems to always win....especially when the audience is pre-disposed to "something new" vs. "things that will work"..

    January 7, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  477. ruby

    Hillery has great strength and is going to be our greatest president ever! The boys just can't stand her competition.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  478. Raj Nair

    Media is succeding in blocking Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman. After Obama gets the nomination, the media will paly the race card and block any chance of him winning the precidency. So this is all part of a plan.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  479. Ralph Martin

    Typical right wing tactics are going on here in this elections by a bunch of good ol' boys like Jack & Wolf.

    DIVIDE & CONQUER:
    Bash Hillary because she's a woman & a Clinton, put her down show voters will not vote for her.
    THEN when Obama's the Democrats candidate for President, bash him because he's black & a liberal with little experience, hoping that the racist Americans will never elect a black man as the President.

    This will leave the good ol' boys right wing, whiter than white racist Romney a better chance at becoming the next president, or at least another good ol' boy white Conservative Republican, so that things will keep going well for the rich & powerful in this country.

    BIG PICTURE PEOPLE!

    January 7, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  480. william fitzwater , ca

    realize it is difficult for Hilary to see he fortune dipping but while she is down she if far from out.
    It is funny but the very things that are assets in some ways are a libity to her. THe funny thing in some ways she is making the same mistake as Bush has made but in the opposit direction.
    Since I'm a Obama supporter I don't wish to help the other side nor to tanter the other because every canditate is the democrates is way way better then current crop on the other side .

    January 7, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
  481. C D Hernandez

    Your comments about Senator Clinton are out of line. She responded appropriately to John Edwards' hogwash that she is the status quo and his phony attempt to align himself with Senator Obama, while attacking him on the stump.

    Edwards is the one who's been sounding more and more breathlessly angry with each passing day. Yet, you have not once referred to his tirades as angry rants. You do appear to be using a double standard unbecoming to you. Edwards also has been more and more disingenous with each passing day trying to spin his razor-thin margin over Clinton in the Iowa caucuses as a decisive WIN over Senator Clinton and suggesting that she needs to drop out of the race so that a real debate between the two leaders can take place. If that's what he believes, then he should follow his own advice and drop out.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
  482. Margaret Ouma

    It clearly shows, that America still discreminates women. Jack, you have realy discredited Hilary, and you have contributed to her failier. If Hilary does not win, the Republicans are going to win come the final elections. To me only Hilary can stand the crude republican campain.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
  483. jackie pitzulo

    I am not particularly a Hillary supporter. But it seems to me, no matter what the woman does, she is hammered for it. She is too weak, too strong, unfeeling, feels too much. The real problem with Hillary is she is a woman, That is why she gets hammered for everything she does. God forbid, the United States of America should have a woman president. We are not the forward thinking country we like to portray.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:28 pm |
  484. Elizabeth

    CNN is becoming FOX like. You are entirely unfair to Hillary – she is damned if she do and damned if she don't. If you will play fair and play the question that was posed to her we will all see her reaction in the proper context. She has been villified for the past 16 years – at least be fair and balanced in your reporting. To just play her response in isolation is poor journalism. Why wouldn't she get choked up.

    Another thing – why not show an equal amout of responses for and against. The against seems to win out every time.

    Grow up or go back to journalism school.

    Elizabeth

    January 7, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  485. Bj

    Angry? She was rational, calm and had facts to back her up. Yes, she was assertive and passionate but no one would call that anger in a male candidate. When Bush is "angry" he stammers, fumbles over his words and speaks in ill-worded platitudes. I'll take Clinton "angry" over Bush "rational" any day!

    January 7, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  486. Steve Nardi

    Jack,

    At what point is the woman allowed to defend herself without the media painting her as an angry candidate? I am still undecided as to who I am voting for, but am frustrated as I watch Edwards and Obama tag team against Clinton to paint her as the establishment and they as the agents of change. This comes from a one-term former Senator who didn't sponsor any significant legislation that made it to law plus lost in the previous federal election against Bush, along with a freshman Senator who has only been in the Senate for 3 years, missing most of the 3rd year to run for President.

    When Clinton attempts to defend against the attacks, the media describes her as an angry woman rather than a candidate defending against multiple attacks on her many accomplishments. And you should be ashamed of yourself for pairing Clinton with Bush – you media boys really dislike this woman, don't you? Or is it against any woman who might actually having a chance of breaking the ultimate glass ceiling? Are the boys afraid that they'll be the ones at home baking cookies?

    My perception is that many in the media are pushing for an Obama/Edwards ticket by portraying every time Clinton speaks with passion as anger but ignoring whenever others speak with similar passion – shouldn't the media stop trying to determine the election outcome and let the American people decide for themselves?

    January 7, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  487. Kiko

    If Bush could win a re-election after showing his anger, by bombing and starting a war, because "after all, this is a guy who tried killing my dad," then Clinton's moment of anger because of the garbage that is going on in the elections is the least of my worries

    January 7, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
  488. Diane in California

    It's so obvious the Press is pushing Obama's vcampaign. I watched both New Hampshire debates and the " pundits" didn't disect the anger displayed at the Republican debate, as they did Hillary's So, she's not allowed to defend herself when being double-treamed? This intense scrutiny is unfair and especially founded in meaningless trivia like Bill Clinton wandering off in a market. There is a double standard going on here and there's a lot of men threatened by a woman being president..

    We will all have to hold our collective noses to vote in Novemeber, as no one is the perfect candidate, But I, for one, do not want an inexperienced "rock star" calling the shots and affecting my family's survival. When attendees at Obama's'rallies are asked about his positions, most can't even give an answer.

    The Preess is creating a frenzy that does not serve this country well! We don't need a "phenomena", we need a President.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:36 pm |
  489. sarah elliott

    Jack,
    who is position to SHUT YOU UP?
    I read the majority of your 'blogs' and according to them, you offended a large group of your viewing population.
    According to most of us, you are not credible when it comes to choosing our next president, in fact, only the stupid white male minority seems to agree with you!
    it's all demographics, jackie...you are in the minority.
    Old white women are the largest base of voters, I believe, [maybe the teens...which is where obama is getting his base, quite possibly paying them to skew the numbers,] in america.
    what's more, everytime you open your mouth, you and your cronies blow your cover...you are seen as just another scared white male among the rest of them.
    You don' t have balls for sneering at Hillarys show of emotion...you've got no balls for recognizing her emotion as what it is...a womans #1 right -to be different from a man.
    You are such a loser, paid to make others look bad. I'd call that a really meaningful job!!! I can just imagine a conversation with a granddaughter in the coming years..."I was instrumental in keeping the status quo going for your kind". yeah, right....proud moments, jackie.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  490. Peggie

    I've been following the events of the caucus in Iowa and the pending NH primary unfold. Not only on CNN, but also on several channels. I am so disappointed in the obvious tilted attitude of many of the people at CNN. Including those of Mr. Cafferty. Mr. Cafferty, your bias and discriminatory attitude against Hillary Clinton is blatant. It's right up there with the attitude of Fox News. Is that what it takes to stay on the air?
    Hillary Clinton's response during the debate was in response to the double-teaming of Obama and Edwards. Edwards aligned himself with Obama out of desperation to place in NH ahead of Clinton. For Edwards it is imperative and that is desperate desperation.
    Hillary Clinton's response and what she was trying to tell those watching and listening was all true when it comes to Obama's voting record and the fact that his chairperson in NH is a lobbyist!
    It saddens my heart to hear people say, after one of Mr. Obama's speeches, that he's got their vote because he is so handsome, so charismatic. One young man actually said that listening to Mr. Obama is "better than listening to a rock star". Many, when asked if they know how Mr.Obama stands on issues said they had no idea. Didn't have a clue on his position on our economy or illegal immigration or his voting record or our defense. I guess it doesn't matter.
    So very much is at stake. I too can be inspired by a good speech, but I know where each and every candidate stands on the issues. Experience does count and if a decision concerning our country and the safety of the people of this country had to be made on January 8th of 2008 I want Hillary Clinton to be sitting in the Oval Office making that decision.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  491. dkdoyle

    I am sticking with Hillary for all the reasons already mentioned above. I just wish the talking heads like you Jack would stay out of it.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:38 pm |
  492. Harry Huffman

    Dear Jack,

    I think it's time the journalists covering the campaigns start to realize they need to change as much as the candidates do. I am turned off by journalists snidely turning on Clinton because she was "too angry" here and "too crybaby" there. It's not their call. I don't want to see and hear journalists putting forth their own personal prejudices to influence the election process. That's too much like evangelicals telling their flocks who to vote for–or against–based upon their religious dogma.

    Harry Dale Huffman

    January 7, 2008 at 5:38 pm |
  493. Dale -- Oklahoma

    Come on Jack, Hillary looks cuter when she is mad! That is why Bill married her and is sticking around.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:40 pm |
  494. jean

    It is ironic that CNN attacks Hillary the same way all those other Great Americans have for the last year and more. Geez Marie – I watch CNN because Fox is what we all know it is. I expected better from CNN. I definitely hope the best candidate is elected president – and currently in my mind that would be Hillary. However, what is most disturbing to me is that it gets increasingly more difficult as time goes on to find a media source that will truly be "fair and balanced". There is all this talk about "change", but standing in the shadows is the media on all channels and radio stations ever ready to slightly bend (i.e., change) what one candidate said or did and make it seem evil or bad when compared to the other candidates and this is so very evident when anyone is reporting on Hillary. She gets slammed for a failed health care policy – can she not get any kind of credit for trying! Oh, she must be the only person ever in Washington to have tried and failed. She married a smart and strong man who did some good things and some bad things and she weathered the bad. Together they raised a smart and lovely daughter. She believes in this country, she is a senator and she deserves the same consideration that is being given for all those other candidates out there. It might be time for us to get that "stardust" out of our eyes and be careful what we change for.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:40 pm |
  495. Eleanor

    Doesnt everyone realize that the USA has had 20 years of clintons and Bushes
    thats a LONG time for the same ole same ole
    maybe everyone should wake up and realize that and vote for someone like Obama or even Richardson
    The country really does need someone with different vision for America
    Bush and Cheney have brought the country down financially and morally
    My daughter said yesterday Americans have been 'Clinton'ized and 'Bush"Wacked for 20 years
    maybe she is right
    Give Obama a chance all of you may be very surprized at what a good president
    he will be!!

    January 7, 2008 at 5:41 pm |
  496. Hair on Chest

    God forbid that a woman candidate ever show any passion. That's only for men to do. Just like that passionate pre-emptive war in Iraq with so much testosterone and chest beating. Yeah, that's what we need more of. Bring 'em on.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
  497. Mike

    Why is it when Hillary shows strength she’s consider ruthless cold and hollow. And when she shows emotions she’s fake and a women. People are so dull these days. They know nothing about Hillary as a person but what they hear from the media. Americans are clueless when it comes to picking a winner for the white house. Hillary has shown strength courage and experience to run this country, on the other hand the other candidate is doing a whole lot of talking with no action. Edward as I recall couldn’t even stand up to Cheney on his Vice president debate in 2004 and Obama has nothing to show he’s the one for the job. He same weak on defense and him and Edward are the only one fake in this campaign. The media needs to get of her back and question the other candidate on their motives.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:44 pm |
  498. bambi

    EVERY TIME A WOMAN SPEAKS UP SHE IS LABELED A B*TCH!!! THAT IS SOOO WRONG!!!! WOMEN IN POWER OHHHH NOOO!!! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT... THE PRESIDENT'S CLUB IS JUST FOR MEN!!!! I ALWAYS FELT THAT AMERICA WOULD NEVER ELECT A WOMEN PRESIDENT JUST BECAUSE SHE'S FEMALE HOW WRONG!!! BUT PEOPLE ONLY LIKE OBAMA BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GO AGAINST A 'BLACK MAN' (ALONG WITH OPRAH) THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED RACIST BUT THEY WON'T VOTE FOR SENATOR CLINTON JUST BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:45 pm |
  499. Jerry

    We have been a loyal followers of CNN for twenty years. In the past – our quest for honest and unbias reporting kept us tuned in. For some strange reason – Both Jack and Candy have been on a Hillary bashing campaign since the Iowa Caucus and it has become obviously clear that they are trying to influence the listener with the Obama hipe and unyielding Hillary Bashing.
    For the first time in twenty years – we will be switching channels – until they start sticking to the facts and stop the Hillary Bashing. It is neither fair nor professional.

    Jerry, Debi and Family – Boynton Beach, Florida

    January 7, 2008 at 5:46 pm |
  500. denise

    I hope for your sake, she wins, regardless of your double standards toward this woman candidate. Mrs Clinton has what it takes to restore confidence in the country itself and around the world. The experience, intelligence, knowhow and compassion, she has shown over the years, makes her the most formidable candidate you have to impliment the changes you are all seeking. She understands with her mind, guts and heart, something most man will never understand. It makes her genuine. I only hope american women will wake up and give a chance to a woman who can relate to all the discrimination and worse that women are still suffering from as we speak. Countries that have elected women as their heads of state have had great results and mabe this would be the biggest, positive change for Americans. I have been married to one for 32 years and as a Canadian woman I feel very implicated in what goes on with my neighbourghs to the south. Coming third in Iowa does not make her a loser, on the contrary, it shows how strong and determined a woman can be. I hope, soon, many American woman will wake up and get on her band-wagon.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:49 pm |
  501. Tom

    Jack,
    Hillary needs to dry up the tears. It isn't going to work. She knew what was in store for her when she decided to run for president. She can thank her husband Bill for his poor running of the country and his unthinkable use of the oval office for his trysts. They also had a very poor record towards the military and that will not be forgotten by many in uniform.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:50 pm |
  502. Jerry

    Stick to the facts Jack. You seem to be preoccupied with Hillary Bashing and Obama hipe – beyond what apprears to be reasonable or responsible. We will not be voting for the Junior Senator of two years from Illinois. Once he can commit to real issues beyond more empty promises and the prospect of 4 years of on-the-job training, at our expense, perhaps – we could intelligently listen. Until then we would feel more comfortable knowing that we have an experienced leader from day one in the White House.
    We would prefer to form our own opinon – rather than the constant Hillary Bashing we are hearing from CNN. If it continues – for the first time in 20 years – we will be changing channels.

    Jerry and Debi – Boynton Beach, Florida

    January 7, 2008 at 6:06 pm |
  503. Peggie

    Sorry a correction...So very much is at stake. I too can be inspired by a good speech, but I know where each and every candidate stands on the issues. Experience does count and if a decision concerning our country and the safety of the people of this country had to be made on January 8th of 2009 I want Hillary Clinton to be sitting in the Oval Office making that decision.

    January 7, 2008 at 6:08 pm |
  504. Dr. Rita Milhollin

    Gee, Jack. What a coincidence. YOUR signature "little outbursts" of
    sarcasm, puffed up indignation, and sneering sense of superiority remind ME
    of GEORGE BUSH'S RESPONSE when HE doesn't like being disagreed with or
    attacked. YOUR "description" of Senator Clinton's response to the ganging up
    by Obama and Edwards during the debate used demeaning and dismissive terms
    such as "little outburst" and a sneering tone typical of what we women
    experience from men who want to discount women who don't know their place (at home baking cookies?).
    Couldn't it be that Senator Clinton was frustrated by two men (Obama and
    Edwards)who haven't actually pulled off any significant changes at the
    national level trying to ride a magic carpet of "change" while
    belittling and distorting her actual resume of doing what they only talk
    about?

    Rita in Portland, OR

    January 7, 2008 at 6:09 pm |
  505. Erin

    Jack, I am disgusted at your assertion that it may be time for someone to stay home and bake cookies. I can’t believe that in 2008 someone would have the audacity to make such a comment in the mainstream media! It couldn’t be more obvious that Ms. Clinton’s emotions are being scrutinized because of her gender. And you Mr. Cafferty, owe your viewers an apology for your thoughtless comment.

    January 7, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  506. Marianne

    Tragically, in this 2008 primary election process superficial emotionalism is being subsituted for careful , rational analysis of the candidate.

    Sure, Obama is good looking and speaks eloquently. But those are not adequate qualifications for the office of President of the U.S. and world leader.

    The fact that Hillary had a little water in her eyes is not important. What is important is that she has 35 years of experience that qualify her for the job.

    Obama has inadequate experience for the job of president. He will be extremely vulnerable during the extensive scutiny process leading up to the general election.

    The superficiality of the process, this irrational support by Democratic voters for the 'feel good' candidate, however unqualified, may well result in a Republican ending up winning again in the general election.

    January 7, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
  507. Gloria Cordova

    Angry? Of course one is angry when full disclosure needs be made and isn't being done. Hillary angry? All the candidates displayed anger whenever angered. It's human!

    January 7, 2008 at 6:35 pm |
  508. Betty

    Here is tthe plan, continue to villify Hillary, praise Obama(see him on CNN every minute) Let Obama continue to win, Hillary will fade away. Move to Nov 4th, the only 'CHANGE' we will see is another Republican in the white house, and the hits keep on coming.

    Theren is nothing wrong w/ Hillary crying, the ones who are weak are those men who won't/don't cry.(Remember Columbine? please read "Real Men Don't Cry" see how boys and girls are socialized differently.

    I am voting for Hillary as I know that she can be a great President; men have always had that post, can we count the wars etc; now its time to see what a woman can do

    January 7, 2008 at 6:46 pm |
  509. Rachel Ringenberg Miller

    I really don't understand why this is news. From my perspective she was trying to make sure her view was heard. In the debates people are continuously interrupting each other and in order to make your voice heard, all the candidates need to be strong. However what bothered me most was seeing the CNN clip on Hilary's "emotional" response and then hearing that John Edwards said that a president needed to be tough and have resolve. Seriously, give the woman a break. If she is angry, she is harsh, if she is emotional, she is weak. I don't think we would be having this debate if she was a man. And for the record I will most likely vote for Obama.

    January 7, 2008 at 6:58 pm |
  510. Steve Nardi

    Hmmm....I see the pattern continues Jack – 4 negative responses made it to air and only 2 which were supportive of Hillary's response. I see fair and balanced reporting is lacking throughout all media organizations and it disheartens me to see CNN jump on the anyone but Hillary band wagon.

    January 7, 2008 at 6:59 pm |
  511. R Hayward

    Just for the record, I prefer Clinton and would happily elect McCain over any of the rest of the Republicans (and several Democrats).

    That said, I'm getting tired of posting this link to snopes.com because people believe stuff sent to their email.

    Barack Obama did NOT take the oath of office on a Koran. Just to nail one of the other rumors at the same time, he also did NOT go to a radical Islamic school; "madrassa" is Arabic for any sort of school, religious (any religion) or otherwise. So the fact that he went to a "madrassa" simply means that he went to school, nothing that should be considered particularly earth shattering.

    Please folks, do your homework.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

    January 7, 2008 at 7:10 pm |
  512. John Halonen

    Hillary Angry. Come On. She is an agent of change.

    If only she had made that change after Monica!!

    Instead she kept with the status quo!!!

    January 7, 2008 at 7:16 pm |
  513. Joanne

    What an idiotic, sexist criticism. Clinton has had to put up with years of this kind of stupidity and prejudice. Her response was reasoned and calm compared to those of many of the men.
    The "commentator's" empty criticism also shows the problem with 24 hour news - gotta keep talking even when you have nothing to say.

    January 7, 2008 at 7:18 pm |
  514. kat from washington

    Between the latest democratic debate and todays Cafferty File I feel as if I'm watching an episode of "Survivor – New Hampshire". Edwards and Obama seem to have formed an alliance against Hillary and you've joined in. At the debate you could almost imagine that prior to the debate they had been whispering together out of earshot preparing for the tribal council primary. She had every right to speak up the way that she did. She was spirited, articulate and strong. We have seen this level of passion numerous times in men with little notice. Have you, the man that I have trusted to give me the facts and a perspective on the news become so emasculated with the possibility of a woman president that you are willing to join this alliance against the threat of a woman president? I'm disappointed.

    January 7, 2008 at 7:22 pm |
  515. Kathy Niang

    i think this presidential campaign has become a desperate popularity contest and that candidates with substantive experience are being brushed aside based on a fluff of eloquent and inspirational speech and poorly constructed and inappropriately reported polls. And I'm a little more than weary of the inflated, sarcastic man-speech going on in the media about the high-profile female candidate.

    Americans are still deeply conflicted about the role of women in power and how they should behave. If Senator Clinton asserts and clarifies her views, or exposes the flaws of another candidate's policy, it's suggested she's argumentative and unruly and her campaign's in a "panic". The men have the same tone; interrupt constantly and aggressively to parse tiny fragments of Senator Clinton's speech and achievements, but they are seen as participating in reasonable debate. And the media is fanning this overtly sexist and distorted interpretation.

    Further, the response rates on most of these polls are too small to have any external validity. There's far more bias than fact in these polls, but the TV and print media are sucking up all this flimsy data and spinning it to the deteriment of the public's understanding and informed individual choice...or endorsing candidates on a handful of subscribers' opinions. One of those NH polls had fewer than 900 respondents. No doubt the samples are geographically biased as well. And many others show no significant difference between Clinton and Obama. Why can't anyone take the time to report survey methodology or make a decision to dump data that's not statistically robust? Where's the critical thinking at the news desk?

    If Americans really want change, then we should elect a clear-thinking and competent woman to the office of President of the United States in 2008. And that would be Senator Clinton.

    January 7, 2008 at 8:01 pm |
  516. Paul Ojeikere

    It's quite disgusting the unbriddled display of the bias shown against Hillary by the so-called 'gentlemen of the press'. And Jack, you're up there with the best of them! How much more can someone take? You guys just want her to roll over while you publicly malign her. Imagine that knuckle-head debate moderator pretending to ask her a question while gleefully announcing on national TV how disliked she is NH. Why are you guys afraid of Hillary??

    January 7, 2008 at 8:20 pm |
  517. Gary Bailey

    I think it is about time that Hilliary asked for proof of accomplishments. Her record is clear as to her accomplishments. Her emotion is proof of her convictions being true. All true leaders show their true emotions and are very passionate about their convictions. She showed the world her passion for God and Country when she put her hand over her heart when the National Anthem played and by putting her hand on the Holy Bible when she was sworn into office. Can you say that about all of the other candidates? I am a male in my late 50's and I have shown emotions over things I truely believe in, as I am sure you have. The spin is uncalled for here Jack. Personally I would like to see the two parties thrown out the window and see a Clinton/McCain team or a McCain/Clinton team on the ballot. That would be a win/win for America on every front.

    January 7, 2008 at 8:21 pm |
  518. Ruby Coria, CA.

    Jack, Evryone is talking about change, humm I'm with Lou "change what? just for the heck of it?" Jack if things Don't change, men will always think they are superior.. then we could break that down, to taller men feel superior to shorter men, and we could break that down to race, white tall men are superior to black tall men and so on..so Hillary will be Damn if she Does! or Damn if she Doesn't! nothing will change.

    January 7, 2008 at 8:38 pm |
  519. Constance Hamedani

    Regarding race relations, I believe that many African-Americans are doing just as Mr. Obama stated, waiting to see how he will do. Rightly, there is a great distinct, difference between Mr. Obama's candidacy and previous African-Americans who have run for this office. He does indeed have the ability to bring divided interests together and he is not running as a candidate of just African-American people.
    There is a fear also that he is picking up Republican support because he may be viewed as a less formidable candidate to the Republicans than Mrs. Clinton. Because of past history, there are some within the Republican Party who will leave no stone unturned to win.
    My hope is that whoever succeeds in the upcoming elections has the stamp of approval and divine selection by God. Our country and its people have not been the best judge in recent years.

    Constance of Chicago

    January 7, 2008 at 8:58 pm |
  520. Sandra

    It is sad and despicable, that in this day and age, you would still make a comment like that Mr. Cafferty. I may not be as knowledgable as you are in the political sphere, but I do know that your comment implied Hillary was having a 'hissy fit' or some sort of emotional breakdown that a woman would have. It is statements like yours, that give leeway to the poor misguided people making comments that reek of misogny.

    Obama preaches this abstract idea of change, and you and your station continue the hype, all riding the Obama bandwagon. He is far too idealistic, and we do not need high minded idealism right now. We are in the middle of a war, and economic recession, the healthcare system is corrupt, and the government is just in general disrepair.

    Hillary has experience, and in running a country, experience is an invaluable asset. In foreign relations, healthcare, immigration; Hillary has outlined a plan because we've seen her do all these, her years as First Lady, her 6 years in the Senate. They don't count for nothing.

    Its sad that petty minded individuals, lament about 30 years of Bush/Clinton. So what? Is about the family name? Call her Hillary Rodham then! Stop finding silly, small minded reasons to ride the Obama wave of change.

    And as for the misogynists who suggested Hillary go bake cookies – perhaps its time someone reminded you wer're not in the middle ages anymore. You're simply asserting your own masculinity by insinuating such things. And its sad, very sad.

    If I was old enough to vote, Hillary Clinton would most definitely have my vote for President. She has proven she's tough enough, she's intelligent and capable of the job, and I see no logical reason why she wouldn't make a great President.

    January 7, 2008 at 10:13 pm |
  521. Donald Kennedy

    """"Jack, I am disgusted at your assertion that it may be time for someone to stay home and bake cookies. I can’t believe that in 2008 someone would have the audacity to make such a comment in the mainstream media! It couldn’t be more obvious that Ms. Clinton’s emotions are being scrutinized because of her gender. And you Mr. Cafferty, owe your viewers an apology for your thoughtless comment."""

    Jack is this true? Did you really say that? Your hearts not right my friend, you obviously have no idea how much a canidate goes thru and what they do to get there good or bad, their efforts should not easily be dismissed.

    Im ashamed of anyone making such a comment. I personally think a comment like that is cause for their impeachment.

    CNN 2 thumbs down.

    January 7, 2008 at 11:36 pm |
  522. Daniel in KY

    What happened to my post? i made a comment about Hillary messing up by not hammering on the fact that Obama was a dope-snortingcollege boy and its gets deleted?

    Are you afraid the truth will come out that after Obama gets in the Black House his people will be wearing wide brimmed hats and gold chained medialions beside him? As well as make no mistake on this a black vise president..absolutly watch and see...America will be in one heck of a mess if he's elected..too inexpericenced and and time will show it but it'll be too late..WAKE UP AMERICA..even CNN is blinded

    Whats the matter, cant handle the truth at CNN?

    January 7, 2008 at 11:44 pm |
  523. sean c.

    Jack

    It's not looking good for the Clinton Camp.

    All this anger stuff – this emotional stuff – just not working.

    Here is what's going on :

    The Clinton campaign is looking for an " EXIT STRATEGY ".

    The exit strategy is all about saving face and quickly.

    When Bill told the media he couldn't make Hillary younger , or taller, I said to myself, thats right Bill you can't do that.

    BUT, WHOOOOOO...... " I can't make her male " ........ Uh O... Not good Bill !!

    What Bill would be implying here, is that the country is not ready for a female president at this point in our history. Thus, Hillary saves face and ego. Now they can go on a national tour with book and media deals etc. etc.. Now they can tell AMERICA how AMERICANS aren't quite ready for a woman president.

    I say BULL...... If Hillary was more like a Mrs. Bhuto she would have been a shoe in, without question. There was a woman of conviction and compassion . She had a huge heart full of caring and HOPE for the people of her country. End of Story.

    January 8, 2008 at 12:27 am |
  524. Mike

    I am always amazed when listening to or reading the Cafferty File how many donwright mean people there are in America (and continually impressed that Jack and CNN validate them). I am saddened by the double standard that we have for women in this country. A man can defend himself and fight back when they are down, but when a woman does, we call her angry. Again, said that Jack and CNN seem to propagate gender disparity. And, just because Obama is different doesn't mean that he represents change... he has been in Washington for three years and I'd love to hear about the change that he has brought since being elected to the Senate.

    January 8, 2008 at 1:37 am |
  525. Vern Boyko

    What should she have done while being piled on and belittled by the nasty little boy with the $400 haircut and the pontificating professor? Sat there and allowed them to be the schoolyard bullies that they are? What has Obama accomplished? Nothing that I know of except spout generalities and platitudes as all college and university profs do. Edwards is from all accounts and excellent trial lawyer and he has amassed a fortune most of us can only dream of as an ambulance chaser. Will he be a success as the President? Who knows? He has no real record upon which to stand. The USA already has a university professor at the top of the current administration and she has been a dismal failure but Condi will go back to college and wow all of the underclassmen with her erudite speech and the fact that she was Secretary of State. Do we want to take a chance of placing another one of her stature at the head of the administration? We don't have four years to waste while either Edwards or Obama learn how to be President, if they can. We have already wasted eight years on a failure, Dubya, we need someone to clean up his mess. Why don't we pick someone with experience and who can call on people around her who have experience in running the country and dealing with the world?

    January 8, 2008 at 2:02 am |
  526. Kevin, Cali

    Jack, I've turned on CNN to watch your comments almost everyday, always found interesting ideas every time. Yesterday afternoon, I was shocked to hear you ask this question. Now I could bet that you've never liked Hillary. How do I know that? by the way you frame the question... It doesn't matter to me or anybody why you like or hate her, but as a news man and on a national TV, you should not intend to hurt anybody, especially a ( or any) presidential candidate who should deserve more respect. The role of media is to inform, report and stay neutral. CNN is not a show to entertain nor to stir controversies. I love CNN b/c at least it keeps me inform, so please put your personal feeling aside while you're on air!

    I decided not to watch Fox because it's more like a show...it's somewhat more like people magazine with full of gossips, and non-sense talks from a bunch of unproductive political analysts. I also stopped watching Hard Ball of Christ Matthew b/c he's also bias.

    I like Lou Dobb b/c he's truly a believer, very passionate on important issues, and I respect him very much even though I sometimes disagree with. I caught Lou once a while bash Hillary very harsh which I understand his compassion.

    January 8, 2008 at 6:05 am |
  527. mark

    The Wolf and Jack Show.........put down women, ridicule women, and then talk about change. What a couple of gutless wonders.

    January 8, 2008 at 6:50 am |
  528. denise

    I HOPE you can refer to the article published this morning in the New York Times. It explains why too many, like you on CNN and the media in general, are happy to see Senator Clinton having difficulties, thanks to your bias.

    I am thrilled to see a well known American woman defending Senator Clinton, reinforcing the comments I sent to you at 5:49 pm yesterday.

    This GREAT article written by OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR, Gloria Steinem is titled: WOMEN ARE NEVER FRONT-RUNNERS can be found at:.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?

    I know, first-hand, the treatment reserved for ambitious, assertive working women, especially when elected to public office, alone, among a pack of men. I am 67 years old and where I live, 10 years after having left office, I am still the subject of discrimination ( I would call it persecution) by former male collegues, most of whom are still in power. It's a sad story for everyone.

    January 8, 2008 at 8:04 am |
  529. betty rosado

    I did not see anger I saw a woman been attack and therefore responding witha firm statement. Is that anger we need more anger.

    January 8, 2008 at 1:38 pm |
  530. Bob K

    Something is fishy in Denmark. How can the polls change so dramatically? None of the candidates have said anything new since the beginning of the campaign. So aside from those few on the fence how can the polls be changing so much? Are the republicans voting for Obama because they are terrified if Clinton wins? Hillary should do what she wants to do. Like all candidates you either like or dislike her past experience and accomplishments.

    January 8, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  531. Mary Esther Salinas, Texas

    Bob K, You are right and who knows Karl Rove more than a Texan. I'm voting for Hillary because she's the only demacratic or even republican candidates that has a real plan. We have to worry about Iraq and agree with Hillary that we need to help those that are helping us now, in Iraq. That's part of the problem in the Muslim world. We go fight for spwcial intrest and then abandon them with the militant forces. It won't be safe till we capture Bin Ladin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    January 8, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  532. Joan Hardwick

    It seems to me the Clintons are whining . I think they need to quit and look at the race as it is. I have always felt that eventually they would show the real people they are. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the race.

    January 8, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  533. W. Bross

    Any Democrat in the White House will be a huge improvement. The only Republican I would ever consider voting for can't run, Arnold. I have been watching CNN's coverage of the campaigns and I have been amazed at the non stop drum beat "Hillary's cold, a machine etc. Fine, they (the right wing) despise the Clintons. At the same time the coverage of Obama has been very favorable, the words they employ when discussing him. All the openly right wing media are also singing Obama's praises. Look, I like Obama a lot and am ready to vote for him in a general election, but just watch what CNN and the other "liberal" media do should he win the nomination. They're already starting; lots of footage of the embattled streets of Kenya, talk of his inexperience. Watch how they, "the best politiical team etc." shift and reframe the coverage of Obama. Just as the media handled George W. with kid gloves until it became in style to criticize him. The mainstream media is no longer primarily concerned with informing as it is with manipulating. I have a grad degree in foreign affairs and Russian Area studies and the main stream media in this country have come to resemble more then ever the likes of the old Soviet style outlets, Pravda and Tass. It is sad and contemptible.

    January 8, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  534. K. Rhodes

    I side with what Kris said I don't want another Clinton that sounds like a Bush... I don't want the Bush/Clinton dynasty continue. She's crying meaning that she's getting desperate, please why don't we as American citizens see that?

    January 8, 2008 at 6:06 pm |
  535. Vern

    Jack, I've listened to your commentary for several years and though at times have disagreed with you, I've never before found you contemptable. In fact, your comments on and your hatred for Hillery are beyond contempt. I'm a disinterested (as opposed to uninterested) observer in your elections because I am from North of the border. I'm intensely interested because the US is the elephant vs our mouse. Whatever you do affects us big time, more than the rest of the world, because we are tarred with your brush. To see as important election as this one to the US be reduced to a small-minded, back-biting "my school, high school" sort of popularity contest is terrifying. American media and American citizens ignored and marginalized the best candidate in the race, Joe Biden, and now are driving out the second best through sand-box small mindedness. Single women are flocking to the least qualified because he is "cool" and likely for other unmentionable fantasies and goodness knows what we will finally wind up with but I hope it isn't an unqualified failure and a fool as George W. has been for the past eight years.

    January 8, 2008 at 6:07 pm |
  536. Susi from St. Petersburg, Florida

    You cannot make a purse out of a sow's ear....and you certainly cannot elect or be elected president because you choke up and all of a sudden show a bit of emotion.

    That just irrked me to no end and when Bill Clinton had the nerve to start pointing his finger and calling Senator Obama's campaign a "Fairy Tale" it did nothing to endear anything Clinton.

    Face it......we are a nation built on dreams......of underdogs....of proving time and time again that fairy tales do come true.

    He basically thumbed his nose at everyone who dares to dream and hope and believe.

    January 8, 2008 at 6:37 pm |
  537. pamela

    GOD BLESS HILLARY, for our sakes I pray every day she gets the White House
    for change. There will be dancing in the streets to celebrate her election.
    The media has been ruthless in giving her too much negative coverage, or none at all.

    I can't wait to celebrate her ultimate triumph over evil and sing with the rest of the world "HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN". The ENTIRE world is watching.

    Shame on you guys for bashing her.

    Thank God James Carville is taking over this campaign to help her.

    WE THE PEOPLE need a GODSEND TO HELP HER against ruthless men and media

    January 8, 2008 at 6:50 pm |
  538. Jennifer

    First of all, this was the first time I saw Hillary get heated in this way. To compare her to Bush by saying that she gets angry "every time" someone disagrees with her or challenges her views is the most ridiculous thing I've heard and unfair at that. I don't feel it's so awful for a politician to show some temper and/or high emotions (as long as it's well handled and expressed in a professional way). Quite frankly if you are the kind of politician that is sooo cool all the time and so "unmoved" I would be worried and would not want you to be my president. However, she should bear in mind that if overdone, it might come across as bitterness, and that is something she should definitely try to avoid. Will it hurt her majorly? I am not quite sure...I hope not, but it could turn some people off.

    January 8, 2008 at 7:36 pm |
  539. Marg

    What's up, Jack? Are you a women-hater, now? Is your anti-woman bias showing?

    Who says a woman shouldn't get angry when two men (Edwards and Obama) are ganging up on her and on the attack? What would you be saying if she had just sat there and taken it?

    I liked her passion. Anger is not a four-letter word, Jack… not even for a woman.

    Marg

    January 8, 2008 at 8:02 pm |
  540. Marc Laf

    Jack,
    I listened to Obama's speech tonight after the closing of the New Hampshire primaries and to me it was a joke. The whole speech was about CHANGE with a few comments trying to compare himself to John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Give me a break. Every candidate and most Americans for that matter want change. Who wouldn't be for change after the mess Bush has put the U.S. both at home and abroad. It's a no brainer to everyone accross the world.

    I think Hillary can and will make the necessary changes required to get America back where it should be, on top. She has to stay away from negative campaining but be tough and speak from the heart. She now has her own voice and that's what will work for her. Go Hillary.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:13 am |
  541. Gerald Shaw

    Jack:
    A lot of the EXPERTS to-day are dining on CROW it would seem. Obama is a black , and not a Native American. As A Canadian looking at it from the sidelines it seems to me this election is more of a Racial issue, rather than a search for the best qualified canidate. Remember a glib toung is a mighty tool and it seems that as always the best saleman and con artists excell at telling people exactly what they want to hear to gain their confidece.

    What is really known about this man? He is a Muslim, What is his past connection to his Nation of Birth and their teachings? Too many uncertain ansewers for me to swollow, I dont know about others.

    January 9, 2008 at 12:38 pm |
  542. Susan/New York

    Hillary is the breath of fresh air this Country needs,Its been polluted enough. she has proven herself to be for the people and has made significant progress over the years.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  543. J.F.Williams

    Mr. Cafferty you asked how did Hillary pull off her few point lead over Obama in New Hampshire! Well, sir, I usually admire your commentary very much and this is so obvious, I can't believe you missed: AN ANGRY BILL CLINTON COMING AS CLOSE AS ANY OTHER SPOUSE OF A PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANT HAS EVER DONE IN MY REMEMBRANCE (AND i AM 83 YEARS YOUNG) ATTACKING OBAMA THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED!I HIS BLISTERING REMARKS ,ON THE EVE OF ELECTION, HIS ANGRY THINLY VEILED RACIST REMARKS. ALONG WITH THE CROCODILE TEARS FROM AN OVERLY AMBITIOUS WOMAN ; ALONG WITH THEIR DAUGHTER'S ARROGANT REFUSAL TO GIVE AN EAGER YOUNG SCHOOL REPORTER A BRIEF MOMENT OF HER VALUABLE TIME HAS MADE ME VOW NEVER TO VOTE FOR ANY CLINTON! THEIR ARROGANCE IS INTOLERABLE.
    SO WHAT HAPPENED? THE BIG STRONG HUSBAND CAME TO THE DEFENSE OF HIS POOR TEAR-EYED SPOUSE AND DREW A SYMPATHY VOTE FROM OTHER SYMPATHETIC WOMEN AT THE LAST MOMENT BUT THEN, SHE ONLY DREW A VERY SMALL LEAD. SO MAYBE SHE BETTER STOCK UP ON SOME EXTRA TEARS!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
  544. Joyce Allen

    The Clinton used the same old same old "If at first you don't succeed lie, lie again".

    January 10, 2008 at 4:12 am |
  545. Barb

    It is funny to me how when a man gets angry he is being accertive.
    When a woman gets angry she is agressive.
    Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    How many time to we have to listen to everybody saying that Bill should shut up, Why? It is wife and if he want to defend her in anyway so be it.
    What about the rest of the canadates spouses and there comments? Oh thats right they are woman they can get away with defending their spouses.

    January 10, 2008 at 11:16 am |