January 9th, 2008
01:29 PM ET

How did Clinton win New Hampshire?


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"Back from the dead."… "Who's cryin' now?"

Those are today's headlines in the New York tabloids about Hillary Clinton's upset victory in New Hampshire last night. Her surprising come-from-behind win proved all the pundits and the pollsters wrong. Polls released in the last two days before the election showed Barack Obama with a 5 to 13-point percentage lead over Clinton. Even her own campaign was expecting a loss; there were reports about staff shake-ups, you name it.

So how did Hillary stun everyone to become the second Clinton "comeback kid" in New Hampshire?

No one knows for sure, but the smart money is pointing to a diner where the former first lady was fighting back tears on Monday. No one that I talked to could ever remember seeing Hillary Clinton like that. Raw, real emotion that may have gone a long way toward countering her reputation as a cold, calculating political machine.

Whether or not the tears told the ultimate tale, New Hampshire women supported Hillary in a way they didn't in Iowa. One senior Clinton adviser suggested that John Edwards' unsympathetic response to Clinton's tears may have even pushed more women to the polls to support her.

Edwards made some stupid remark about "Presidential campaigns are tough business." Yes, they are, John. You finished third with a measly 17% of the vote and may be on your way to the same ending you experienced in 2004.

Here’s my question to you: Behind by double digits in several last-minute polls, why was Hillary Clinton able to come back and win the New Hampshire primary?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Ace writes:
This was a primary, not a caucus, so the votes were private. To put it bluntly, the women in New Hampshire were more comfortable voting for a woman than a black man. Silly me, I thought a white state (Iowa) choosing Obama was a sign of change. Perhaps New Hampshire, another predominately white state, proves the same tired old ideas still apply.

Ivan from Chicago writes:
The biggest reason was the media. They kept showing that emotional display by Hillary, which the media figured would sink her campaign. But, that is just what the voter wanted to know: that Hillary was not a robot and was a person of feelings. So as a Hillary supporter, I thank those of you in the media.

Cathy writes:
Before Hillary showed her "softer side", she didn't seem to be a person who could understand the problems most people, outside of politics, face every day. I haven't decided who to vote for in my primary, but I am at least more open to what Hillary has to say.

Beverley writes:
Somebody on her staff said, "Hey, we're going to lose this one BIG. Loosen up. Show a little feeling. Make 'em think you're human and vulnerable." And she did. Never for one moment did I think it was genuine. I believe this woman experienced her last real, uncalculated emotion when she was six. But older women in New Hampshire went for it. I can't explain the unions. Go figure.

Evan from Washington writes:
Jack, I think people are paying too much attention to her "tears" in the diner. It was her ground game and entrenched team in New Hampshire that allowed Hillary to get the vote out on her behalf. The Clintons have always maintained an incredibly organized team of supporters in the state, and it clearly paid off this time.

David writes:
Forget the tears; it was probably because people grew tired of the messianic hype surrounding Obama. In any case, thank god we didn't crown a champ with just 2 of 50 judges weighing in.

Filed under: Hillary Clinton • New Hampshire
soundoff (493 Responses)
  1. Sammye

    It may have looked as though Mrs. Clinton was behind, but even without a win in New Hampshire she was still ahead of Mr. Obama by over 2 to 1 in convention delegates. Everyone is forgetting about those "super delegates".
    After New Hampshire, she has 183 delegates to Obama's 87 and Edwards' 52.
    If they keep this up, each winning every other primary, the dem's just might have a brokered convention. Wouldn't that be a hoot to watch???

    January 9, 2008 at 1:39 pm |
  2. Lovell Sewell

    Here are some footnotes that we need to look at:

    Ok Obama is black candiate, his father is from Kenya, he is new in the senate. He might be lacking experience. We can go and on.

    Now Hillary Clinton:
    1. Yes, she have experience but what kind? Because of her or her husband?
    2. Go on the internet and look up NAFTA and see what families start this and go to your job and see why all our jobs going to other countries.
    3. When Hillary Clinton said in NH that I have so much plan for this countrie. Remember that what Bush said but if you taken from Lobbyist you not going against your money. Also she said I for this countrie what about the people.
    4. Whoever in the white house got to make peace in the middle east. This a country that do not accept a woman what then can we do for countries that believe that a woman should not be a President.
    5. Look at TV we see that Daddy Bush and Bill Clinton work on ads together know one thanking that they or talking about politics. President Bush cabinet have left do anyone think that maybe he they left because they are making room for another lobbyist president who might be Hillary Clinton. Look at the Polictics.

    I am not saying Obama can make a big change because you have to know who he will fight Big Businesses, Lobbyist, and high stakes companies. I believe he can make a change more faster then Hillary Clinton because she have experience but she also have to much invested in Lobbyist.

    January 9, 2008 at 1:40 pm |
  3. Scott

    Hilary won for all the reasons why she is running to be the next president of this country. She has the right stuff for the voters. The voting bloc that Mrs. Clinton addresses is huge in this country. Mr Obamba does not address the 40 and older group of citizens.

    Today for the first time in weeks I am not a disenfranchised voter. Thank god that Hillary won.

    The media missed the boat completely on this nomination process. The sexy word was change, but at what cost. Electing a President Obamba. This is not the end. As you see Mr McCain also won. The baby boomers and their parents will rule the day. We have to win.

    January 9, 2008 at 1:41 pm |
  4. Mark Robinson

    While I personally still have misgivings about Hillary, I think that more people are coming to believe that with Obama's rhetoric, there just may not be any "there" there, so experience could just trump the talk of change. Many newscasters compare Obama's ascendency as akin to the 1968 election, but with his lack of experience and extremely left of center views, it is really more comparable to the 1976 election. This brought us Jimmy Carter. Until our current president, perhaps the most ineffective of all the occupants of the White House. People in New Hamphshire are not stupid and they voted for substance rather than style.

    January 9, 2008 at 1:47 pm |
  5. Ed

    It was a paradigm of truth Jack. The truth overcame the falsehood of the last-minute polls. How or why matters less. Call it fate.

    January 9, 2008 at 1:47 pm |
  6. Bill, Quarryville Pennsylvania

    I think the polls had it wrong. I am glad that people decided to vote for their candidate no matter whether the polls indicated it might be a waste of their time. I think that decision played a big part in Hillary's win. Plus showing she is human being with feelings and a heart just like the rest of us.

    January 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
  7. Hannah

    Hilary came back and won last night because of her ability to improvise. For the past week we've seen her completely change her approach. The voters were obviously impressed by her lengthy Q&A sessions and her emotional outbursts. In this early stage in the election, it isn't that hard to sway a lot of voters.

    January 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
  8. Lovell Sewell

    I think people paying to much at experience but I want to know what experience she have?

    Obama IS new and he MIGHT do not have experience but when do experience is a factory. If we check President Bush pass he let one of his own father companies collapse. He never spoke of Democracy why he was governor now he over in a countrie that he lied about trying to make them Democracy. WAKE UP america Lobbyist and Big Business or more important then Middle Class.

    Some need to ask Hillary Clinton how much is the Lobbyist funding her campaign since she pointed out a Lobbyist in Barack Obama campaign. She got experience yes experience in lying to american people. YOU CANNOT MAKE CHANGE IF YOU GETTING THESE PEOPLE MONEY. That is why President Bush cannot make one. Also I do not know is people paying attention but I watch News more than I watch regular TV and I tell you Clinton and the Bushes or work together to keep they legacey and they or doing a good job.

    January 9, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
  9. Gino

    Senator Clinton won the NH primary, I think, because she came down to earth and as you said "threw away the script," showing her human self to the people she met and spoke to.
    She will better herself more in the days, weeks and months ahead if she would let the people know that she will put an end to the "special interest groups," to the "corporate biggies" that influence the way things are in the U.S., and that she will work for the interest of all U.S. citizens, not for the few who now benefit from what the politicos in Washington D.C. do! Eventually if this happens, then we could start at the state levels... get rid of incumbent politicos who have sties in their back office, replace them with good shepherds! Senator Clinton needs to show herself as a person, and remember that "to err is human" as well as "there is nothing wrong with showing one's true emotions." I have seen many men and women cry not only at funerals, but in various ceremonies... does that mean that they are less of a person?

    January 9, 2008 at 1:54 pm |
  10. Steven Kerr

    Much to the consternation of the pundits, the people of NH used their brains. It is insulting to have people in the media tell us what to think. More importantly, that is not their job. Show us the candidates giving speeches and meeting with voters and let us decipher the good from the bad. Oh, and stop using polls as substitutes for real reporting for a change.

    January 9, 2008 at 1:57 pm |
  11. Cindy

    My guess is that they were listening to CNN, and all they were hearing was about Hillary's emotional moment, and if that would get her more votes. They were on the fence, they liked Hillary, so they came to her defense. Thanks CNN!

    Cindy Edwardsville, IL

    January 9, 2008 at 2:07 pm |
  12. W B in Las Vegas

    do they have Diebold voting machines in New Hampshire?

    January 9, 2008 at 2:07 pm |
  13. Tom

    I think people are seeing that Obama is not really all that different, he just packages it well in his speeches. Here is an example. At lunch today, I saw a member of the Obama campaign launch a mean spirited personal attack on Clinton. Jessie Jackson jr attacked Clinton’s show of emotions. He kept implying that she did not cry over Katrina, she should not be crying now. What a low blow straight out of Obama’s so called clean campaign. Looks to me that Obama’s campaign is just as personal mean and dirty as any of the others.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:07 pm |
  14. Margaret Kelly

    Regarding your question about Hillary and Obama...

    Just because a woman tears up does not mean she is not strong willed and capable of running this country. She's like a mother protecting her children/country . Anyone can tell you...don't get between a mother and her children.

    She may not have the charisma, but she has the tenacity and strength to run this country.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  15. Vic P

    In politics it's not just a game of getting people to vote for you but also getting people to come out of their house and vote for you. The Clinton campaign workers may have done a great job getting supporters to come out of their homes to vote in the last 24 hours.

    Consider this, Obama had approx 102,000 votes as the 2nd place finisher or 15,000 votes more than MCcain which is fairly impressive for a conservative state like NH which also has a small minority population and it's not like the Republicans were fielding a boring slate ? As a combined ticket, the Clinton-Obama pair drew alot more voters than the MCCain-Romney 1,2 combination. This may indicate that the Republicans have alot of work to do drawing voter interest for their candidates at the national level. Right now the mood of the country makes this appear to be a big year for the democrats.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:12 pm |
  16. patricia


    Everyone says the defining moment that changed the NH primary was her tender moment, but I feel that the best moment was when she snapped back at Obama and Edwards, when they were tag teaming her at the debate.
    She reminded us that she has fought many battles for the people and that the fact that woman might be President is also historical.
    She reminded women not to get caught up in the romance of the first black president (which is also great) but that women have waited a long..long time for a female to break that last big thing...the Presidency.
    What a perfect storm of change, a woman and a black man in the most important race in years..that in it's self is amazing.
    A Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable..Let's hope that if Hillary pulls ahead that Barrack, he would be VP..than he would be primed as the next President.
    Last night was beautiful, and makes this race even more exciting.
    This is MUST SEE TV.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  17. Maggie

    Why are we calling Clinton the "comback kid" and her win in NH the biggest upset in American political history? She was ahead in the polls in NH through Obama's win in Iowa and continues to lead nationally. That is not a comeback. The pundits should report the news and results as they come in and stop all of this speculation that leads to skewed results.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  18. Ben, Chicago, IL

    Jack, who's Hillary?

    January 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  19. RC

    I don't know! She reached the women voters, I guess. Wouldn't it be great if Edwards won big in South Carolina and then Obama in Michigan, then Hillary in Nevada and so on................. If they were tied for first, there would be an open convention. If it happened in both parties, bet the networks wouldn't blow them off as boring television.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  20. Dan Hickey

    What a difference a day makes. The arrogance of 'certainty' has dissolved and the cold water icy hand of reality has chastened the political landscape, for now at least. The media does not possess the grace to be embarrased by their disgusting conduct of late, but I suspect they will attempt to find ways to cover their exposed derrieres for now at least. Eh Jack?

    January 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  21. Jim Chambers

    She made a calculated gamble and faked an emotional moment just like William Hurt's character did in Broadcast News. Unlike Ed Muskie, who lost the nomination in 1972 because he shed a tear in New Hampshire, it worked for her.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  22. Mrs Bhatt

    I think she won because she showed her true self. If we look at the top issues this country is facing today, Economy dominates the list. Clintons have proven track record in turning economy around.

    I also want to hi-light a fact that Obama's weapon against Hillary is his words and promise to unite everyone, since he knows Clintons have many opponents across the country. He is using Clintons' weakness to march ahead. He does not have any opponents since he has not been in power so far. Once he is in position of power he will have to take sides and may make enemies and opponents and may not be able to keep promise of unity. He has to go beyond words and start showing actions he has taken so far.

    In last Saturday's debate none of the presidential candidate could show "what they have done" except Hillary, what they showed was "what we can promise". Sadly her replies were labled as "anger".

    I admire his skills to lecture everyone and his speech writer even more for coming up with emotional slogans like "yes we can" . For me as a tax payer, I am waiting for Obama to prove what good he can do and how he is going to do it. I don't get impressed by a good speaker. A spiritual leader may not be a strong administrator.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  23. Peter

    Polls are great!!! They take a small section of the public and like magic give us the future. Hillary has a huge following which it would appear did not get polled. I still feel polls have a place in politics but the danger of giving a candidate an over whelming lead or advantage is no different than giving election results (winners) before the polls close.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  24. Mark Keady

    I think New Hampshire would like a do over today. My belief is that many Independents (and everyone else) felt Barack Obama had the win in the bag and went to the Republican side for McCain. Obama won big among Indpendents. Hillary among women and Democrats. It won't be that way in South Carolina.

    If you would have told the Obama camp seven days ago they'd have won Iowa handily and a very close 2nd in New Hampshire-they'd been thrilled with their chances. Today, that sneaking sense of ....inevitibility is rearing it's ugly head.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  25. Peter Kelton


    January 9, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  26. Max Hillman

    Jack, one thing is for sure, it was NOT the Bradley effect. Obama held the 36+% he was predicted to receive acording to Final NH Rasmussen Poll (the best Poll in the 04 election):

    Barack Obama 37%, Hillary Clinton 30%, John Edwards 19%, Bill Richardson 8%, Dennis Kucinich 3%.

    What happened was: John Ewards' attack on Clinton during the last debate calling the would-be first woman president a "force of status-quo" backfired as did his subsequent suggestion that a woman cannot be a commander-in-chief if she cries. Women were insulted and came to her defence. (Obama's lack of class in "likable enough" comment also didn't help).

    As a result she picked up 2-3 % from all the candidates other than Obama (and maybe a 1% form Obama as well). And it was female vote that ran away from Edwards: he, Obama and Clinton split the female vote roughly 3-way in Iowa. In New Hampshire – bye bye Edwards. Obama held his third, Clinton went up to 45% of female vote, Edwards:15%.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  27. Michael - Stamford, CT

    Why was Sentor Hillary Clinton able to make a comeback? That shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Maybe it's because the voters are sick and tired of the media bias pushing Senator Obama and the people don't like being told how to vote. Also, Democrats and Independents are starting to look at the much larger picture which is the national election in November and Hillary Clinton has the best chance to win that national election over Senator Obama. Voters don't want to hand over the Republicans another victory in 2008, they had their chance and they have failed the American people. Not only that Hillary has the passion and experience to bring us real change for the better, she is the right choice for President. Senator Obama is way too far to the left and he is out of touch with the majority of Americans, there is no way he would ever win a national election while Hillary is more in touch with the majority of Americans and she also has the know how to fix economy so that it's good for everyone not just the wealthy but for everyone. John Edwards claims to be out to help the middle class and the poor yet he has has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims. Hillary Clinton has a record that speaks for itself when it comes to fighting for the middle class and the poor, she just doesn't talk about she does it. Actions speak louder than words.
    There is also a great deal of good things about Hillary and her public record that not everyone may be aware of however former President Bill Clinton does an excellent job explaining these things in this video in the link below:


    January 9, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  28. Deborah

    Jack, can you say 'Diebold optical scan machine manipulation?' How does someone go from a 14 pt lead in the morning to a 3 pt loss by the evening? Iowa was a very public caucus, while New Hampshire was a largely machine ballot that could be manipulated. In the NH counties where ballots were hand-counted, Obama lead Clinton 38%-34%. The reverse was true in precincts where Diebold optical scan machines were used. Have we forgotten the elections of 2000 and 2004 already?

    For anyone interested, check out non-partisan voting watchdog group Black Box Voting website (blackboxvoting.org) to see how Diebold machines are distributed throughout the country. Compare the NH votes-a picture becomes very clear.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  29. Ralph

    Clinton won New Hampshire because she came back to the people. Instead of assuming that the voters will bow down before her because of her past experiences and successes, both as Senator and First Lady, Hillary realized that the key to success is not remembering the past but planning for the future; in her campaigns she approached and in her victory she surrounded herself with the new generation, not the relics of the past. She summed it up when she told her followers she found a new voice, one that represented the present and the future.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  30. Paul

    Jack, I want to believe, that people actually realized, that America is in a bad condition right now and Americans simply cannot afford young, unexperienced careerist. United States need stronger, proven leader and by that I mean Bill Clinton. Yes. his foreign policy was bad, yes his behavior was immoral, but economy was in pretty good condition! Budget surplus anyone?

    January 9, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  31. john

    I don’t think Hillary was ever behind, let alone double-digits. It seemed obvious that the polls were more or less a fabrication delivered by media that was itself in a frenzied spasm of pandering to Obama supporters. Although I have never been a fan of the Clintons, and never will be, I had to agree with Slick Willie when highlighted the media’s unbalanced “don’t touch Obama” approach to coverage.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  32. Jacob

    What did she win? They both got the same number of delegates. In my book thats a tie.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  33. Katy Hill Prescott, Az.

    She was never behind to begin with . It was all a big right-wing conspiracy!

    January 9, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  34. d. edwards

    Obviously, the voters have more common sense than to give up on a candidate just because the media, including CNN, says he/she is in trouble. As for the pre primary polls, I think most people are sick to death of so called experts, pundits etc., telling them what is happening. Some one is making alot of money selling these poll "results" so other people can make alot of money analyzing them in the various media. Most voters are smart enough to make up their own minds without the hours and hours of analysis that is the current fashion.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  35. Brian Nancoo - Trinidad

    I think the Senator hit it on the nose when she said that she 'listened to the people and found her own voice'.Her campaign spent a lot of time in direct contact with people,talking less and listening more.Also people are starting to be turned off by Senator Obama's campaign.He is coming across as a bit arrogant and condescending towards any type of questions about his ability to deliver on his promises.The tears bit probably helped,because many people think she is being picked on by the guys in the campaign,mainly Edwards and Obama and empathize with her response.People feel that her response was a normal one, one that most could relate to.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  36. Ilene

    I think people were feeling sorry for her after all the media coverage and the debate. Also there was media coverage with Bill where he outright lied about Obama. The Clinton's were desperate and it showed.
    The main thing here is the people of N.H. forget that Hillary is a liar. They forget she has already been bought and sold by insurance and drug companies. Yes, she has experience. The lying to America kind. She is a TRUE politician. Tell us one thing and do another. I can't for the life of me figure out why people think experience is such a virtue. Bush had experience. Where did that get us??
    She is not electable. Too much lying and baggage behind her that the Republicans will jump on before you can blink. Wake Up America. Vote for the only hope we have, Obama.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  37. Tom

    If I were Hillary, I'd be pissed at the insinuation that tears had everything to do with me winning the N.H. primary.
    It couldn't possible be because my message got through, finally, and I deserved it.
    By perpetuating the frail, tearful woman myth, the media is more of the problem than the solution. I think it would be wise for her to say the tears had nothing to do with the win for the next time it happens, if it does, her campaign is toast. I could see the headlines now "Clinton's tears fall on deaf ears".

    January 9, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  38. Jeff in Arizona

    On Tuesday morning, New hampshire woke up, smelled the coffee, and realized it would be a big mistake to anoint Senate Obama to be the next President of the United States. And thank God they did. New Hampshire, Amerca owes you a big, big thank you for saving us from ourselves. Hopefully, we will repay you wisely.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  39. Scott

    jack, i've been telling you that both parties will go to the conventions without a clear
    winner . we the people are going to be more involved this election than any in history. why, because were mad as hell and were going to prove to washington
    that by God they work for the american people not k-street or the mexican goverment. it's gonna be historic because we the parents have told our children
    that we will restore thier american dream possibility.
    scott missouri.

    P.s.:foriegn aide reform before welfare reform.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  40. Padmini

    The rebound of Senator Clinton in the New Hampshire primary had lot to do with two poignant moments from the Clinton Campaign. When Senator Clinton got emotional at the diner and then the former President Bill Clinton demanding hard scrutiny of Senator Obama by the media.

    I wish Senator Clinton had shown the same emotion and passion by reviewing the National Intelligence estimate prior to voting for the war in Iraq!

    The democracy in any nation is always challenged when the average person seeks a voice against the dynasty.

    Padmini, Silicon Valley, CA

    January 9, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  41. Judy

    I believe her emotion was real, weather brought on by an impending loss, or just plain exhaustion, any normal human being knows the helpless feeling of welling tears. This may have been the very thing people have been looking for in her. It isn't enough for her daughter or close personal friends to say she is a warm human being, we needed to see what it looked like on her. I think the cafe scene is what turned it around.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  42. Patricia

    Jack, From the time the Mayflower landed on Plymouth Rock, American women have always demonstrated their strength. Women worked the land along side men, fought Indians along side men, & bore children even without the aide of a male doctor. Women were told that we were too weak to know our own minds & therefore couldn't vote, but, we fought through that & won. Now, all we have to do is prove to ourselves that we are not too weak to govern the greatest generation & a great Nation. It may have indeed taken Hillary Clinton to show us the way. Will Sen. Clinton win the Democratic nomination? I don't know, but, she deserves respect from all the women around the world, because she like Margaret Thatcher didn't allow any man to tell her NO.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  43. Allan

    Because people won't admit to being racist when interviewed or polled, but show their true self in the privacy of the voting booth. The naive media were suckered. It is not the first time. Unfortunatly this country is not ready for a black President. Maybe after a woman President they will be ready. With luck that will happen

    January 9, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  44. Val

    I would like to comment on the befuddlement of the pole-watchers and say, “duh!” Do not ever underestimate the power and persuasion of human emotion. Everyone is asking why Hillary did so well and why Obama came in close behind. If the analysts would take a glimpse at a recent chapter in history where it was proven that commercialism was heavily influenced particularly within the baby-boomer generation, by playing to emotions –that sales were stimulated with emotional advertisements appealing to feelings of comfort, it would not take a rocket scientist to realize the brief glimpse Hillary shared of her “human” side was an obvious factor in her boost in popularity!
    Unless something changes drastically, I plan to vote for Obama, but even I was touched by Hillary’s genuine emotion and think she would do a decent job as our next president. Better still, put both of the top contenders together on the ticket, and I think it would be a slam-dunk against Republicans.
    The country was looking for a “real” down-to-earth president when they elected George, with all his faults revealed, but unfortunately, he was guided by an entourage of robotic money-grubbing capitalists who wouldn’t know genuineness if it hit them in their faces. Perhaps, going forward we’ll have better luck with the cabinet choices and the ability to discern, on the part of our next leader, good decisions from bad.

    January 9, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  45. stan

    apparently jack a tear shed in good time, helped her win, most women just felt sorry for her, i dont buy her "act" though, if anything it confirmed ,my fears that she is weak, and solely relies on her husband and his record to win!

    January 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm |

    Voters realized Hillary has a more detailed message and that her policies are original and that she is a fighter and will get the job done. Voters realized Obama is a ROCK STAR but lacks substance in his message. Most of his ideas are only modified versions of Hillary's original ideas. Before the primary Hillary showed a more emotional, human side of herself which was a factor in changing votes.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  47. Steven Bengtson Sr

    Gee Jack Hillary's victor didn't upset me at all! I bet you, Lou, and Glen were vomiting and rolling around in the fetal position! Get used to it that lady is going to be our President!

    January 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  48. Karen

    Yet another twisted question by CNN determined to get a rise. I don't know and neither do you. When is CNN going to cover and issue? Iraq, Medicare, Social Security, corporate welfare, foreign affairs, education for minorites? One? Any? Anything legitimate? Anything?! We're waiting CNN.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  49. John

    She did indeed get last-minute votes because of her crying display. Women voters felt sorry for her.

    Is this stroke of luck going to help her beat John McCain in November?

    Did Margaret Thatcher ever get teary-eyed when asked about her hair?

    January 9, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  50. Johnnice Ulmer

    Because although we talk about change, people in this country are not seriously ready for a real change.....Change is really the Real FEAR.... in this country...

    January 9, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  51. Cameron

    I love your show, you have us ask the tough questions and I really respect that! I just read an article about potential massive voter fraud in New Hampshire. I am no conspiracy theorist, but it is notable that Hillary was able to overcome a massive deficit to Obama that has so far defied explanation. Then you have Sutton county, which apparently shows zero votes for Ron Paul, where several voters have come forward stating they had voted for him. Add that to the fact that Obama and Paul poll observers were kicked out of many districts for apparently not having a letter of credentials from the state. What is going on, and is this just someone's fantasy? Whether or not it's true, I really think the system needs to give us voters a higher level of confidence if we are to ever stop the conspiracy theorists out there, and stomp out any traces of fraud. The whole idea frightens me.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  52. Jay Levenberg

    Dear Jack: If I were an independent voter in New Hampshire and saw that the Democratic primary had basically been decided , I would have switched and voted in the Republican primary which looked to be much closer. I believe McCain and Hillary benefited from all the speculation about the final results. Therefore, the models needed by the pollsters to predict the results were worthless on election day.
    Jay Levenberg, Palm Desert, CA.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  53. Jill

    I teach AP Government in Ohio and we have been discussing the 2008 presidential campaign frequently throughout this semester. The students each researched a different candidate and presented to the class and now with the primaries happening we are debating the isses that helped Iowa and NH voters choose the front running candidates. It has been amazing especially with all the poll numbers from the weekend and Monday which were incorrect. Today one of my students ask a question that I really don't know if I can find the answer and thought maybe CNN had the answer. Is Oprah a registered democrat and how long has she been a registered democrat? We had been discussing the impact she has had on Obama's campaign and one young lady wondered why Obama has such a celebrity cult following. Another student ask why the American voter was being so strongly influenced by a tv personality? Any ideas??

    January 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  54. Jay Levenberg

    Dear Jack: If I were an independent voter in New Hampshire and saw that the Democratic primary had basically been decided , I would have switched and voted in the Republican primary which looked to be much closer. I believe McCain and Hillary benefited from all the speculation about the final results. Therefore, the models needed by the pollsters to predict the results were worthless on election day.
    Jay Levenberg, Palm Desert, CA.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  55. Brad


    As i see it, New Hampshire was had.

    luckily the voters (the god questioning democratic types) will have another chance to do the right thing and vote for Obama in the "finals".

    a quick note:

    will someone in the media please explain to all the fear mongers out there that Obama's name doesn't imply that he is a muslim? i read everyday where some misguided, scared person is afraid al queda is infiltrating the white house. it is as wrong to assume that he is muslim as it is to assume that all muslim want to crash planes into our buildings. this is the reason we are hated across a large majority of the world – our inability to seperate faith from extremism. if that's a word.

    thanks for your time

    Brad Stoneking

    January 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  56. Beej

    Behind by double digits in several last-minute polls, why was Hillary Clinton able to come back and win the New Hampshire primary?

    That's easy. We're currently in a political climate that polls are not used too. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some more upsets based on "the polls." I hope that the apathy that the American people have towards politics is slowly being brushed away this year.

    Maybe there should be term limits on presidents and vice presidents so at least every 8 years there are a new set of fresh faces to hit the scene?

    January 9, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  57. Paul Y

    With two such powerful and compelling candidates pursuing the democractic ticket, the situation is extremely fluid and any polls only capture a snapshot of a rapidly evolving voting public. Luckily polls don't decide elections and neither do the plentiful pundits pontificating endlessly – voters decide and it looks like their voice will be heard right down to the wire. Hold on to your hats everyone.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  58. troy borresen

    Come on Jack!,

    Voter Fraud.

    How can the networks call the races with 41% of the precints reporting?

    There are people from NH that their whole family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton Township & it show up as zero votes. Obama & Paul Campaigns need to blow the whistle.

    This is nut, if are votes dont count what kind of Democracy is this?


    January 9, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  59. Jean O'Leary

    I believe it was a backlash against the media posting her political obituary on every news channel as the voting was going on in New Hampshire. I was disgusted with the coverage. Only Tom Brokaw had the decency to say after she won that it was a lesson to jounalists to refrain from speaking negatively against a candidate when the voting is in progress.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  60. Andrew S

    Clinton's tears certainly won her the women's vote which won her the primary last night. Call me cynical, but this type of ploy should come as no surprise. The Clintons are smart people and after losing the women's vote in Iowa last week, a campaign staffer must have known she needed to "soften" her image. Sadly, the American people are easily duped to believe that "all of the sudden" a tame question would bring Hillary Clinton to tears.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  61. Bob Honaker

    Considering how trustworthy Bush has been, I’ll need more proven facts before I can I get more excited about the recent attack on the US ships near the straits of Hormuz. I keep thinking about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the fact that Bush is chomping at the bits to attack Iran.
    Bob Honaker

    January 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  62. Brian

    Dear Jack,

    To think the New Hampshire Democratic Primary was anything less than a re-establishment of "typical" divisive, manipulative, and back stabbing politics is to allow ourselves to fall back to sleep.

    I hate to break it to the powers that be, but the new majority in America is Independents. People who care about issues and character more than political lines and alliances. And we are ticked off that our lives are so cheapened by two "American" parties that are only interested in self-preservation and righteousness.

    Give me a break. If there is not a "new" candidate on the ballot in November (such as Obama, Paul, McCain), many people, like me, will not participate in the vote. After all, that is what both parties want, right?

    Hell, I'm for gay marriage, pro-choice, and centralized health. But I'd vote for Huckabee over Clinton any day. Dirty politics does not deserve to be rewarded.

    PS – The Media is blatantly attacking and destroying the "common" person's free will. Shame on you all, and may America survive this period of selfish politics, corporations, and media outlets.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  63. June

    I believe Sen. Clinton had reasonable answers to our National problems and not just rhetoric. The way she was attacked in the debate and the way she took time to answer questions Sunday and Monday also seemed to help her support. It's not right that she is criticized for a change in her tone of voice or saying what she thinks. She should continue not letting them run over her.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  64. Annie

    Hillary did not win! She tied with Obama in the delegation count, and if you count the super delegates she lost! Why don't you make that your headline?

    January 9, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  65. john

    I don’t think Hillary was ever behind, let alone double-digits. It seemed obvious that the polls were more or less a fabrication delivered by media that was itself in a frenzied spasm of pandering to Obama supporters. Although I have never been a fan of the Clintons, and never will be, I had to agree with Slick Willie when highlighted the media’s unbalanced “don’t touch Obama” approach to coverage

    January 9, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  66. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    Hillary showed her human side and was warm and genuine. It proved that I believe the candidates should get rid of their handlers and slogan writers. A candidate would be much more likable and electable if they spoke from the heart and for what they really believe.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  67. Stan

    Ms. Clinton is the "establishment" candidate. Voting has become a joke. I suspect her movement was due to "voting irregularities". Her campaign has only generated a fraction of the interest Obama's has, yet she somehow squeaks by. I have zero confidence in the accuracy of electronic voting systems.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  68. Albert G. McMullin

    Why don't you and all the other "pundits" decide to give more time to candidates' positions instead of what polls say? The only difference I can see between the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire is one made pundits look bad.
    It used to be the press reported the facts and let the viewers make up their own minds. In today's world, the press seems to be suggesting who "has a chance" and who "can't win" before ANY votes are cast.
    Prime examples? Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. It was not until both of them were out of the race that Obama's lack of experience started to make the news. CNN never gave equal time to either of these candidates in their debates. What a sham CNN and Fox and MSNBC has made of the political process.
    The only reason there is any "surprise" in the New Hampshire results is how badly it made the bigmouths look.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  69. Debra Vincent

    Hillary used the gender card when nearing tears. What a cheap trick. If all else fails, cry..boo hoo. I found it funny she never cried when her husband cheated on her as most "real women" do. While some voters may fall for that bogus display, I should warn them of an experience I had. I was deployed to Saudi Arabia (my first war) in 1990. Our commander was a female. I have never been so frightened when upon arrival at a base, our "Commander" broke into tears. She was unable to lead and cried hysterically. I for one, thought we were all going to be killed. Thankfully our Chief stepped up and calmed us.

    By the way, I'm a female, mother of one son. Little did I know Hillary would send me to a second war in IRAQ. I served my country, I did not cry about it. but you can bet, I retired as soon as I could.

    As a lifetime resident of NY, Hillary has done nothing for us. She is a phony but does deserve an oscar for her most recent performance.

    Major Mom, USAF Retired

    January 9, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  70. jay upton ocala,fla

    Jack, Yes all the pundits were dead wrong, why, cause we need Hillary to clean up the mess of bush. She will take advice from bill, you know the guy, he left a hugh surpluss and who cares about monica or her blue dress. I bet she will take florida in a large margin, all the women will vote for her like the blacks will vote for obama. us old fogies will vote for her also

    January 9, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  71. carol in Mississippi

    In a society where a woman who shows emotions is considered weak, and less capable than men, most women who are leaders and in the public eye guard their emotions carefully. Too bad that it is often interpreted as being hard, or worse, b**chy. I think the fact that she has withstood the constant criticism and attacks as well as she has is remarkable. I'm afraid I would have launched a chair across the room during some of the debates, especially at Edwards these last few weeks. When he opens his mouth, I hear a loud "sucking" noise!

    January 9, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  72. Katie

    I'll tell you what it was, it wasn't the "tearing up", it was the media's relentless coverage of it. The analysis of the whole episode smacked of old fashioned sexism. The fact that most of the pundits on TV (excluding you Jack) couldn't shut up about Hillary's "emotional meltdown", really turned voters off. Men and Women alike. It was about how the talking heads, led by the Talking Head in Chief, Chris Matthews, spent hours beating up on Clinton relentlessly, viciously, and without mercy. It was about how both Obama and Edwards looked like jerks ganging up on Hillary during the last debate. Their smirks, their arrogance at beating her in Iowa, the good ole boy gangup was complete. It stuck in the conciousness of voters. ESPECIALLY women. And it likely made them take a second look at the MEAT behind the messages of these candidates. Hillary's policies are more detailed, more thought out, and more grownup, and DO represent change. One thing is for sure, voters don't want the media spoon feeding us opinion and we won't be led around by the nose. We want objective news.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  73. Jim in NJ

    Shedding a few tears on camera will not win my vote. Hillary is a very smart woman and I shudder to think what else she has in her bag of tricks. All the talk of change is also a smokescreen. The only Democratic candidate who has a chance of bringing about real change is also the only candidate who is not a member of the "old guard".

    Voting for the same old faces and expecting something different is, in itself, an act of lunacy.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  74. JT

    What amazes me Jack is not the Clinton victory but the number of NH citizens who participated in this PRIMARY election. Nearly 540,000 voted in a state with an estimated population of 1.4 million. That must me nearly 2/3 or more of the registered voters. Democracy is alive and well in America...thanks NH!!! Now, if we could generate NH's enthusiasm in the rest of the country in November we'd really have a horse race!

    January 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm |

    Once again the media is doing it. Spinning the elections left and right. But what you people out there in suits out there in the studios do not understand is this. There are real people out there looking for Hope. Yes It is true that it is your hope and wish that the Clinton Campain wins the Election. Come on now, all we hear is Obama is for Hope but he does not does not have experience. Give me a break. The man has more experience than Hillary Cllinton. She talks about 35 years? 35 years of what? Scandals? The woman is a professional phony. And Mr. Clinton is the biggest hypocrite out there. He says it is ok to get black votes, but it is a " fairy tail" to elect a black president who is for real change, someone who wants to bring the country together and solve the problems that he, Bill, has left NAFTA, weak national security. Is that what we want to go back to? More war? Hillary voted to make the Iranian guards and give Bush a blank check to war once again. I love watching the news because I like to be on top of the stories. Not only you do not report the reality that is taking places in families accross the country. But once again Media you have managed to bring back an Hopeless candidate. I really hope that anyone other than the Clintons win these elections. The last thing we need is for the special interest to take over DC again. We the people would like to take over our government. And I am pretty sure from everything we are seeing, Hillary is clearly not the Candidate of Hope and Change.
    In her speech she said" I listened to you and I found my voice" "I listened to you and I found my voice"? So does that mean that she didnt have a message until the NH primaries?
    Have a good day!

    January 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  76. jim in Wisconsin

    I'm an independent voter, and basically, my vote will not count for much because our primary elections aren't until late February. It appears the race for the party nominations will have run its course by then. Our elections are a complete travesty.
    Even with paper ballots in use, the vote totals are suspect when the counting machines are electronic. Maybe we should consult with Diebold and ask how a ten point swing like this can happen so fast. Until these machines are removed, the vote has no integrity in the eyes of the voters. Seems like deja vu all over again...

    I challenge the supporters of the candidates to urge them to have a hand recount
    so we can move on from all the suspected fraud involved with the Diebold machines.
    Someone contact Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich...I'm sure we can get at least one of them to initiate the action. NH has made millions from being first in the nation, time to put some of that money to good use.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  77. Chris H.

    Immediately following her pathetic, tearful display on Monday, you could see in Hillary Clinton's face that she had just checked off one more item in a life that has been contrived purely for political gain.

    Hillary and her husband are laughing all the way to February 5th at the fact that they have pulled yet another one over on the voters of New Hampshire.

    They may see nothing wrong with lying, cheating and distorting their way to the White House, but the American people are looking for real reform for the future, not a rehash of the pathetic politics that the Clintons perfected in the 1990s.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  78. Vinnie Vino

    The Hillary upset occurred due to a double barrelled attack. First to humanize her there was the emotional event at the dinner. Then she had former President Clinton, who still enjoys high likeabily numbers, attack Senator Obama's record. These two brilliant strategic events increased her likeability numbers enough for the victory...

    January 9, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  79. Denise

    In the political arena, Hillary is a gladiator. Obama may be one in the future, but for now, his skills would be put to better use as Vice President, learning the ropes from a seasoned fighter. Together, they would be a formidable force in reuniting this broken America.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  80. JustaGuy

    Perhaps the emotion shown by Hillary was a factor, but I agree with onenibble that her message has been consistant and generally copied by Obama. Also, Obama has a pretty thin coversheet of experience and track record. He has never sponsored pushed through any legislation of consequence while in the Senate. And a pretty thin record in the Illinois legislature also. He was too busy panning to the media as Mr. Cute guy.

    I think the younger generation that backed Obama in the Iowa caucaus' to a large extent do not remember where Hillary stood and what she tried to accomplish as First Lady during President Clinton's administration. The voters in New Hampshire did remember, I believe. I think Obama has all the good intentions in the world, but lacks judgment and experience needed to work with Congress on the really important issues facing our nation. Change only happens when people making decisions in a pluralistic society have the ability to understand and work within that system to affect the desired changes. I am certain that Hillary Clinton has that ability and the determination to accomplish it.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  81. michael

    It was the "MEDIA" they portrayed her as a victim being beaten upon by men. And the media every hour on the from Saturday through Tuesday, showed her attempting to cry, it pushed Obama out of the media spotlight even though he was the winner in Iowa. Obama would not be nasty with her, so the New York Post, The Grudge Report, Boston Globe, Fox News among others battering her, so the natural predictable thing happen women left Obama's side to come to her rescue, but any fair minded person knows if it is not for that she was toast in New Hampshire the Media did her work for her. Merry Christmas Hilary.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  82. Julie - California

    Have egg on your face, Jack? Why don't you admit it? YOU and all your cohorts had more to do with Hillary winning than the tears. The Hillary bashing was totally, totally out of hand. Apparently you didn't read all 500+ emails you received for your question on Monday; and.......the Hillary question yesterday of 400+ emails. Women are tired of the "woman" bashing. NEVER underestimate the power of women. We are sick and tired of being thought of as "too emotional" or too this or too that.......or being accused of all the other chauvenistic remarks you men make about us women. Just remember without us, you wouldn't be here. Hope you have all learned your lesson, but I doubt it, and I hope your wife gave you her two cents too. I wasn't going to vote for Hillary, but I am now. Hillary.....You Go Girl!!!!

    January 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  83. Kirk

    I find it funny that with all of the theories the media is willing to entertain, no one seems to be willing to talk about the issue of race.

    This was the Bradley Effect – plain and simple. White voters got in that booth and could not bring themselves to vote for a black man. Iowa's voting was done in the open with no secret ballot, making the Bradley effect impossible. New Hampshire residents brought their New England prejudice to the voting booth and that favored Hillary Clinton. Maybe America has not changed as much as we had hoped.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  84. 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 3:41 pm |
  85. Maynard Mansfield

    She was leading until a week ago. How did she win Jack? She won the same way she might lose by crying when things don't seem so inevitable. We never saw this from Thatcher. Self-pity is not presidential. The process is hard and it should be this is America. But this is the second time she pulled the gender card.already.
    It's not sexist to expect more grit from a presidential candidate. What if Bush cried on TV on 9/11? Their tears are from a political textbook, but world leaders like Putin would read, write, and erase a whiny, crying "leader" of the free world/"superpower"
    She'll lose men even as she gains women, she lost me.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  86. Little Lin

    Hilary Clinton won in NH because the women there decided that they were no longer going to have their Presidential candidate chosen by "old white men." The pundits (mostly men, of course) were salivating with their decision that Obama would win big and the race would be over for Democrats. They've been beating up on Hilary for months on ALL of the networks but they couldn't stop the power of women. If anyone listened to her meeting with voters over the weekend, she was asked many questions on a wide range of topics and answered with thoughful, well-informed answers. I was very impressed and wish everyone could have witnessed her readiness to serve. I don't know who will get my vote but she deserves more respect than she receives in the news.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  87. Jack Martin

    January 9 2008
    Why Hillary won.

    Easy answer jack. Polls are meaningless most of the time. Hillary was excoriated for being human by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the nasty rightwingnuts. This will switch people from voting for her opponents to voting for her. Those who hate her make her more appealing to me and I like Obama.
    Jack Martin
    Boynton Beach Florida
    46 Rutland Lane
    Boynton Beach FL 33436

    January 9, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  88. Elm

    I think the press totally underestimated the power of the Clintons and their machine. It would not suprise me to find out that the pre-election "gap" in the polls was a bit fabricated to create some underdog image to her benefit. There is no doubt that the "tears" should be suspect as being real. She does not have it in her to be emotional. Her and Bill both are consumate actors. She has this thing locked up and has had it locked up for some time. The question has and continues to be what is the best way to win the November election. The rest of the people running against her are amateurs.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  89. Robert

    That seems to be the nature of American politics. I'm confused about the whole Hillary appeal!! She claims to be the experienced candidate and a change agent. Does this experience include the decisions her husband made on NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, his backpeddling on Kyoto protocols? Where's the experience coming from? She's more corporate that any candidate running for both parties!! If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I'll be staying home come election time. A vote for Hillary is a vote for status quo, a wasted vote!! How can anyone look at the Clintons with any kind of conviction and morals after Monica!!! The Republicans will have a field day!!!

    January 9, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  90. Jennifer in Winnipeg

    Hillary started out a year ago on the top of the polls. Then the good ole boys started bad-mouthing her and putting doubt in peoples' minds. On Monday, we saw the real Hillary .. the only candidate that is truly emotional about saving the Country from total ruin. Good for her. You go Hillary!

    January 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  91. suzie from atlanta, GA

    How did this happen? You need to be asking another question.
    The one I would ask is what took so long for all of us to tune out the pundits and nasty comments, and focus on the issues.
    When the pile on go so vicious, the voters of New Hampshire, as well as a lot of citizens on blogs and comment lines finally had enough, and the basic fairness and kindness of the American people took charge.
    Obama may well be a great candidate, but that is for US to decide, and all the experts need to allow us to do that.
    Wolf asked "what went wrong" NOTHING. Everything finally went RIGHT. WE decide, not the pundits, and now perhaps all of them will begin to do what we need to do: look at the stands on the issues, read the web sites, investigate voting records, and READ.
    The pundits gave us two terms of Bush. Now WE need to start taking responsibility for our own lives, and take back our election process from them. And maybe it's time for all of you to start asking some real questions as well, instead of repeating rumours and quoting each other. Clinton and McCain are not "dead", never were, and neither are any of the others. We have another 9 months of this before the conventions, so please let us do our job. STOP quoting "EVERYONE", because "everyone" is all of you.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  92. Tom Bulger

    There were several reasons, but what I'm upset about is what Donna Brazile pointed out in the Situation Room. Bill Clinton dishonors his service and himself by denigrating an honorable person like Senator Obama. Bill took a page out of Republican dirty trickster play books. With South Carolina coming up, I hope we don"t see the same trash politics that knocked out Senator McCain and gave us George Bush.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  93. Mary Steele

    Don't be fooled by that display that got her cold image a little warmer.

    She does not have our interest at heart. Take a good look at her voting record, and the records of the rest of the candidates.

    They don't represent us now, so how can they do it when they are president? They are so willing to go against the citizens' wishes on many issues, and they still want to give amnesty to millions of illegals, which DOES put them ahead of those that are legally waiting their turn outside of this country?

    Who do you think is going to pay their health and social benefits while they work these low-paying jobs? WE ARE!

    How do you justify taking from our seniors and giving to illegals?

    Too many illegals and too many guest workers send most of what they earn, OUT of this country so it hurts our economy by slowing growth.

    Ignoring our laws, protecting us from dangerous toys, food and terrorist, are just a few issues where most of them are doing a very poor job.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  94. Virginia Davies

    Jack – You are doing Senator Obama's campaign a disservice. He has compelling positions on the issues Americans care most passionately about – hence, for example, Colin Powell's support .

    Reframing the issue simply to one of "change" prevents Americans who have only recently been introduced to Senator Obama from understanding for themselves the reasons that are the foundations on which his longer term supporters have based their support. So please, please – give Senator Obama's substantive positions an airing ; get his policy experts on the air – and for that matter those of Senator Clinton and Edwards !

    As to health care -has everyone forgotten the fiasco of Senator Clinton's last attempt to fix the healthcare system back 14 or so years ago? Is that the experience we're to find compelling?

    January 9, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  95. Ron Adkins

    She opened up to the voters and spent the time to answer their question and in doing so showed a side of her that people had not seen. If you watched the debate, she was articulate in her answer to Iraq and talked about the need for a strategy for pulling out which none of the other candidates did. This women is very articulate and informed and people will respond to that if given the chance.

    January 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  96. George Knox

    As proud as we may be to have a diverse array of Democratic Candidates, we cannot rule out two pesky factors related to race:
    Some people lie to pollsters to appear "politically correct", and
    Some people lose their courage when the moment of truth arrives at the voting machine. They can't bring themselves all the way to voting for a Black person to lead the free world. Today, some call this the "15-point factor".

    January 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  97. Ben

    Can you imagine/visualise Hillary/Bill Clinton in the WHITE HOUSE?
    At her press conference there will be lot of Tissue Boxes and GALLONS of water.
    Any tough questions she gets from the reporters (there will be lots of them) she will start shedding tears and clainm the reporters dont understand her and the the tough situations she has to face as the President! And ofcourse in any negotiations with the foreign leaders or local oppnents/criticsshe has ready recourse to her "ladylike " act of shedding a few tears to express her frustrations. Boy O Boy .. wouldnt that be ANOTHER FIRSTat the WHITE HOUSE ??!!!

    By the By, Isnt Obama an angloafrican American? I have feeling he has more white blood in him than african!

    January 9, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  98. Kenneth

    It's Simple Jack....SHE CRIED! If crying will win her the election everybody better grab some buckets.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  99. Lloyd

    You see jack you and frightened male America, and your bitter venom, encouraged, at the last moment, the working class women of New Hampshire to recognise their historical responsibility , to ensure that American chauvinistic men, who are afraid of an ambitious determined women , did not get to rip an undeserving woman to shreds.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  100. Sharon

    Hillary Clinton won the debate on Saturday. It's as simple as that. She really knows her stuff, is well informed, and truly has the experience to win the nomination and run the country. While other candidates pay lip service, she states the facts. (By the way, I live in Canada and am Canadian!)

    January 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
  101. Jason


    Isn't it possible that likely voters for Obama decided at the last minute to cast their vote in the Republican primary because pundits and all polls showed that Obama had the vote clinched? Because New Hampshire is an open primary, democrats could vote in the republican primary and I bet several voted for McCain. Did any of the crack reporters at CNN bother to ask voters in the Republican primary if they would have voted for Obama if they thought the election was going to be close?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  102. brenda

    Hi Mr Cafferty
    New Englanders know a REAL leader when they see one. We have
    given the nation true leaders in John Adams, John Quincy Adams and
    John Kennedy to name a few. Great coverage last night.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  103. brian

    Hey Jack please check out the voting fraud in New Hampshire were people claiming they voted for Ron Paul but the results show zero for Paul. The cities using Diebold voting machines Hilary won most those and the ones using the other voting machines Obama won, just go and check it out yourself

    January 9, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  104. Larry from MO.


    It goes back to the heart of the American people. Tears get peoples attention deep in their heart. This is why we are Americans. We have feelings, deep feelings. True tears will soften the heart of anybody, even voters. If you see the clip, there is no doubt that these are real tears of desperation. Tears that made even independant voters and women voters decide that this woman has feelings.
    They have blocked the issues out of their minds and rescued Hillary Clinton.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  105. Pasifikawv

    Shame on you, Jack! Calling the results of the New Hampshire primary a stunning "victory" for Clinton is a huge disservice to electoral politics in this nation. I expect this kind of rubbish from typical talking heads, but Cafferty usually cuts thru the crap. Hillary did not "WIN" the NH Primary. She and Obama TIED with 9 delegates each. Obama won in 6 of 10 counties with Hillary barely pulling out a win in one of the most populated to give her a slight edge in the popular vote. However, as history shows, the popular vote really means nothing! The fact is both Obama and Hillary picked up 9 delegates each on the NH road to the Democratic Convention. IT WAS A TIE! 9 EACH. This is not a loss for Barak Obama – nor a win for Clinton.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  106. Sam

    i question the result of this election
    the polls indicates a 10-17 point lead for obama
    the exit polls shows a tie, why would anyone lie in the exit polls
    the iowa caucases is more transparent and shows obama winning
    i think the ballet voting and e-voting is more vunerable to foul play
    i question that people in new hampshire would vote because she cried or showed emotion,
    i question the notion that clinton has more experience she served 7 years in the us senate, obama served 3 years in the us and 7 years in the state senate
    and experience as first lady does not count as experience

    January 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  107. Dale Hill

    Hillary won because I stayed up late to watch you guys and gals. Flipping from MSNBC to CNN, from CNN to MSNBC, ... . Didn't ya' just love Newsweek's front cover, this week, and Jonathan Alter's editorial, as he kissed the Clinton's off. Me? I am sick of the predatory lenders who are stabbing our higher education students to death.

    Dale – Anadarko, OK.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  108. Jordan - Cedar Rapids, IA


    She won because the VOTERS spoke instead of the pundits and pollsters.

    In fact, the near coronation of Obama probably drove people AWAY from him in disgust that the media would be so presumptive to decide for the nation, yet again, solely based on a handful of people in Iowa who weren't working or otherwise occupied and so could actually attend caucus.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  109. Jenny from New York

    I think the near-tears worked along with what appeared to be a pile-on at the debate. But did you know the woman who asked the question ended up voting for Obama, stating she didn't like how after a sincere moment she turned around and "adopted that political stance again"? I think if she can do the first part again without the second part, it will serve her well.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  110. Brenda

    Hi Mr Cafferty
    The good people of New England know true leadership when they
    see it. We have given great leaders to the nation in John Adams, John
    Quincy Adams and John F Kennedy to name a few. Thanks for great

    January 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  111. Arlin from Chicago

    Hillary won because the media tried to declare Obama the winner two days before the voting started in NH. The media was the biggest loser last night. You were so dead wrong with all your analysis regarding Hillary Clinton. The people of NH taught you "the media" a good lesson.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  112. Ivan, Chicago, Illinois

    The voters in New Hampshire have different concerns than the Iowa voter, and there was a large number of undecided that went for Hillary. I also believe that the undecided voters are satisfied with either Hillary, Obama, or Edwards, so they threw their support to McCain.
    The biggest reason was the media, they kept showing that emotional display by Hillary, which the media figured would sink her campaign, but that is just what the voter wanted to know, that Hillary was not a robot and was a person of feelings.
    So as a Hillary supporter I thank those of you in the media.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  113. Michelle C

    Hillary’s win most certainly had a lot to do with the little drama show she put on for everyone to get a feel of her “real woman” side. It seems most women in NH took it in a positive way. That also answers why she got more votes from woman than Obama in NH compared to what happened in Iowa. I don’t understand how women fell for her desperate, degrading, and fabricated approach to solving her unpopularity among many woman voters.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  114. Jeff in Connecticut

    To put Val's words int laymen's terms, the voters were duped into the fallacy that Hillary is part human and wants what's good for us all. DON"T BELIEVE IT!!!!! We've been down this road.................For 7 years now.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:09 pm |
  115. Roland

    Word is spreading in the blogosphere that there was vote fraud in NH because of the Diebold machines. It started with the Ron Paul supporters who checked Politico.com's vote tally by county. They found that 0 votes were cast for Ron paul in their county, although he says one supporter said he and his family voted for him.

    I called the Obama campaign and they said they were made aware of the allegations this morning. They are exploring what they can do about it, but I think the media needs to be aware this is happening. What's going to happen in the Primary States who use these machines, and worse, what will happen in the General Election?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  116. Shy

    So even though Clinton won a primary you at CNN are still going with your biased view towards Obama. Just say you were wrong. Report on the winner and act like reporters and not Obama staffers! She was able to come back because she was never down.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  117. Jeremey

    She took questions but most importantly she showed voters that how she had differed from Obama, and they were not attacks. It is not an attack when a candidate is contrasting her voting record with someone else's!! She was only informing the public. The media calls it an attack, but man, they have been wrong lately! Hillary Rodham Clinton will be our next president!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  118. stunner

    The bradley effect?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  119. Anne

    It's not so much that people changed their vote at the last minute – it was because so many of us would not respond to the pollsters ahead of time. We simply went in and voted on Election Day, so the talking heads and polls just didn't take us into acount.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  120. Melanie

    Everybody loves a sucker!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  121. Lisa

    Maybe NH chose the candidate who the media dubbed as the "underdog." Eveyone likes a "come from behind" win.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  122. Bo

    Ever heard of a GED?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  123. Corey

    I think Hilary was able to pull a win out of her pocket because of her outstanding ability to cry in a public cafe. She will do anything she can to win this race. Even if it requires fake emotions.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  124. Frank Boglev

    The more important question today is, why isnt' the media talking about the confirmed votes for Ron Paul in the Sutton district of NH that were not counted?
    Truth be told, the Sutton district admitted they originally counted 0 votes for Ron Paul, and when questioned about it, they did a recount, and in fact, Ron Paul had 31 votes! This is just one small county...

    Please Jack, I encourage you to have the dignity to tell the American people there is a issue with the voting that took place in NH, before we have more corrupt elections. The American people have a right to know!

    I'm just asking for a fair voting process, nothing more, nothing less.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  125. Bill Bodden

    I would have more faith in Hillary's tears if they were for the dead and wounded returning from Iraq, from the war she and McCain helped facilitate and keep going.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  126. Brody

    The simple answer: when polled, people are more than willing to say, "Yeah, I'd vote for the black guy." But when they are put into the privacy of the voting booth, people vote completely different.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  127. Mary Pearlman

    I'm guessing the secret ballot in New Hampshire tells at least part of the tale: women didn't have to vote in front of their husbands and the other men that supported Obama.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  128. Maggie

    I would say that people paid attention to her stance on key issues. For the most part, the media is stuck in this position where either Clinton is an unemotional robot, or a hysterically crying woman. She has never been either, she didn't even cry, rather got choked up. I think people can see through that two dimensional characterization, and are able to go to her website and see her position on issues.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  129. Melvin

    Oh I do not know for sure but the pollsters could have gotten hold of too many guys like me.
    As soon as I figure out it is one of those calls I NEVER give straight answers.
    These pollsters act like I just came in on the latest turnip truck and love feeding them a line.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  130. dgranfamalamute

    Forget the tears, it was probably because people grew tired of the messianic hype surrounding Obama. In any case, thank god we didn't crown a champ with just 2 of 50 judges weighing in.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  131. Etaoin

    John Edwards was less than smart with his comment but he actually said more than that. But more important, we are sick and tired of the cable shouting heads trashing this woman. Enough already. What Chris Matthews and many others have been doing to her for months and months is disgraceful. The sheer pleasure many took in her momentary problems was sickening. I am actually an Edwards' fan and believe that everyone, absolutely everyone, was exhausted between Iowa and New Hampshire should be cut a little slack. Obama wasn't real nice to her either but I think everyone was just tired. But you TV people have no excuse. Shame on you for trying to make the facts fit your preconceived narrative. Just shut up and just cover the news.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  132. Noah M.G.

    Why did Hilary win? Well, I think one factor was the overwhelmingly unfair media coverage. It angered and energized those who did believe in her and got them out to vote! Some of the people who may have been torn between two candidates got angry at the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC trying to manipulate the news and rose up to defend her!

    Report the news, don't tell us what to think!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  133. Darrin

    Jack, you just said that no one had ever seen Hillary Clinton behave like that before yesterday. Isn't it a little suspicious that, on the eve of the primary that was her last hope as a presidential candidate, she decides to "open up"? It was clearly a last ditch ploy to pick up some sympathy votes and it worked. What's gonna happen when President Hillary Clinton feels backed into a corner by Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, or the Republicans in congress?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  134. Chris; Greensburg, PA

    Hillary won last night because the pollsters where wrong in the first place. Both the pollsters and the media have inflated Obama, because he is their candidate. She won because she was always ahead in this race and the people of New Hampshire were capable of making up their own minds.
    Greensburg, PA

    January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  135. Terry

    The voters in New Hampshire were swayed by that ridiculous show of emotion. I only hope going forward that we start dealing with the issues. So far all we have heard is we need change and we need an experienced leader who can hit the floor running. Is all we need from the next president ? So far this presidential campaign is a joke, you tell me out of all these canidates can you honestly tell me one of these canidates can be president ????????

    January 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  136. C. Adams

    Guess who is going tobe the President after Hillary'stwo terms (if elected) at the White-House, Chelsea Clinton???

    By then, Chelsea will have more experience than Hillary claims to have for her 08 run........

    January 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  137. Estelle Shope

    Because a lot of people came to their senses when they entered the voting booth.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  138. Charlie Riley

    As a Political science professor stated and I forget his name, the positioning of names on the ballot can account for as much as a 3% difference in voting. Hillary's name was near the top of the ballot and Barracks was near the bottom. Some previous studies have indicated the the candidate with his/her name with an opposing candidates name lower on the ballot can account for as much as a 3% difference.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  139. Shikha

    I truly believe it was the media's constant bashing of Senator Clinton since the Iowa caucuses that gave New Hampshire voters a reason to take another look at Senator Clinton. Up to the last minute, the media was vicious in their commentary and I believe New Hampshire voters wanted to make clear that there can't be a coronation after merely one state's vote. I thank New Hampshire voters for giving us a real race. May the best person win!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  140. Don

    Don't get it twisted "The Future Is Obama" and not the blast from the past of the Clintons... who really stole Obama's ideas

    January 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  141. Maurice Colbert

    This one is easy. Hillary showed emotion and the women loved it, and Bill attacked Obama, and given the chance to answer the charge, Obama dismissed it as sour-grapes, leaving the accusations in tact and harmful. The Clinton's just flat out-smarted Obama.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  142. Allison

    Does it really matter how Hillary won? I was just thrilled to see the pollsters and media talking mouths get it wrong! Maybe this will tell the media to let us make up own minds. I don't know what will happen in the long run, but I sure would like a President that can do the job right. Let's just hope all of us voters can get it right!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  143. Jim in Michigan

    Its easy Jack.

    The polls made independent voters in New Hampshire think Obama was a shoo-in. So they voted for McCain in the Republican primary in order to stop Romney, even though Obama was their preference. The polls stole independent votes from Obama, and Hillary slipped through.

    Obama is the only one getting the independent votes needed to win the general election. Hillary is just a polarizing figure that will bring further gridlock.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  144. Howard Johnson

    Will Bill Clinton playing bad cop (bad mouthing Obama) and Hillary good cop (complete with a tear in her eye) uninformed voters were swayed by style not substance.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  145. Don Roberson

    Oh yes..Jack...it was those tears...stolen from a crocodile...but the naive public buys it all. Just like they bought the "Jesus is my Hero" from Bush. We're dealing with experts in manipulation....and the New Hampshire votes were stolen by a moment of weeping....

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  146. Bruno Stoekl

    Like many things in history, it was a combination of separate factors. Hillary's emotional speech resonated with voters, in particular women, who turned out in greater numbers to support her. A defection of independents to John McCain also hurt Obama, helping Hillary beat him by a slim 5,000 votes. Not to be overlooked is the fact that New Hampshire voters hate being told who to like: when pollsters were predicting a double-digit win for Obama, they may have been driving voters away.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  147. peter benton

    Hillary didn't come back from anywhere. It was the voters who came back. They cane back to their senses. The pundits didn't kick enough dirt on her to make a difference

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  148. Divakar R. Reddy

    230 years of democracy and not even a single women president. And US claims of women being 2nd class citizens in other countries.

    "Dont you think its high time to have a Women President, and who else can be a better president who can have a ex-president Bill Clinton as her most trustful adviser".

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  149. Jopuff

    Experience .

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  150. Marilyn Gottier

    Hillary came back because smart voters were hearing the word change from Obama but it didn't have any substance. Too bad they weren't really listening to her before; she wasn't saying "everything is beautiful" in Washington! Also, John Edwards showed what a downright cad he was in the debate and I don't care if he was the son of a millworker; I was the daughter of a railroader and the wife of a truck driver. Poor ole me!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  151. Mary

    I am confused as to why the 'pundits' & nedia think it is OK for Obama to go after the black community yet criticize Hillary for wanting to attract the women. Hillary will be our next president and she will do an awesome job. Intelligent Americans that really care about the issues realize Obama is making promises that he simply can't keep. Exiting iraq just because a new person gets into to office is a fairy tale just as Bill stated.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  152. Richard Schoenberger

    Can I answer the question with a question: Why were the polls so wrong? Maybe we spend way too much time conducting polls and discussing them. There is so much hot air spent on polling nonsense. And when CNN gives Ralph Reed and William Bennett opportunities to comment then you know it is all worthless. Rather than a Hillary comeback is it possible the polls were wrong and her double digit lead in December had actually dwindled to low single digits and the results of the NH primary just reflected that. You want me to believe she was going to lose by double digits until she shed some tears? I guess if George Bush would turn on the water works we can forgive his horrorshow of the last 7 years.

    Maybe everyone is missing the real story: Barack Obama is competing well in states with extremely low, minute, African-American populations. He speaks eloquently and is exciting. He inspires people with hope, what this country needs after years of being beaten over the head with fear. I mean if you listen to Hillary or her husband, talking about change is bad for us because it elicits hope. Give me a break. Aren't we tired of the same old thing and I'm afraid to say that Hillary is the same old thing – she sided frequently with this administration. Her vote on the allowing the president to go to war continues to inexplicable. But rather than stand up for what is right she went with the expedient route.

    Please don't exaggerate stories like the "miracle comeback." (Has anyone taken a poll of NH voters to find out why people who supposedly said they were going to vote for Obama two days before the primary ended up voting for Hillary? I suspect you can't find many because the polls were in error). Instead look for the real story not the hype. The only reason people would expect something is because the media beat them over the head with it. I know it is hard to fill up 24 hours with news but gossip and predictions are better left for an entertainment channel.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  153. jackson r tyree

    well jack id say DIEBOLD! WAS THE DECIDEING FACTOR, its not how the votes count ! its who counts the votes! untill thiers an honest voteing system , thier wont be any honest elections in america!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  154. roberta

    Aw Jack; Hillary pulled out the last stops and figured the only way to soften up you hard nosed press guys was to shed a little tear over a cup of coffee, with all the cameras rolling of course. That little tear got her a lot of attention, but she needs to be careful that it doesn't come back to bite her when some time passes; you can only do that trick once!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  155. John Carden

    I live in New Hampshire and I think the reason she won can be summed up in one unfortunate phrase: "Fear of black president."

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  156. dane brady

    Chris Matthews' pettyness had a lot to do with swinging a lot of votes for Hillary. Rachel Maddow may be looking for a new job by pointing it out to Matthews last night. I've a suggestion for her new job: Matthews'!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  157. Samuel N Weiss

    This election race is like the fantasy to date the good looking one, but marrying the one you feel will make the best wife and mother. In the end proven experience and trust in being able to deliver will overcome desire for a fresh new face and taking a chance on ability to do the job.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  158. OGonzales..Mesquite, Tx

    Hillary was able to win NH because, the voters are coming to their senses that Obama and Edwards are two empty suits, One talks about how he opposed the war from the beginning and the other one talks about that damned mill, eventually that kind of talk gets old and annoying. Hillary has alot to offer, she's beautiful, smart and is experienced. Give a woman a chance, the men have had it long enough and look what a mess they've made.

    Mesquite, Texas..

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  159. Chris - San Marcos, CA

    Dare we consider the "Bradley-effect" may have, once again, reared it's ugly head?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  160. John

    Well Jack, hopefully it was rigged, or else I have just lost all respect for the residents of New Hampsire.
    I am voteing for ron paul because I beleive in thing I never hear about... The Constitution

    January 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  161. Scott

    Human emotion. Plain and simple.

    As a side note, I think all of the candidates have mislabeled the "illegal immigrants" in this country. They are simple on vacation because the peso has finally gained higher value than the dollar. Just ask the people in Michigan.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  162. Torvin Pristell

    hillary has always had alot of resourses in N.H. and planned on winning by a landslide until oboma took iowa from undre her nose. new hamshire is one of very few states that will give the win to the clinton name. the fake tears fooled a few but won't fool many. oboma has the magic.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  163. Ed

    Its very simple jack a lot of commentators on your network aswell as others forgot one thing this country doesn"t revolve around what commentators say and predict the people of New Hampshire did there civic duties and went and voted on the person they felt best would serve this country. Oh and by the way you might want to tell mr Obama to stop getting so cocky when he wins a state this country has alot of states and it aint over until all of us have a voice

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  164. Laura Patsouris

    She won because she's a great candidate and because female voters were disgusted by the way the male candidates have been circling her and nipping at her heels trying to take her down.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  165. DKincaid

    People especially women really seemed to have gotten together and really was sick and tired of your evil vindictive ways in which you treated her. I am ashamed of Obama for taking on the attitude he has – he has become as mean as you. I am a 62 year old female who is Black and I am ashamed of him, and proud that I am a woman. GO HILLARY

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  166. Renee slater

    Jack its simple, the people of New hampshire decided to vote with their minds and their "live free or die' philosopy. Rather than get caught up in this ridiculous media and Iowa craze called Obama, they voted by comparing the candidates and the substance underneath all those layers. thank goodness, now we can have a national race. thank you NH.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  167. Scot

    Hillary won New Hampshire because she earned it. She won because she has the best plans for America and has the experience to get it done. I knocked on plenty of doors and people thought that she was the most intelligent and articulate person to lead America. She reached out to young people, my self included, and she worked hard to get women to the polls. Her organization was superior and she worked hard for every vote. I think people should realize that she is the first woman to win a nomination contest. We cannot forget that Hillary made history last night and will make history again when she is elected our first woman President.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  168. John

    Her emotion brought the sisterhood together. Have you ever known a cryfest, or the hint of one, that doesn't get woman closing ranks and guys feeling like heels and giving in. Yeah, she has the experience...but it was the "I don't know why you don't love me? What else can I do to get you to love me" that made the difference. That's what we need in a President presiding over any of tough issues....break down and shed a few tears and hope the Middle East will vote your way.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  169. Melanie

    I should also add to my last comment, actually: Crying is humane. I gather that pressure and fatigue made her cry. But it makes me wonder : how will she be if she is elected President?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  170. Joanne

    One word, Jack – Bill.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  171. George

    I think that the so called "emotion" that she showed was a cold, calculated political machine performing some of it's best work.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  172. Jean Anderson, IN.

    Several reasons for Hillary's win no doubt but what stands out to me...

    Divisive politics, politics as usual wins again. Men vs. women/old vs. young, registered vs. Independent etc. etc. People fell for it again and the king of divisive politics has not even left the Whitehouse yet. The political talking heads feed the divisiveness too.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  173. Alex

    The fact of the matter is that New Hampshire is a big state for women politicians. Jean Shaheen was governor of New Hampshire and that translated well for Clinton. The other thing is that NH is the state that does not pay attention to Iowa, they like to shake up the stakes a bit. Combine that with the latter, as well as the maudlin moment at the diner restaurant, and slick WIlly doing his job as master politician and it was very easy to see the well-oiled Clinton machine beat an honest man in Obama

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  174. John Carden

    I live in New Hampshire and I think the reason she won can be summed up in one unfortunate phrase: “Fear of a black president.”

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  175. Trudi

    Maybe the more the see of Obama, the less they like of what they don't hear him say.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  176. Steven

    If people want to elect Hillary president because she cried, we should have made Lucille Ball queen. Please tell me our standards aren't so low that a candidate finally showing human emotions is considered an electable attribute.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  177. Ronette

    Hillary was like some women who get a traffic ticket. She brought on the tears and unfortunately the New Hampshire voters played the role of the sympathetic traffic cop.
    As a woman I find it sickening that she used tears to get votes. Would everyone feel so bad if one of the male candidates cried? I don't think so. Male candidates would lose votes, the stereotypical you hurt my feeling crying female candidate gained votes.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  178. Elena

    Hi Jack, how does the egg on your face taste? You and your colleagues probably helped her more than you know. Your biased anti-Hillary reporting got me mad enough to drive from NY to New Hampshire to help. You guys just don't get it, not only is Hillary a master politician, she is a good person, if you look at all she's done over the years, it didn't take one tear to know how deeply she cares. Best, she did it without Oprah! Actually I think Hillary is a force of nature, and a very positive one for a change!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  179. mickey

    The fact that media outlets played her diner moment countless times gave her basically a free commercial, run dozens of times in the 24 hours before the vote...and women responded sympathetically to her best snapshot...nothing else could account for such a huge last minute turn around on the Democratic side.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  180. Duffle Chisolm

    Simple. Hillary Clinton has substance. If you take the time to listen to her, she has solutions to our problems. She has the class needed at this time that our country needs. As a 62 year old woman, I feel that the Republicans left me a long time ago. The men leading this country have made a royal mess of things. It is time for the hand that rocks the cradle to finally rule the world.
    Duffle from Panama City Beach, Florida

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  181. Matthew S.

    Losses transform campaigns. In 2004, Howard Dean's loss transformed him into a crazy, yelling maniac. In 2008, Hillary Clinton's loss had a more positive affect: it turned her into a real and humble woman. While this affected just a few men, it strongly affected women. Clinton's lead among women was gigantic and women were 57% of the electorate because Hillary turned into a real woman. And if that continues, she'll be hard to beat.

    Matthew S.
    Cincinnati, OH

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  182. Dan

    The people like the Clintons more than the media likes the Clintons. The people won over the pondits and the national media.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  183. michael misikoff


    All the pundits, polls and campaign strategists got it wrong and they are still missing one big point and here it is: many independents who would have voted for Barak Obama, giving him at least a small victory, chose to vote in the republican primary against Mitt Romney (meaning for McCain).

    I am non-partisan and objective. if you or any of the news media experts or campaign strategists want to know what's really going on, well...you have my email address.

    Austin, TX (not BUSh country!)

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  184. Mike Barnes

    Hillary always tries to appear tough and hardly seems sympathetic, especially with all the Republican attacks against her. Looking back I am hard pressed to remember anything she actually did wrong that even rises to the level of the rhetoric used. I think the emotion she displayed showed a real person and not just a politician, something that has been missing. I liked it. Maybe all the "Clinton Fatigue" is really just Republican attack machine fatigue. I know I am sick of it. To her attackers-If you don't have anything on her than shut up!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  185. mimi


    I think Hillary (barely) won because Obama just didn't have enough time to catch up to the fairly entrenched support she had already built there. But if women actually voted for her because she cried, then heaven help us. That is roughly the equivalent of men voting for George Bush because he was the candidate they'd rather have a beer with. Neither sentiment takes us anywhere we need to go.


    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  186. Wendy Smith


    It was not the tears! Hilary turned me around when she described the steps to get out of Iraq. She knew details about what was happening on the ground with translators, she knows she can't just up and run. She is the only candidate that asked the Pentagon for their exit strategy. They all laughed at her. The joke is going to be on them. She also told them that she worked to make change. She should get credit for the Chip program. Does John Edwards think she did not have to fight the system to get that program in place.

    I believed her in the debates, she is the one person that is ready on day one. She has basically been in the White house for sixteen years now. I'm ready for her to take the election.

    Thanks Jack

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  187. Pat

    It was not only the emotion Sen. Clinton showed on Monday. I think it was also the anger she exhibited during Sat. night's debate. Some commentators tried to make that a strike against her, but the reality is, had she been male, nothing negative would have been thought. Some of what is happening is that she is also breaking down the ideas long held about how women are supposed to act. She is showing us all a new way!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  188. Biko

    Hello Jack
    I think that it was a case of people lying to the pollsters ... for the polls to be dead wromg .. even both Obama and Hillary's internal polling to be wrong by those margins .. something smells fishy .. The polls were dead on correct in other areas!
    So I think that voters told pollsters that they would vote for Obama but gave Clinton their vote ... and as much as nobody wants to say this .. the country has not yet crssed the color barrier yet.
    I think he won Iowa because voters had to stand and be seen ... so where you say you're gonna vote .. you had to follow through !
    Obama should always add 10% to his poll figures from now on.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  189. citydog

    Make no mistake, that momentary glimpse of genuine, unscripted passion was what tipped a lot of voters in Hillary's favor. I hope she can continue her campaign with more of that raw honesty–she's already proven she can play the role of steely statesman, it's nice to see there's an impassioned human in there, too.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  190. George

    The reason Hillary Clinton won in New Hampshire when she was projected to lose is because the people of New Hampshire woke up and realized she is the most qualified candidate to be The President. Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  191. Jorge

    Well Jack that’s a simple answer… She performed a lousy acting, pretending to cry over the country’s future! I wish some one remember how she took money from the Health Insurance Companies, I wish some one remembers that this is a democracy and not a place where families lead the country, I’m sick and tired of the same Families ruling the country! They got their chance, now we need something different!! And by the way I hear there are some soap opera producers ready to offer her a role on days after she looses the primaries.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  192. Vicki Dow

    Tears and Fears. And all of you media types who were gushing over her genuine sniffles moment, was your faker radar at the shop? Clinton should send a nice little thank you note to CNN for replaying that clip 176 times, which resulted in NH women coming back to her in some kind of Sympathy Solidarity Defense movement. And don't forget the Republican fear card they played in the final hours, where only Hillary can save us from certain death.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  193. gurumanjohn

    Consider this. Maybe the polls weren't wrong. In a small State like NH and with the statistical expertise of the Clinton campaign, it's well within reason that their pollsters could have targeted key election districts and alerted female Hillary supporters to tell pollsters who called them that they were voting for Obama. They would only have had to have about a hundred women fool the pollsters to create a false impression. Ask your polling experts how easy this is in districts with only 3,000 or 4,000 eligible voters.

    Why do this? To create a false confidence in the Obama campaign and to produce exactly the kind of sympathy vote that Hillary got from women. Ask yourself why the Clinton campaign was leaking all over the place about "shakeups" and distressed campaign staff.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  194. rick troxell

    Clinton took NH because as usual the media made it clear in their opinion that Obama was to win. Maybe it's time the media stopped trying to influence the voters and listened to them instead. After all we do the voting. And it's time our votes counted more than the medias opinions and influence.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  195. John

    Polls are very unreliable, but since CNN has to fill 24 hours each day they seem to cling to them like a life raft. If pollsters are to get "reality based" samples, they need to get either larger samples or more complete contact lists. I still contend that a large part of America can't be reached thru normal contact lists that major poll organizations buy (and swear by). It could also be that folks don't necessarily tell pollsters what they really intend to do. CNN needs to conduct more news stories on hard news with less pontificating by their paid consultants and "best news teams on television" and let viewers (and America) make their own decisions. America is smarter than CNN gives them credit for.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  196. paul

    The Tears made Hope Float away on Tuesday...Tears always dry up and there is Hope again!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  197. joseph cassidy

    the people are fed up with edwards & obamn beating her up in the debates. Edwards could not carry his own state in 2994.Obama who claims npot to take special group money howerve oprah is very gererous to him,

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  198. Jim Blevins

    While conventional wisdom agrees that Clinton's display of emotion reversed the polls, it seems to me that a president that keeps emotion out of decisions if far preferable. I am much more inclined to believe that the problem was, as normal, that people try to make statistics something that they are not. While the polls said that, of people who had decided, Obama was well ahead, but almost half of those queried had not made up their minds. There is absolutely nothing that says that the future decisions will be in the same proportion as earlier decisions. Clearly, most late decisions were made in Clinton's favor.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  199. Buddy

    I have had the pleasure of meeting Hillary Clinton on two occasions, and despite what alot of people seem to think, found Her very warm, engaging, and interested in what I was saying to Her... Perhaps, more people are just now getting to see the Hillary that I know, and seeing the real person...
    Also, She is without a doubt the most scrutinized Woman in America, with all the investigations into Her past while First Lady and beyond, and what did they discover??? That She forgave Her Husband for having an affair, that's it... I think the "so called" Religious Right should take note, they claim to have the Moral High Ground, but when it all boils down to it, they are ALL talk... Hillary actually did the "Christian thing" and forgave...

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |

    from Hans Hochkamp, Ft Lauderdale Fl

    There are several reasons that Hilliary won,
    1. With the polls decalaring Obama way ahead, the independents turned to the other race. They can not stand Mitt and went for Mac, reducing Obama's support.
    2. The polls were more on instant surge not actual preference.
    3. The womams movement is alive and strong

    Still Obama gained heavily vs the pre Iowa polls and still has momentum

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  201. Toni

    I believe that the voters know that Hillary CAN get results! She is definately for CHANGE, and she shares what her changes will be. Hillary is all about results. She is what the United States needs! I believe that Obama is not as detailed as he needs to be. I believe that the voters are beginning to see that something in his message is missing. He does not seem sincere. I also believe that the majority of voters are going with what they believe. Just because iowa voted for Obama, does NOT make him #1! Way to go New Hampshire! Way to think for yourselves!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  202. Becky

    Polls are not usually this far off.! Something weird definitely happened in the 24 hours before the NH primary to push Hillary ahead. I hate to really think this....but I think Hillary's show of emotions somehow got to the voters. We should be voting on the issues and on CHANGE, and not on emotions. Hopefully voters in the next primaries will vote for the best candidate for change – Barack Obama.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  203. Paul

    It's simple, there was some vote fraud happing... I don't understand why the news is not reporting it....

    Sutton, NH for example reported Ron Paul at 0 votes and 100% precincts reporting, then after raising a lot of fuss on the internet and a family reporting that their vote was not counted. They found 31 votes... 0 versus 31... Is it not proof enough for a recount? I'm sure both Paul and Obama got shorted on this...

    There was another comparison done against the hand votes, and computer vote machines, and obama won in the hand vote counties and paul came in 3rd instead of 5th... Why are no news reporters watching these things...

    I hope a recount is called for........ The accuracy of our presidential elections is of absolute importance.



    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  204. Nicolette

    The "Ice Queen" finally was able to prove she actually has feelings by "holding back tears", and the people bought it. The real question is; were those feelings sincere or should she get an acting job if she looses the nomination? Thats a tougher decision than who gets my vote. Her performance was good, but not that good.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  205. Bruno

    Well she finally stopped being the Terminator – a cold calculating political machine – and appeared more like Linda Hamilton – tough, yet human. She needs to take the Bill Clinton political lesson 101. Have fun, appear human, let her hair down a bit and follow thru on her quote from last night ' I found my voice'. and not the scripted voice of her handlers. If she continues to be the terminator, Barack may be saying 'Hasta La Vista' baby to her on Feb 5th.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  206. Zennie Abraham

    Hi Jack,

    There's a ton of blog posts and emails flying around over the work of
    a watchdog group called The Citizens for Legitimate Government, which
    dugg into the New Hampshire data and discovered a difference between
    hand-counts and electronic vote counts such that Obama won the hand
    count 38.6 percent versus 34.9 percent for Clinton. There's a YouTube
    video about this too. Shocking and disturbing.

    Zennie Abraham in Oakland, CA.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  207. Lester Edwards

    american is looking for a change. ms clinton is by far. the best person for the jobs. people love too hated the clinton but history have show. they can get the jobs done.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  208. Cathy

    Before Hilary showed her "softer side" she didn't seem to be a person
    who could understand the problems most people, outside of politics,
    face every day. I haven't decided who to vote for in my primary, but I am
    at least more open to what Hilary has to say.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  209. Beverly Beeton

    Simple. Billary played the sympathy card. Somebody on her staff said, "Hey, we're going to lose this one BIG. Loosen up. Show a little feeling. Make 'em think you're human and vulnerable." And she did. Never for one moment did I think it was genuine. I believe this woman experienced her last real, uncalculated emotion when she was six. But older women in New Hampshire went for it. I can't explain the unions. Go figure.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  210. Rudy F

    I believe Hillary's comeback was due to the way John Edwards talk down at her during the debates on CNN...saying she was the status quo and people wanted change and no longer wanted her....this i believe was also the downfall of Obama as well, both of these guys ganging up on her the way they did...i just wonder if they treat their wives in that manner as well...hope Hillary goes on and beats the pants off them now...she defintely has my vote !!! ....thanks

    Rudy F
    Charleston ,SC

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  211. Ace

    This was a primary, not a caucus, so the votes were private. To put it bluntly, the women in New Hampshire were more comfortable voting for a woman than a black man. Silly me, I thought a white state (Iowa) choosing Obama was a sign of change. Perhaps New Hampshire, another predominately white state, proves the same tired old ideas still apply. This will come down to a younger voting bloc putting to rest the fears and prejudices of the old guard, including the Clintons. Baby boomers- out. New blood- in. Yes we can.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  212. John from Westminster


    To hear the words "Clinton" and "come from behind" were awkward to say the least...but how did "she" do it??

    I believe that there is a core group of women who have been moved to the polls by her sassy savvy...it's not sexy..but it satisfied the stats in states that stand for staunch liberal status quo...not staccato statements of seemingly standard statesmanship.

    Savvy sells states by the seashore (Florida, New Hampshire..but not South Carolina)

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  213. John Starcevich

    The people of New Hampshire looked at Obama's record and decided it wasn't as good as Clinton's. The only way they found out is because she started to compare them when SHE brought it up at the debate last Saturday. The News media never says anything bad about Obama. He's been given a free ride by the Press and the rest of the news media.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  214. Pat Jansen

    Jack,Hillary is big on substance,thank God. and small on theatrics. Obama is big on theatrics and small on substance.I'll take substance anyday with or with out emotions.thanks

    January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  215. Linda - Florida

    Did you hear the media? Did you see the pundants? They were all, including some of CNN's people, TRASHING her like POW Alice, to the MOON!!!! I would have voted for her too even if she wasn't as qualified as she apparently is and that is how she made her comeback. She didn't do it – You did! POLLS-POLLS-POLLS. There you go again, didn't you people learn anything?????

    January 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  216. Jackie Menne

    Seems Karl Rove read the polls and didn't think he needed to make the trip from Iowa to New Hampshire to have Republicans vote as Obama Democrats "for one night" like the mayor of Everly. And you though he was vacationing in Dubai all this time.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  217. Mark

    The moment I saw Hillary cry I felt really sorry for her. She has always wanted to be a president and perhaps this is her last real chance. What I saw scared me and moved me. Scared me because she seemed totally unfit to be the democrat candidate that will come under "vicious" attacks from the Republicans, or so she has claimed. It moved me because I saw a powerful person down, similarly to what happened to Martha Steward. I thought to myself, if I were elegible to vote, I would vote for her. Anyway she will lose as my count won't be relevant. As I saw that she won, I thought to myself, good thing I didn't vote, otherwise I couldn't live with myself.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  218. Barry L. Lewis

    Hillary came back because she showed strength. That's right, it takes strength to reveal emotion in public. There are enough people in NH who understand that getting teary eyed is not a sigh of weakness. Any psychologist will tell you that. I worry about those who "hold back" tears, men or women, for fear they are revealing weakness. What is revealed is a caring heart and without a caring heart it's hard to trust the mind.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  219. jim Rice

    She was cold and calculating. She was obviously losing in the poles and she got an inside straight by crying....I'm just hoping the rest of the population can picture her crying when when the the world doesn't fall into her projections......Take a midol senator...

    January 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  220. Katherine

    I did not buy into Hillary's tears for one minute. It was an act, and the people of New Hampshire ate it up. The Clinton's are obviously taking pages from Karl Rove's playbook. Notice how Hillary is now talking about CHANGE as if it were her idea to begin with. This is exactly what George Bush did in the 2000 election.
    Eventually, the rest of America will see the farce for what it is and turn to the one candidate that can heal America, Barack Obama.
    Unfortunately, I also think John Edwards is taking votes that would be Obama's. I believe in Edward's message and tough stance, but I am afraid, it is time for him to step aside.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  221. Shawn Joseph Duluth, GA

    Plain and simple...she cried. On the one hand she wants a level playing field, on the other she cries, and as a woman, she gets a positive response. But isn't this sexist? If Barack were to cry, it would end his campaign. The whole thing makes me wanna cry, wait, I'm not running for president!!!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  222. Betty Gorven

    The women rallying to her because she showed she is human and can shed tears is no criteria for electing leader of the Free World.

    Women do themselves a disservice using gender as a yardstick when making a decision as to how to cast their ballot. It has to be one who can inspire trust, and motivate others to follow their leadership. This isn't a game of tiddly winks. It's the Leadership of the Free World that is at stake.

    Entitlement and dynasty have no place in a democracy.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  223. GeorgAnn

    Dear Mr. Cafferty:

    There is only one reason for the Mrs. Clinton's upset in New Hamphine: She finally, in a moment of unguarded candor, learned how to emo-speak to the voters. No doubt there are many, many people who relate to her goals and values intellectually, but for some reason did not connect with her.

    The only reason for that lack of connection is emotions. After all, Mr. Cafferty, we are all emotional begins who just happen to think.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  224. robert

    Hey Jack, the pundits hit Bill hard when he defended his wife's record against Obama, I noticed his voice going late Monday night , I think He had more to do with her victory than you think. One should always have the right to speak up for his or her spouse.

    British Columbia

    January 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  225. Richard F. LeBlanc


    Hillary may be hard; she may be too tough for the mainstream but, when I saw (as most of New Hampshire voter's saw) that she had the trust and belief that she is "best suited" to be "Commander-in-Chief," my vote was sealed. I may live in Virginia and I voted for John Edwards in the last election but, given the state of the world and the U.S. economy, how can we afford not to elect Hillary Clinton? She is our best hope (Barack Obama is inspirational but, without proven experience, "change agents" fail at the hands of the establishment; Clinton would, most likely, even get the support of John McCain and Rudolph Guiliani; she has "earned" their respect."

    January 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  226. Christopher Howland

    Hillary came back because of one primary reason, I think. Her performance at the debate was striking. The punditocracy tried to portray it as too "angry," as if she had "lost her cool," which looked unpresidential. I think instead, people saw that she is not a robot, that she has a fire in her belly that had not really surfaced before. Additionally, I think there did seem to be a tag-team with Obama and Edwards, and women do not like to see one of their own being ganged up on. Obama's "You're likable enough" comment also seemed smug and condescending, traits that Obama has demonstrated before. So, while her "misty" episode certainly didn't hurt her, I think that the debate performance, with her spirited and substantive pushback against the boys, along with her response to the likability question, resonated with voters there. Last night was a huge win for Clinton, and the reality of the race now is that it is entirely wide open between Obama and Clinton.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  227. Mary Bee

    I think many women were revolted by Senator Obama's snide remark at Senator Clinton at the Gibson run debate - "Hillary, you're likable (long pause) enough". His narrow-eyed, pursed mouth expression told me that the remark came from his gut to his mouth without crossing his mind. Women are tender to the quick on the subject of being liked. I wasn't sold on Clinton until I heard that.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  228. john m

    Jack, I tell you why Hillary won last night, Edwards used Obama as a pawn attacking Hillary. The right wing media ( yes Jack, including you and Lou,) have tried to kill her campaign. But, Hillary kept going, defending herself, and showing why she is the best choice for president this nation has. It just goes to show, America is waking up to the right wing media, to the spin doctors who want stories, and not leaders. America knows Hillary is the best choice for president, we also know, that Hillary has ran a campaign of change, hope, and issues. You guys in the right wing media, only want Obama, because the gop will be able to attack his lackluster voting record, and skipping out on key issue votes. Please keep the anti Clinton spin the media has had for 16 years now, it only gives Hillary more suppport, and the Clinton's more power and ability to do the right thing for America.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  229. Toni

    To suggest that Hillary's frank and emotional response is the only factor in her NH win is insulting to female voters. I'm sure it helped but most women and many men, for that matter, felt her command of the issues and her concern for working and middle class voters were more important.

    Oh, and by the way, I'm tired of hearing John Edwards boast of coming in second in Iowa - his percentage was about 0.5% more than Clinton's. His was rounded up; hers was rounded down. It was virtually a tie.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  230. Johnny 5

    Two things Jack. The almost all white N. H. suddenly realized that a Black Man actually had a chance to become President. Secondly, the Sisterhood. Mrs. Clinton was able to position herself as the underdog, being attacked by the big, bad, mean MEN. The sisterhood had a hissy fit. Jack for informational purpose, I am a retired white man who strongly will support ANY Democrat except Mrs. Clinton. In fact if the Democratic Party selects Mrs. Clinton, I will not only vote for the Republican candidate, I will vote a straight party ticket for the Republicans. I believe that my golf, poker and club buddies will do the same. Go Obama, Edwards or Richardson.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  231. Eva

    In the media, it is your job to analyze her, so you've presented her in every light: heartless, hopeless, dishonest... If you analyze any human being as much as the media has examined Hillary Clinton, you'll see unpleasant sides. But don't be surprised to find that you've focused on the wrong things. When the public is force fed media opinions on important issues, (and what is more important than the next leader of our nation) those people will inevitably seek out real information. So, go ahead CNN and rate the candidates on likeability or whatever but when real people see real tears they don't see what you tell them to see, we, the public, might actually see the truth behind the tears, which in this case is a deep passion for a great nation.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  232. Beth

    I think we have to consider that the media coverage set her up as the underdog and ignited a response among the NH voters. In the coverage on Tuesday, the message seem to say, "If Hillary losses NH her chances for the nomination are slim." I don't think the voters of NH, especially independants, were ready to have the democratic nomination "sewn up" in Obama and therefore gave Hillary more time. Dont' get me wrong, I do think that showing her more human side helped many to warm up to her, but she only got a little choked up. Let's not turn that one moment (about 3 seconds of a little emotion) into a crying fit. While I'm not a huge fan of Hillary meself, I think the media is laying the 'tears" on a little heavy in this case.

    Beth, Florida

    January 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  233. Mary

    Hillary has had to battle the "suits" from the beginning. Pundits and hip reporters would not make the same sexist remarks about the "boy's" wardrobes, voices or emotions. It is no secret, to most women that they have to work harder than a man for everything they get. Hillary is smart, experienced, thoughtful and will have more consideration for the everyday woman or man in this country. We have been ruled by an inexperienced dufus for too long. Let's bring intelligence and concer for people and this country back to Washington.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  234. buddha boy

    Is everybody stupid? Obama lost because of the tears in the diner and because McCain pulled a bunch of independents away from Obama (who probably thought Obama didn't need the vote to beat hillary thanks to the media pundits)

    I have not seen or heard very many media, bloggers, etc. actually stating this simple fact. I even know friends in new hampshire that are for Obama but voted McCain because they hate Romney so much.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  235. billy of san francisco

    I don't know why we take these polls so serious when they are only polling 500 to 1,300 people from each party & each state, who have home phones, NOT CELL phones like most young adults.

    Hillary & Barack each had over 100,000 votes in New Hampshire.

    TONS of independents also voted, and the independents were not polled.

    So how can 500 to 1,300 people let us know who the winner will be?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  236. Debra

    Jack, Hillary won New Hampshire for two reasons. Not only because of John Edwards harsh comments regarding her tears, but also Democrats realized they were making a mistake if they had chosen Barack Obama to be their eventual nominee.
    As an African American I know the harsh reality of racism, and therefore could not support Mr. Obama since I am very serious of removing the Republicans from the Executive Branch.

    Raleigh, NC

    January 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  237. Brenda Cassell

    Hillary Clinton won because she is the real deal....she's the complete package....She has empathy for us....She has experience...She has stood the test of time and the United States of America is ready for HER....

    January 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  238. Diana Willoughby

    I can tell you exactly why the polls got it wrong, at least in my New Hampshire county. After months of being bombarded nightly by incessant live and taped telephone calls invading our peace 30 to 40 times a night, I lied to them. Whichever name popped into my head at the moment became my candidate of choice. I think that's called passive agressive behavior, but it got them off the phone.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  239. Raj

    I have to say I agree to a degree with Karen. One, we don't know. Two, it definitely wasn't one thing. I think it is unfortunate that all sides try to spin this to their advantage: "Of course, the ONLY possible reason for the comeback in that voters FINALLY realized there is nothing to Obama but hot air".. I mean, come on. Three, can we discuss policy a bit? In case no one noticed, both parties have made a somewhat respectable attempt (with varying success) at this with the sheer number of meetings and debates they have had, and even if people aren't always listening I applaud them for that.

    As for my personal opinion on the matter, I think the media pretty casually disregards its own part to play. I'm a politics junkie and saw two or three solid days of non-stop Clinton coverage, be it Hillary taking questions, having a brief emotional moment (hardly breaking down in tears), the former president declaring essentially a vast left wing conspiracy (I think Hillary will do better if she speaks with her own voice and he sits this one out at this point). Never even mind all the discussion about how her campaign was going to survive, all the apparently rather nasty comments in the tabloids, etc..etc..etc. Don't think this made a difference in the like 30% or whatever of NH folk who freely admitted that the didn't make up their mind until the last moment? Lets just remember that the media does as much to make news as report it these days.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  240. P.SHARAN

    Hillary Clinton came back to win the New Hampshire primary because in addition to showing respect for her emotions, the public realised that we have to elect the President (elect) in November who can fix the tarnished image of USA in the world. The US economy is showing sighs of being bruised but the global image of USA is bleeding profusely.
    We need a President who understand geopolitics and is ready from day one. Hillary Clinton is qualified to be the President – elect in November and Barak Obama probably has just enough training to qualify for the position of President – trainee.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  241. Karen Luckritz

    It is starting to resonate with many women that this is the first chance they have ever had to nominate and vote for a woman for president. The 43 previous white male presidents have not been perfect. Hillary is perfectly smart enough and capable enough to do the job. Women are so proud of her accomplishments. I am rather confused by the lack of support from the women in Iowa, maybe they were working in the evening and could not attend the caucases. You will see more support than ever now because the process is under way. The many women and men who are supporting her, will be working harder now to get her elected.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  242. John

    I doubt Sen. Clinton's win could have been the result of one issue. My guess is it was, in part, a sympathy vote but one built upon a well run campaign. I doubt the voters of New Hampshire were paying much attention to the polls. Polls are like psychics - sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. In the end, it's the only the facts - the vote - that counts.


    January 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  243. win/independent

    Hillary's victory was twisted. It shows that some women tend to vote emotions rather than substance. If that diner performance never happened and the media didn't over cover it the outcome of last night vote would have been as the polls projected. This country needs a dramatic change and Hillary as qualified as she may be is not the change needed

    January 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  244. angela

    The pollsters do not seem as accurate at polling independents. I think that the NH independents assumed that Senator Obama was so far ahead in the polls that he did not need them as much as Senator McCain did and voted in the Republican race.

    I would be disappointed if the reason Senator Clinton won is that she cried. Surely the NH voters would not choose someone who would have to cry on the eve of every state's election to win. I would also be disappointed if the reason that someone did not vote for Senator Obama is his race, as some pundits are saying today.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  245. LEC

    No, Mrs. Clinton didn't win because she teared, she won because she earned our respect by fighting back to state her point on the debate just as so many of us have had to do ALL of our lives. Furthermore, we have serious issues, and need serious people to solve them, and Mrs. Clinton is the most qualified candidate for the job. She will get the job done.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  246. Mr. M

    Many Americans in the field of Computer science and programming such as my self felt that Bush stole the last election through computer programming tampering. The hard proof was deleted and many of us who wanted to have a look were denned by the contract with the voting machine manufacture. So we were told by the voter registrar of the states we contacted. We were told we had no standing to contest anything.

    This could have just been a test of the same type of system or method used back then to give Bush the states he needed.

    We all know there are problems with electronic voting and I hope New Hampshire did use those machines and this was on the up and up.

    I fear it may not have been but I hope so.

    Tears brings out the women?.....what is going to happen when she is PMS-ing i wonder....WWIII?

    As you can tell I have little faith on our Government and the Democratic process these days'

    Time may tell, but I don't think the exit polls were that far off. To many people would have had to lie and that is just not logical. It must have been something else. This makes no logical sense to me. A few tears.....I hope not that would be a shame and show the democratic process is not working the way it was intended.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  247. Mark Spencer

    If 10-15 percent of the voters decide based on one tear we are heading for big trouble.

    Right after the tear I hear Hillary went right back into attack mode but the next question is not played by any of the media.

    And why are people not insulted by her saying that this is not a game, suggesting that anyone who would vote for anyone but her is an idiot?

    I want a candidate who can bring the country together, and it surely is not her or the fighter in the race.

    In a year, one year, Obama has built a campaign that at the least can go toe to toe with the one that claims to have been building hers for 35 years.

    I believe he will bring us change in a much faster way also. In the American way of civility, honesty and caring.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  248. Sara

    With the polls showing an "insurmountable" lead by Obama, I believe a lot women leaning towards Obama could not pass up the opportunity to vote for a woman. Just one example of polling affecting the outcome of an election.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  249. Candace, Richmond, VA

    After the debate Saturday night, maybe Hillary's message of "experience working for change" resonated with New Hampshire voters. Maybe they were just tired of the media licking their chops every time another poll showed her behind by double digits. Whatever the reason, I was glad to see her win New Hampshire for the sheer pleasure of seeing the pundits choke on their own predictions. And Jack, what is your hangup with the whole emotional/vulnerable thing anyway? Why does a woman have to get teary-eyed to make you think she's human? Not very p.c. of you Jack!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  250. Marie

    If there was in fact any single moment that got women to vote for Hillary, it may have been that heckler at one of her campaign rallies. "Iron my shirt" indeed. Her unflinching and sassy comeback against the "last remnants of sexism" must have inspired many people to put attitudes like that in their place.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  251. Sandra Grasso-Boyd

    Hillary won last night because she mobilized her democratic base and female voters who had decided earlier than a month ago to vote for her. See quote from real clear politics.com
    "Some pundits will probably reference Saturday's debate or Clinton's near-crying moment as reasons she surged late. The exit polling does not back this up. Obama won voters who decided sometime between a month and three days ago. And the two split voters who decided today – 39% to Clinton, 36% to Obama. Clinton dominated among voters who said they decided earlier than a month ago, 48% to 31%.

    This supports the idea that Clinton won by mobilizing the traditional Democratic coalition that is demographically inclined to her. You don't just win elections by persuading people you're the best candidate. You win elections by getting those people out to the polls. This appears to be what Clinton did. Accordingly – the implication is that the polls were wrong not because of last-minute shifts. They were wrong because they underestimated Clinton's ability to draw out her base.

    Final point. Clinton did something last night that most successful front runners have managed to do: use a reliably partisan voting coalition as a counterbalance to an opponent's momentum."

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  252. Mike

    It is Obvious to me that the press has been on a mission to destroy hillary Clinton. What has she done to hurt anyone? Nothing concrete i cn see and why was CNN the last one to declare hillary the winner even fox news beat you to the punch thats bad.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  253. Bryan

    I think it was sympathy votes plain and simple. It won't last and Bill won't be able to save her in every state. I am actually losing some respect for Bill for that attack he made against Obama. Why can't we focus on issues and stop being so divisive and using negative campaigning. That is what the Clintons represent, division. This country has had enough of polarizing politics. It's time to come together to get things done and Obama represents that. With the Clintons it will be more of the same. Bickering and nothing getting done in Washington.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  254. Jean Clelland-Morin

    After urging Obama to run, after giving him money, going to an Obama-party and taking a bus to a rally, he alienated me after he and Edwards ganged up on Hillary. When Segolene Royal (Socialist) debated Sarkozy, I felt she was presidential. The sexists thought she was "trop agressive". Putting Clinton in a place to aggressively defend herself made her seem strident – for a woman. The gang-up game would have worked but her final response was not expected. // jean Clelland-Morin

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  255. Robert Stern

    Hillary Clinton was able to win despite the polls for several reasons

    1. Peoples' opinions are in flux just before the election particularly in New Hampshire where voters take their roles seriously. The poll was incorrect before it was over.

    2. After Iowa Hillary became something of an underdog and got a big sympathy vote. In particular voters like Hillary and feel that even if they are not sure between her and Obama it is too soon to eliminate her. Democrats need to have an extended process so they can make a good choice as to who should represent their party in November.

    3. Hillary did change and became more human both in her expression of her feelings and views. The interview in the diner on Monday changed peoples minds.

    4. Finally, while Obama is inspiring and is generating strong waves of grass roots support, Hillary is a serious with candidate strong and well thought out positions, with unusual gifts and capabilities, and a deep commitment to this campaign. No pushover she.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  256. Cole

    I'm guessing that Hillary's first show of emotion might have been a slip and not planned. But I think from now on we can rest assured that if we see it again, it will have been well planned and calculated. As a Reno resident, hat I know is that Barrack Obama can pronounce Nevada correctly, and I like what he has to say and that he can say it without breaking down in tears.

    Reno, NV

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  257. Lana

    It's funny, although not really, that our news reporters have taken up fortune telling instead of reporting the news. Maybe instead of trying to predict the future, the news media should go back to reporting actual events as they happen.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  258. Boss Schwab

    If anything, the 'diner event' demonstrated, much like the 'Dean scream' did, what the greatest value of a contested election is: the real personality of a candidate comes out. It became a lot harder for people to accept the most commonly made attack on Hillary's character – that she is simply an ambition machine – after her emotional display. Based on her speech last night I'd say she has finally personally captured the quality that has defined Obama's recent rise: Excitement. She's fighting for her win now and, fortunately for her, real competition seems to suit her.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  259. John MacIsaac

    Why? Because the people of New Hampshire have finally done what the rest Americans should be doing. Looking at experience instead of falling for hype. The next President needs to be prepared to inherit this disasterous war from day one. Obama will be a great Vice-President for Clinton but is he qualified to become President after only 2 years in the Senate? ABSOLUTLEY NOT!! As an ex-pat my absenty vote will clearly be marked for Hillary, the best and most experienced person for the job. BTW, no tears were shed so please stop making her out to be some kind of wimp. God forbid she should show any of the emotion the press thinks she sorely lacks. Would you make this mountain out of a molehill if Obama or Romney did the same.

    John MacIsaac
    Toronto, Ontario

    January 9, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  260. Conrad

    Jack, a simple equation:

    Clinton Democratic nomination + A marginally acceptable Republican = another Republican administration.

    Major League Baseball is a more fair and competitive event at this point.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  261. Jim

    Was this a sympathy vote? I hope not. If the President is decided on sympathy, what did Bush supporters feel sorry for, that their guy does not come across as being very smart, so they voted for him?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  262. John Czarnik

    It’s clear to me that New Hampshire women will not follow Opraha’s every command as it is apparent Iowa women will. Maybe it’s the difference of being in the middle of the country versus being a bit more cosmopolitan on the East coast, where people in general march to their own drum beat rather than follow a piped piper. Perhaps the polling discrepancy is because, maybe the phone calls were made when the Opraha show was airing in those cities, but when these folks turn off the television they think for themselves. Congratulations people of New Hampshire you do think for yourselves and not what the television pundits or Opraha Winfrey tells you what to think! You have restored my confidence in this political process…for now.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  263. Jane Lawson

    It looks to me as though Hillary wants it both ways. She wants to pretend she's not a woman, but when she is faced with negatives, she sheds a few tears, yells foul, or calls in her husband who gained in popularity after his presidency. Have you seen any of the other candidates cry in public? Did everyone forget that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and consequently opened the floodgates for American jobs to go overseas? All of this may be moot anyway if the current administration can stir up World War III and declare themselves a third term because of the crisis.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  264. Louise Fraser

    Hi there,

    Hillary won New Hampshire because Democrats voted and it wasn't a caucus state. Here in Nevada I see Republicans aligning themselves behind Obama as the anti-Hillary vote. Republicans and evangicals are taking over as caucus Pro Temp Chairman and they are couched to pull off an Iowa enigma. Nevada is new to the caucus system and was chosen to keep this a Republican state. Because this state has had a huge population surge and is so diverse (liberal/progressive), it is impossible for any intelligent person to believe that this state could remain red.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  265. Kathy


    I think our country is in a real crisis the middle class is vanishing. I'm a self employed interior decorator, i have no work no one can afford to hire me their trying to keep a roof over their head, and food on the table. weve already had to file bancrupcy, and now we were just notified by husbands company had to close their doors. 'we need change and we need it yesterday, i think people are realizing Hillary is the one to bring change with "expirience" Obama is alao a great canidate, but our country is falling apart, we cant afford any more mistakes we need change fast from someone who has expirience and knows the system. I think people are starting to figure this out!!!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  266. new patriot - Arizona

    This whole mess just STINKS like a cesspool......

    bush,clinton,bush,clinton AGAIN..... I don't think so.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  267. Bridget Smith

    Maybe many women voters watched the Campbell Brown special on CNN.
    That was an eye opener that revealed the dirty tricks the right wing was using to destroy her. I hope the results last night was a slap in their faces to the dirty and mean spirited ads they are producing.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  268. Priya

    She won because of the 'Drama' that she did at the N.H.diner. She knew she could get some more votes by tugging the heart strings of 'Women' voters .The Clintons are great at 'Drama'. Remember Bill Clinton with the finger wagging episode.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  269. Pablo

    For me, it's simple! Hillary's last minute surge had a direct connection with her sudden display of emotion. I'm one to believe the move was more last resort strategy, rather than genuine.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  270. Avi

    Why did Hilary win the NH primary? Perhaps the incident that occurred in the Persian Gulf was a wake up to the American people. Perhaps experience does matter. Can we see this happening again the future? Perhaps. The jAmerican people decided to choose the candidate who is better prepared to handle such situations.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  271. Kim T.

    I think that if Hillary is going to rely on tears and emotion to win her candidacy, she has another think coming. I am not particularly in favor of any candidate at this point, but I do know that in electing the next president of these United States, I want to see someone who does not crumble under pressure. Someone who hold a stiff upper lip in trying times and someone who reassures the people of the United States through stoicism through the hard times ahead. I believe Hillary won New Hampshire by a slim margin because she appealed to women voters who felt sorry for her when she displayed a moment of emotion after losing the Iowa Caucus and it seemed she was destined to loose in New Hampshire. That will definitely not work a second time. Hillary, I really would like to see you succeed, but you gotta come up with a different strategy. Stick to the issues that Americans are concerned about.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  272. Okey

    Three words: Diebold & Voter Fraud. The pre-election polls and the exit polls were dead on up until that contest... Including the Republican outcome too. But, the polls are suddenly dead wrong for the Clinton/Obama results. Coincidence?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  273. Ramona

    Jack, I think your comment that "it's time (for Hillary) to stay home and bake cookies" fired up a lot of women, and that contributed to Hillary's win in New Hampshire last night. I'm in GA not NH, but I am a volunteer for her campaign and was on the phone with NH voters until 8:30 pm. I also listened to the media campaign against her and was surprised to find that 95% of the contacts I made in NH were already committed to vote for Hillary. These were not elderly women but men, women, young people, senior citizens and one entire family all going together to the polls to support her because they believe she is the best qualified to lead this country and get us back on track for peace and financial stability. I believe the same. I consider it an honor to campaign on her behalf.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  274. Paris

    Voters in NH know that Hilary can deliver, whether you like her or not. Obama is untested and will struggle to fulfill his promises as have others in the oval office who could not or chose not to deliver campaign promises. People in Iowa voted with their hearts and less with their minds. People in NH stayed focused on putting into the White House the most qualified person who has also demonstrated that she can reach across the isles and work with Republicans.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  275. Nola Hale

    Hillary Clinton had a huge lead over Barack Obama when it come to experience. With the state of the world today we need someone that can lead in this critical area on day one.

    Bush had no foreign experience so he had to listen to that warhawk Cheney and look where that got us.

    My vote is with Hillary on several other areas as well!!!!

    Clinton Lover

    January 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  276. Marjorie

    Does anyone remember Pat Shroeder? She ran for president (forgot when) and saw her dreams go into flame when she cried on TV. If Hillary's moment was the reason for the turn around.. God bless us. We have come a long way as a nation. But personally I think she won for one reason only: Bill Clinton....Remember two for one.
    New York.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  277. Vicki L Eastridge

    Perhaps, "We the People", are sick of having choices made for us by pollsters, pundits, and the media. Several candidates, of both parties, are ignored, or worse, made fun of. It is like a multiple choice quiestion without the multiple choices. Hopefully this was not a "knee jerk" reaction and "We the people" will think, research, and carefully choose our presidential candidates with the seriousness that we deserve.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  278. Darlene

    Perhaps the sway began with images of Hillary taking time to answer questions from prospective voters on the weekend. Undoutedly her moment at the cafe was signifigant. I'm a Hillary supporter and even I did a double take. I always knew she had it in her, she needs to take charge of herself in her campaign.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  279. Vanessa

    People who are paying attention to the facts not the hype showed up to vote. Finally voters are realizing that this an electoral process not a homecoming election! "Hype does NOT equal hope" for once people cast the vote not the media! CNN can you keep on showing the interview where your reporter asks Obama hopeful’s where he stands on issues and none could give you an answer?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  280. Stephen

    Thay cheat votes count did not match exit poll Why ? where do think all that money went and how thay got it the big money people will not lose

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  281. tom alley

    The reason Hillary won is that voters are tired of being told who is in front, who is behind, etc. They voted for her to prove CNN polling is just plain wrong.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  282. Rise

    Hilary won despite the polls because when you actually start to really VOTE you remember the stakes, her unquestionable intelligence, experience, and how wonderfully Bill Clinton managed the economy (remember "Its the Economy Stupid!")
    It does help that she is a woman. Perhaps a woman's perspective will help change the world.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  283. Ollie Rivers

    How about the women of New Hampshire (and hopefully the entire US) getting fed up with the cumulative effect of:

    • the Saturday debate “piling on” of HRC by Obama and Edwards
    • Obama’s ungracious comment on HRC’s likeability at the debate
    • the largely free ride Obama and Edwards have received by the media (see Edwards constant reference to his dramatic second place in Iowa and the media’s failure to remind him that his “win” was about 2 tenths of 1 percent in effect tying HRC for second place)
    • the undisguised joy by many in the media as they beat the drums for an HRC loss in New Hampshire
    • the “iron my shirt” protestors
    • and on, and on, and on

    Could it be that many women in New Hampshire saw this as the same old, familiar attempts at the marginalization of an intelligent, capable woman that many of us have experienced in our lives?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  284. Dave Ayers

    Clinton Won because people realized that this election process was being run like an American Idol Contest! Even thought it was apparent that CNN Staff gave Obama more coverage when he took Iowa than they did Clinton, she is the only real viable candidate. When all the Wooing, Screaming and Fainting over Obama has played it's course, then we will get down to politics and not the circus we've seen this past few weeks! This is about the fate of our Nation and you would think People would take this Election Process more seriously and leave the mania for the next Hanson Concert.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  285. Shanita W. -- Carolina's

    Come on AMERICA! Clinton’s tactic is tasteless and plagiarized. Clinton has seemed to manipulate the viewers once again with her irrefutable need to contradict Obama’s message. Candidate Edwards clearly expressed comparable passion, in fact more on the state of America at the NH debate, however we hear nothing of the genuineness of Edward’s plea for change. Obama and Edward both have had their own voice from the start, yet Clinton just discovers hers after several debates and a caucus? Clinton has not been the Nation’s candidate, and women need to see that women’s rights are not what unify America, nor does dividing parties for political gain exemplify the best candidate. It’s time to wake up America and recognize the snake in the grass, a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a manipulator among the most “experience”. We need a change, and Clinton’s tactic is not becoming of her to conjure negative publicity towards candidates for her own personal gain. Wake up America!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  286. Ruth -VanReken

    Very easily. You in the media bought into her staged show (think back to the interview with her and Bill in the Gennifer Flowers days – another "human interest piece that turned the tide) and gave her more free publicity than ten million dollars could have bought her campaign. Talk about not holding a candidate accountable, Bill. Since when did the media ever hold HIlary accountable for her "vast right wing conspiracy" statement as an explanation for your philandering? I am in despair with the media and with the American people. How stupid are we? And I'm a woman.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  287. Charity Phillips

    Come'on Jack!
    Three percentage points, resulting in equal delegate tallies is not a win. She was ahead in NH until right after Iowa. When, after Iowa, she began falling behind, she pulled out the tears to show America how mean everyone is for picking on her because she is a girl! Plus, CNN was showing a story every 15 minutes that said that women who weren't old enough to have experienced sexism (i.e. under 29) needed to vote for her, because someday they would experience it. It was fear-mingering on CNN's part.
    As a woman, under 29, I can't vote for a candidate who is going to play the gender card in order to get a job. This campaign is not about sexism or gender. I want the candidate who will be strong in the face of adversity, not whine like a baby when things aren't going right. She won because of these manipulative ploys on the part of the campaign and CNN and farnkly, CNN should apologize to intellignent women everywhere who choose their candidate not based on gender or color, but on actual qualifications.
    Being the first lady (part of her 35 years of experience she cites) does not make her qualified to be President any more than my marriage to a Naval Officer makes me qualified to command an aircraft carrier. How about we cover actual experience, actual decisions made and actual scandals the candidates are involved with both now and historically. If we did, we would see that the only thing the Clinton's have been interested in changing is their social and political standings, not fixing the problems in Washington.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  288. frank francis

    Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill!!!! You might not like Bill – we love him – and she is the closest thing to him.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  289. Mitra Akhavan

    Jack, Hillary garnered more female voters in New Hampshire thanks to that planted question in the diner. Yes, I believe that question was planted. The Clinton campaign has a history of dishonest behavior, having already admitted to planting a question in Newton, Iowa, in November. A member of Hillary's staff was also fired for forwarding emails about the myth of barack Obama attending a madrassa in Indonesia. Hillary's "choked up" response at that diner was also planned, for she conveniently remembered to take a swipe at her opponents' experience during her supposed outbreak of emotion. Hillary is a phony, and people fell for it.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  290. keith baker

    Hi Jack, About polls...(I cant get your email address to work)

    Has it ever occured to you guys that polls simply dont work? The majority of people that actually get out there and vote are very same ones that believe polling is not only a waste of time and resources but is at best intrusive and at worst subverts the election process by making people belive that their vote doesnt matter. Voting is a sacred private matter and should be treated as such.
    Keith Baker

    January 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  291. James O'Sullivan

    Hillary Clinton didn't come back at all in New Hampshire. Therotical poll's are what some people think the results will be. Instead of telling the American public what to expect, be fair and let the voting process finish and report results as they come in. I think it's unfair to all canditates, Democrat, Republican or independent to predict winners before the polls even open.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  292. Dwight

    Come-on Jack, we all know that CNN is backing Barrack Obama. Just listen to the coverage that you give him versus Hillary Clinton. So was this a CNN poll that gave Obama the 5 to 13 point lead? So much for fair and balanced news coverage. By the way, Hillary won because she believes in what is best for this country and conveyed that message to the good people of New Hampshire

    January 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  293. Tyler

    Well people realized that Clinton actually has created change and Obama has nothing to show indicating that he has ever actually made change occur.

    Obama said that the Clinton's were frustrated after the Iowa Caucuses and seemed to implied them as sore losers. After her win in NH, he said that her win was a fluke. Now who is the sore loser!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  294. Jacqueline Mongeot

    Hillary's campaign is steady and has substance. Obama's has style and fire. Voters, especially women, also thought that she has unfairly been attacked by the press and by the other candidates of her own party. Be it as it may, there will be other defeats and victories before the final nomination. Let's be cool and receptive to all presented ideas and the we will judge.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  295. Steve S

    Most people in the media like to say that overall the American People are very smart, that they can "see through" all the political tactics used on them by politicians to gain their vote. Well, the Clinton's, especially Bill, not Hillary, are the ultimate in political tactics they will use at any cost to win. If it takes a little emotional BS to gain a vote, why not? They really don't care since at the end of the day, they believe it is all about them, not the people. Why can't the American voter see through all this? She was losing before the little tear-tactic, and suddenly wins? If Hillary is elected, she will be our very first president puppet, with Bill Clinton pulling the strings...just as he is now. I want our next president to be honest and sincere, and after 8 hears with Bill, I think we all know what we'll get with Hillary.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  296. susan


    January 9, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  297. Russell

    It's very simple. Hillary won in New Hampshire for the same reason that Barack Obama won in Iowa. People love an underdog. Especially one who comes across as genuine and good-hearted as Mrs. Clinton.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  298. Leslie

    I don't believe Hillary showing emotions won her NH. I believe The People want Change with Experience. I believe Hillary can make a change with her experience.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  299. Steven Bengtson Sr

    How did she win? The wisdom of the voters! But I can tell by your question that you are really wondering how you missed seeing it coming, right? You need to get out and find out how hard it is to choose between health care or food! You better get ready for her!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  300. emeka

    JACK,She connected well emotionally to voters,she was real,this shows she can be a good commander in chief.i belive in the clitons they make things happen when u thnk it is not gona happen.jack u and wolf should allow the clitons to have breathing space.EMEKA,NIGERIA

    January 9, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  301. Charles Burright

    Evidently democrat voters in New Hampshire favor an inexperienced, corrupt and dishonest woman over an inexperienced fresh man.
    How this totally corrupt and dishonest woman continues to get support is absolutely incomprehensionable to me!!!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  302. Sheila Rauch

    This'll make you roll your eyes, but how about the thought that a lot of us are really sick of political journalists who all say the same thing? No one looks for news anymore; no one tries a little independent analysis; no one sticks his neck out. There's a trend and you all go after it. This usually has the negative effect of reducing voters' options. No media attention is paid to good candidates like Dodd and Biden, so they bow out. This time it had the salutary effect of making people think they didn't want to be limited to one candidate so early in the process. Senator Clinton is a good candidate. It's ridiculous to have her buried after two pathetic little primaries. We need time to make this important choice, and we're pretty sick of you guys telling us what's important. Report the news. Think. And get rid of all the people who have been so wrong so often. You are making yourselves irrelevant.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  303. Anita

    You asked how Hillary jumped ahead of Obama when the polls were saying otherwise. Probably for the same reason many people insisited that they voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, NH, yet the tally came up with 0 votes. It was rigged. Geesh, Jack, can't you keep up?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  304. Ted in Portland

    A new card we have not yet seen played from the Clinton camp. Not only Hillary, but she was followed by Bill in his acidic attack on Obama on the morning before the election. Voters should keep in mind above all, that any theatrics will not remove all her special interest and Bill's lobbyist connections. She will not turn her back on an incoming check. She still has yet to spend 869,000 from lobbyists that exists in her election campaign.

    For anyone who thinks Hillary's bversion of "Change" will mean getting rid of special interests and lobbyist money during her reign... well, welcome to disappontement city. Ain't gonna happen. At least it has a chance with Obama or Edwards. Or at the very least, Hope exists that could bring about ending or greatly reducing this most deadly influence on politics today in America.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  305. Richard Sternagel

    Jack, I think Senator Clinton was genuine with her tears and that had to help her to some degree.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  306. Jenny in Florida

    I don't know that any one thing made the difference. Most men and women know that Hillary is capable of being president. What concerns me is that if she continues to show much emotion she will be labeled weak. You remember all the labels that were used over the years as reasons why a woman should not be elected president. PMS and menopause were only a few. Hopefully the tide is turning.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  307. ken

    the upset in NM was not Hillary over Obama but rather the voters over the pundits, pollsters and talking heads. Unlike Iowa, all of the voters in NH had a chance to vote. Iowa discriminates against the democratic process. The caucus excluded people who had to work..first responders, doctors, etc.... or could not get to a caucus. A handful of voters bartered the votes of candidates who did not reach the artificial barrier of 15%. What would the results have been if Richardson and Kucinich had not instructed their staff to give their votes to Obama? Would Obama still be coronated our next president the morning after? Change...everyone is talking change but the real change needs to be in the primary procedures (FL and MI voters don't even get to be counted). It will be interesting today to see how the media covers their backside today.

    Words are wonderful and very powerful yet still get taken out of context to confuse others. Hillary made the point that even Martin Luther King whose strong ideas and incredible ways to deliver the message could not implement those ideas without a president, LBJ, to get them signed into law. While making a great analogy she gets ripped for mentioning LBJ and they bring up Vietnam and imply that she was for Vietnam. Talk about a no-win situation.

    Many of the younger voters were teenagers or early 20's when Bill Clinton was president. Do you think that they remember his keeping us out of a war, a strong economy with jobs and a balance budget with an excess of money or.....do you think they remember Monica Lewinski. Life was a whole lot better then than now. Hopefully somehow they will get the real story of the Clinton administration the how Hilary was part of it with real experience.

    We have had 8 years of on the job training with Bush and we do not need another four or more from a candidate with no practical experience. Hillary may not be the orator that Obama is....preaching hope and change makes one feel good. But the reality of implementing change and giving hope is a different story and being realistic and having experience is the only way it will work. As an example look at the Democratic House and Senate...they were elected to make change and yet the Republicans have stood up and denied this mandate from the voters. They want change..they want to give hope but the reality is that it takes more than hope and having an experienced person as president is a must.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  308. Barbara Levingston

    Barrack Obama is a nice young man..too inexperienced and people are beginning to realize it..there is no doubt Hiliary Clinton will make a great president..I am all for her..not ready for the young newcomer,,,he needs to wait awhile..thanks for listening..

    January 9, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  309. Max Hillman

    Jack, one thing is for sure, it was NOT the "Bradley effect" (i.e.racism).

    Obama held the 36-37% he was predicted to receive acording to one of the average polls: One example:
    Barack Obama 37%, Hillary Clinton 30%, John Edwards 19%, Bill Richardson 8%, Dennis Kucinich 3%.

    Compare that to the final result: Obama 36%, Clinton 39%, Edwards 17%, Richardson 5%, Kucinich 1%

    What happened was: John Ewards’ attack on Clinton during the last debate calling the would-be first woman president a “force of status-quo” backfired as did his subsequent suggestion that a woman cannot be a commander-in-chief if she cries (as you point out). Obama’s lack of class in “likable enough” comment also didn’t help. Women were insulted and came to her defence.

    As a result she picked up 2-3 % from all the candidates (probably their female vote) other than Obama (and maybe a 1% form Obama as well). Edwards, Obama and Clinton split the female vote roughly 3-way in Iowa (35-30-25%).
    In New Hampshire Obama held his third, Clinton went up to 45% of female vote, Edwards:15%. Bye Bye Edwards!!!!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  310. jay

    I lost complete respect for Hillary. Her "compassion" was staged. It took 35 years to work up a mock tear for the plight of the country. She didn't shed a tear at Reagan's Funeral, Katrina Victims or Fallen Heros of the IOF.

    Camp Taji, Iraq

    January 9, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  311. angie

    People vote, and the results are....! The polls state how people will vote, but the polls are not the minds of the individual. We the people are influenced. Sometimes by someone saying something negative about the apponnent can change a persons vote especially when that statement is made as the last thing people hear before voting. Sometimes, people are influenced by similarities in voting. Sometimes, people are influenced by a connection with the candidate. I would prefer that people vote on the issues. Tears do not sway me. Neither does mud slinging. What moves me is the candidates talk on issues, OUTSOURCING OF JOBS, NOT HAVING MEDICAL INSURANCE, MY HOME SLIPPING INTO A FORECLOSURE, BEING TURNED DOWN FOR JOBS BECAUSE NOT BEING ABLE TO PAY BILLS WHILE UNEMPLOYED (credit history is checked as a background check and many of us are dead in the water)

    January 9, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  312. Paula


    Hillary has 35 years experience and knows all the right buttons to push. Her tears were either a ploy or a weakness that would not go down very well on the world stage.. can you imagine Hillary choking back sobs as she exchanges tough dialogue with world leaders she obviously showed her emotions to swing the vote.Great job! Too bad the job doesn't come with an award for best performance.
    Hillary will steam roll anyone in her path to win. Experience she has which is such a negative as she has been around long enough to manipulate her way into and out of every situation, Go Obama! Fresh, authentic and genuine that is what we need not a whiner who can't play without her "girl card" .

    January 9, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  313. michael colandrea

    You say that Hillary crying wasn't scripted. That positively was the only way she won that primary. That was no doubt, absolutly calculated. She is a very sharp cookie that pretended to be a dull knife. Inside she was a samarai sword. In all the time I have been following politics, the polls have never lied till now. We were at a party when Hillary had her moment. All the women in the room felt so bad, they all brought it up that maybe we shouldn't be so hard on her. She literally stole all the womens votes and won the primary. Only a women can pull such a calculated and well thought up scheme. Kind of reminds us of all our wifes in a way. She took the perfect well thought up opertunity to buy the womens vote through other women and it worked. Makes me sick to my stomach. Amazing at what it takes to win an election. And you wonder why we can't trust them. The'll always tell you what you want to here and exactly when you want to here it.
    I can't stomach the fact that we might have to look at her puss for 4 years. I never thought we would see the same president for 12 or 16 years. It should be illegal. Bill will make a good first lady!
    John McCain please keep us safe!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:34 pm |


    January 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  315. Ryan, Minnesota

    Am I the only one that sees the real reason that Hillary won the NH primaries? The press blasts Mrs. Clinton for being cold and unemotional, and then when she does the press comes out with Mrs. Clinton having an "emotional breakdown". Did you see the same thing I did? If that was an emotional breakdown then I am lost. The press puts Clinton on the extremes so that they can make headlines. The problem is when the press did it this time with their "emotional breakdown" talking point they really ticked off the women of NH. I guess that must be why the women vote gave Clinton the victory. VOTERS, choose your canidate not based on the press, choose a canidate based on your own values so that we really can take back the country.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  316. Georgina O

    Hi Jeff,
    For Hillary to beat Obama after been behind in double digits, is because she cried like a baby for voters to sympathize with her. That is a cheap, callous and cunning politician I have ever seen.
    Hillary should bear in mind that the American people are now wild awake of how politicians can use any means to get elected. Look at Bill Cliton saying Obama is living a in feiry tale. When he was running for election in 1992, did he have the achievements Obama had?
    Hillary should be ready to cry more since the primaries just got started.
    Why should Hillary be reading from a script, after she was declared a winner. If she knows the state of the American political issues verbatum as the other candidates, why should she read from a script ?
    Americans should not make the same mistake they did 7 years ago.

    Georgina O.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  317. Marvin Foster, Texas

    While Obama is provoking interest in the electoral process and bringing people to the polls, Edwards is a too goody-goody, and the thinking Americans know in their minds that Hillary is the only candidate that can beat the Republicans next Fall.
    It helps that she is also capable, and that the Clintons have the best record of accomplishments in the White House in many, many years. A balanced budget and a huge surplus left, only to be given to G.W.'s rich friends as soon as he could pass it to them. She pulled out in New Hampshire, because the people really, down deep, want the Repubs O U T !! Marvin, Texas

    January 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  318. Zach

    Clearly the lessons learned from New Hampshire is that nothing is guaranteed. If you want to see real change, and you want your candidate to have a real shot at the White House you need to vote. When every person in the office is talking about Obama and every news station is covering him, it's easy to assume that the "projected record turnout" will arrive to vote. Those are the same apathetic mentalities that have resulted in our current rut. If you sincerely believe in change, ignore the polls, ignore the margins of victory, ignore the office banter, shake away your apathy and vote.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  319. Michael Cunningham

    Well Jack it's like this,Polls are like Odds Makers in Nevada.The end result is at the voting booth.I think we'll see more people making the right decision at the Box.Remember talk's cheap. Mesa,AZ

    January 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  320. Kim, Springfield, Ohio


    Voter disillusionment began weeks and months ago, when the mainstream media
    decided to brand Hillary Clinton "inevitable." Iowa voters went for Obama, in part
    absolutely sicked by the disservice the American media is doing to democracy
    and our power of the vote in this country. Predictably, media lapdogs openly salivated
    in the aftermath of his one-state (early state) victory. The coronation of Obama the
    Inspiration had begun. Within hours, Clinton was branded "down and out" and "on
    the ropes," and many, including Wolf Blitzer and other veterans who ought to know
    better, started asking out loud, in so many words, whether she and her political
    aspirations were in the toilet.

    Guys, TWO states have voted. TWO. Can you "professionals" get a grip? Hillary's
    "comeback" in the aftermath of Iowa (hardly a truly representational snapshot of
    American diversity) had little to do with "the diner moment" and everything to do with
    a voting public tired of watching too many journalists turn into pundits and attempt
    to allow your opinions and "analysis" to affect the race for president.

    If anything, the Obama and Clinton wins represent, in large part, a resounding
    message from the voting public to an increasingly irresponsible press that We,
    the People, not you, the Press, will decide which candidate lives to fight another
    day, how long the process takes, and how much choice we want to have ... and for
    how long.

    Rightly, Clinton cautioned us all to take a step back and make sure we don't make
    this all-important choice too early or too emotionally or too carelessly. No candidate
    of either party has been more vetted, more critically analyzed and questioned, than
    Hillary Clinton. Likewise, no one has been judged more on "likeability," personality
    or emotion than Hillary Clinton. That says more about this country and its male-dominated
    process than it says about her.

    Judge her on her merits, her track record, her grasp of the issues and her smarts.
    And leave the results of this race to the American people – a vast majority of which
    don't want you cheapening or influencing their vote before it's even been cast. We've
    needed a real "race" in this country for a long time. The Media has a responsibility
    to allow competition and idea exchange to happen. You are doing a disservice
    to this country and its people whenever you try to circumvent that process.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  321. Mary Ann Randall

    Why do you (the media), keep saying things like Hillary won the primary last night due to her tearing up in New Hampshire? Don't you get it? People did not vote for Hillary as for tears, but actually wake up people and use your noodle. People voted for Hillary because if you LOOK AT THE RECORDS, Hillary has actually done alot of good for this country. Why can't you all just wake up?
    PS: I still love you even if you are wrong.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  322. Doug Troutman

    New Hampshire had fewer voters than a single precinct in L.A., so what IS the big deal? As for Hillary being "calculating" yep, but at least unlike George W., her calculations don't try to make 2 + 2 = 6.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  323. Steve T

    How could all of the polls get everything so right concerning Candidate McCain and so wrong concerning Candidate(s) Obama?/ Clinton? Unless you are suggesting that the female demographic was completely ignored or completely missed by the same pollsters then clearly the only two possible explanations are the people of New Hampshire are in total Liars or worse Racists. I believe that no one is willing explore either of these reasons speaks to the underlying fear that race and tempered race relations flows through the veins and arteries of this country.
    Steve T

    January 9, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  324. Wanda

    What really matters in this race is delegates. Obama still has one more pledged delegate than Hillary Clinton, however, when it comes to superdelegates, Clinton has much more than Obama. (Nearly 3 to 1 more than Obama)

    January 9, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  325. Joe Neely

    It all started when Hillary was told she was not liked as will as Obama. Obama in saying Hillary your like well enough. That wouldn't have been so bad but in his cocky way in saying this I bet and won a dinner for four betting Hillary would win. The rest is history with Edwards comments added. I am still a Obama supported though.


    Riverside CA

    January 9, 2008 at 4:36 pm |
  326. Bill W - PA

    Behind by double digits in several last-minute polls, why was Hillary Clinton able to come back and win the New Hampshire primary?

    1) A man said "After she cried, my wife decided to vote for her, because Obama was going to win anyway." So the news media overplayed Obama's alleged 10 point lead, and people, especially undecided and independents, thought Obama didn't need their vote.

    2) She got help from Bill Clinton again, who made a last minute speech on her behalf.

    3) I do not trust electronic voting machines, and would not be at all surprised to learn that a strategic percentage were rigged. Diebold manufactures voting machines. The CEO of Diebold was a huge Bush supporter and fund raiser who publicly guaranteed that George Bush would win. Then Bush pulled a "miraculous-come from behind victory" 4 years ago in the last state – Ohio, a state he was trailing in and a state where people stood in the rain for hours to vote – to win the presidency. Do you really think people stood in line in the rain in Ohio for hours to vote for Bush? But since Bush stole that election, it has been proven repeatedly that electronic voting machines can be rigged with very little effort. Yet over the past 4 years, we've seen no investigation, no study, nothing. I do not trust the electronic voting machines – I think people manipulate and control them. After all, they have computers in them, and we all know computers can be hijacked and re-programmed. I think there NEEDS to be a study and expose on this.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  327. Marc C

    Look at yourself & your fellow newspeople as to why Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire.

    After the media scared everybody into thinking if Hillary won Iowa she was unstoppable, most independents & undecided democrats voted for Obama for fear that their choices would be limited to one.

    And of course in New Hampshire, all the "political experts" said if Obama won then Hillary Clinton's campaign was all but over. So once again independents & undecideds voted for Hillary.

    Fear Politics at its best...so much for "CHANGE". People don't want their choices limited, especially in an election this important. We want to hear more from both candidates before you & your "news" colleagues crown a champion.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  328. Monty

    The tears or near tears is the reason for the Clinton win. This is the ironic thing. Mrs. Clinton has been lauded and chastised for the "strength" that she has shown. Because she had a near collaspe on the stump, she is rewarded with a victory in the primary because some women were moved by it, and most men were unconfortable with it. I can see the republican commercial now if she is the nominee. It will have that same stump "breakdown" followed by can you trust her to make the real tough decisions??? Or will she cry and go ask Bill what to do....only to interrupt his training session for the new interns... titled "How to get a head"..... I don't like it when my wife uses tears to get her way.... I truly won't like my president doing the same......

    She won't get my vote...... so her unfavorables just went up by one more person.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  329. Clay McBride

    Dear Jack,

    The question isn't, "How did Hilary do it?". The question is, "Why were so MANY journalists rushing to say she wouldn't?".

    Look, I'm not a "Hilary man". I think Edwards has the best ideas–and best chances–for going head to head with the Republican candidate (whoever he may be). Not that we'll ever know, of course. From the beginning the national press has all but buried Edwards–and didn't you all feel just a little bit foolish after Iowa because of it? If you didn't, you're not looking closely enough in the mirror at yourselves.

    But the question I hear many Americans asking is, "Why is the press in such a hurry to 'close the books' on this race?" Before Iowa, all I heard from the press was: "Clinton's a runaway freight train! Unbeatable! Forget about it!" Sound familiar?

    After Iowa, the press had a new tune: "Who can possibly stop Obama? He's a rocket on rails! This explosive lead will be impossible to overcome! It's all over but the shouting!" Again: sound familiar?

    Now, the reason I write to you, Jack, is simple. You were one of the ONLY voices–along with Lou Dobbs–who WASN'T closing the cover on his typewriter and going home before the horse crossed the finish line. You were still doing what a reporter is suppose to do: report. Yes, you had comments. Yes, you had insights. You weren't, however, retiring your BRAIN and telling the rest of us that, after less than one-half of one percent of the American public had voted in this process, the race was OVER.

    Hang in there, Jack! You'll probably end up calling the race correctly. Only you'll do it the way a reporter should: AFTER the people have spoken.

    Clay McBride

    January 9, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  330. Annette

    It was a sympathy vote – but sympathy will not last all the way to the convention.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  331. Zona Case

    Hi Jack,
    New Hampshire was supposed to be Hillary's firewall. She had a 10 point lead before Iowa. Obama, a supposed "unknown", compared to "experienced" Hillary, cuts her down to a 3% win in five days and the media says she trounced him!! Am I missing something here Jack? She was supposed to be strong there but he gave her the fight of her life. Come on – the media should give him a lot of credit for almost wiping her out!!
    Just another way of looking at this "victory"??
    Keep up your comments Jack, I am reading your book!!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  332. John

    Jack, this just goes to prove that the media cannot dictate what the people really want. I thought that the media was suppose to be fair and impartial but all I've seen was a one sided, Clinton bashing tactics by the media. Figure it out, the people don't trust the media, the more you bash Clinton the more it helps her...

    January 9, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  333. Ruby Coria, CA.

    Jack, we already talked about the dropping the script on Monday, but sometimes the media refuses to drop it. Jack everyone knows that its up in the air who will win, and then when we do heve the new president, what are going to say? " there was a miss count", "there was fraud!", "religion bought the votes", "the Latinos voted for Hunter", the point who knows and that the way it should be reported. I know you must follow a SCRIPT.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  334. Dave, PA

    Jack, I am 47 years old. I have seen many elections. Never miss my right to vote. My comment is unrelated to today's question, but I would like to express this opinion. I like all of the Democratic candidates. They all have their strengths. I think that this Democratic field of candidates would make an excellent "Dream Team" for our new presidential cabinet. I don't care who wins the nomination, but I think that they all should be on the administration team. Now that would be one HELL of a cabinet.


    January 9, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  335. James

    I have unsuccessfully tried on several occasions to breakup with my girlfriend. My problem is anytime I try dumping her, she cries, I feel bad and I end up convincing myself that even though she is not good enough I just can’t break her fragile ego . Now I know I am not alone, the state of New Hampshire has the same problem.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  336. Gary Kneeland

    Hillarys tear ducks will soon dry up.Then she will sharpen her nails and then do what she does best.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  337. Chad Byrd

    Good, old-fashioned election fraud.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  338. Gloria Charlier

    Jack, . I think that the dust and excitement over Obama is settling and people are taking a closer look at his experience rather than just charisma. As a long time Registered Nurse I can certainly identify with Hillary's history of rolling up her sleeves and doing the hard work in tough times. I know she is intelligent, determined and has what it takes to do what this country needs I was impressed by her genuine show of emotions and her grave concern over what has happened to this nation. Anyone taking over the Presidency after George Bush will have a huge mess to clean up. And if anyone knows what it takes to clean up a mess it's a nurse. My confidence is in Hillary!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  339. S. Eymer

    Simple-people got past the mania and realized they weren't voting in Oprah Winfrey, who they feel they know really well. [You did notice that Mr. Obama didn't make that much of an impression till she came on the scene, right?] Nice a guy as he appears to be, exactly who is he and what has he accomplished? Will he be tough enough when things get dicey? These are perilous times. Clinton's been tested by fire. And what has Obama brought to the table to help the middle class? Hope reigns eternal, but actions speak louder than words. Again, Clinton's credentials are impressive. She showed her more tender side, sure, but she's still the candidate with the brass ones. She's not likely to make Jimmy Carter's mistakes, and she's certainly up to date on America's problems.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  340. Susan

    Because the grown-ups, who had been staying home studying the issues and comparing the candidates while their 18-21 year old kids were out partying with the Obama Girl, went to the polls and voted for the most qualified candidate..

    January 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  341. LOIS

    I think Hillary's resurrection was the result of "gullible" people believing that she actually had an emotional, caring moment ! Look closely....no tears, not even moisture in the eyes, only a "shaky little voice" (which according to her, she has NOW FOUND)......Totally fake...staged ! And to think, people fell for it ! Absurd ! Lois from TEXAS !

    January 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  342. uno

    Clinton was ahead of Obama even after IOWA. We know Bill Clinton had the same kind of support from that state in the past. What surprised is not her winning but how close she was to loose this to Obama. Bill clinton played the same trick of tears when he was cornered after he lied about Monica.

    So, what next? Hillary as president crying infront of senate to pass her bill?

    However good she might be, she has lot of baggage from her husband and also her personal political history. She cannot be of any help with the CHANGE and US cannot afford to nominate her at this critical time in history as Economy, WAR, Immigration and Fundamental rights of citizens are at stake.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
  343. Bridget

    Does anyone else think that the "emotion" incident in the diner was forced? How on earth can female voters in NH be that naive? As of the day before the primary she was behind Obama in the polls, losing ground to him with the CRUCIAL women vote so important to their campaign- and that particular evening is when she was so overcome with emotion on how fortunate she has been and how terrified she is of the country moving in the wrong direction? And for a woman that has been in the public eye so many years- always perfectly composed- you'd think she could catch herself and bring it back to professional but it seems to me that even if the moment was genuine she certainly made no attempt to recover from it. In fact, it was a discussion with mostly women and a handful of men- I'd be shocked if the same emotion had come out with a crowd that was reversed. That was for the benefit of exploiting the women voters and what's worse is that it worked! Since when is emotion something that we want in a presidential candidate anyway? No doubt Hillary has a lot of women supporters but those fickle individuals that were actually swayed to vote for her because she cried...well, sorry, but they were exploited. And that offends me as a woman.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
  344. Nathalie

    I think the NH voters were tired of the media's badgering of the Clintons after the Iowa caucus. They wanted to have their own say, and in the process make you all look stupid. The news media went on a new "get the Clintons" campaign as soon as the Iowa results were revealed. As a minority woman, I was very impressed with Obama’s achievement, and I do want to see him go further. However after listening to the media, I was hoping that Clinton would pull through in NH just to send you a message that we can make up our own minds, we do not need newscasters and political pundits to do it for us.

    Just give us the facts, and let us decide.

    Jack you want to know how Clinton managed to bounced back? Well, you helped her by kicking her when she was down, and compelling NH to lift her.

    Well done guys, and please, keep your polls coming they will probably get more hilarious.



    January 9, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  345. Bruce Norquist

    Hillary was able to come back because she is in fact the best candidate in the Democratic field. Leading into New Hampshire, the media pounded Senator Clinton while crowning Senator Obama, leaving little space for Americans to make their voices heard. Hillary runs a tip top campaign with a strong message of change through experience, and it's clear that New Hampshire voters responded overwhelmingly to that message. Now that Senator Clinton has realized that a campaign built around caution isn't the way to go, it's going to be interesting to see how she does in the rest of the primaries.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  346. Mohamed Bah, from Champlin MN

    Hey Jack , in response to your question How did Clinton win New Hampshire?

    I have a simple answer to that Mr. Clinton shed more tears and used her tears to print more ballot papers and gave to her voters who sympathetized with her after she faked the cry. That's exactly how she did it, but make NO mistake it 's NOT going to work again, may be next time Chelsea or Bill will fake another cry for more ballot papers,

    Mohamed Bah
    Champlin, Minnesoat

    January 9, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  347. Wasiu Anaimashaun

    it's pretty simple. The Women New Hampshire felt sorry after crying on t.v and the bradley effect. It's going to be interesting to see how far she can carry the female vote, especially after she shows her true self again.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  348. Robert

    Jack, it's politically correct to say that women decided to support Hillary after she teared up and was perceived as having been picked on, or that Senator Obama's supporters voted for Senator McCain because they thought Barack was going to win, but that's only part of the story without including the "race" factor. All the polls were dead wrong a day before the election, and a few tears or switching to McCain are not enough to explain the outcome with record numbers voting. The only polls in the U.S. that have been that wrong a day before an election have all involved a black candidate whose support evaporated the day of the election. Any objective person has to realize it's easier for a white person to support a white candidate if he or she doesn't have to reveal their votes to others.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  349. Pat

    Hillary's win:

    1) Anger over how much of the media coverage has been so favorable toward (or at least without any critical analysis of) Obama and blatantly unfavorable toward Hillary
    2) Anger that the media has made, as Bill Richardson said, experience into "leprosy".
    3) Anger of having the media, entertainment industry and political-analyst types all telling us "who's going to win" instead of educating us on their positions so we can decide independently
    4) Anger that the field could be closed by the choices of a small percentage of voters in two tiny states
    5) Anger that too much of the criticism has been gender based and/or gender biased.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  350. Bil Gekas

    The reason that Hillary won so unexpectedly was that every pundit jumped all over her when she showed a little emotion. Most of these pundits are men. Women noticed and that attitude by the press just plain pissed them off as they drove down to cast their votes. Even if they had not decided to vote for her in advance, I believe that standing in line and thinking about how badly she had been treated by the press for just being a human being, many thought, "Oh yeah . . . " and pulled the lever for Hillary. If you compare the polls to the results, you may find that it's just that simple. Moral of the story: men, be careful about characterizing women. There may be unintended consequences.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  351. Lee

    I've seen several allegations of voter fraud online.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
  352. kay irland

    My goodness, are the Obama backers sore losers ? Of all your blogs all they have done is wine and cry that Clinton did not win. The numbers show she did! Good for her, Obama talks about change but he is not a change, he is more of the same middle aged, educated with no expereince but alot of empty promises. Are we not trying to get out from under that now? He talks about change. What is he going to change, How is he going to change it? What viable experience does he have to prove that he can make a change? I do not hear nor see anything that would back up his "Claim to Change." Clinton does have experience. She has seen what Washington can do and what they refuse to do. She has been our Senator and has done a wonderful job . Where are all of the non belivers that voiced she was would be uneffective as a senator? Where are all of the members of Congress that shot her down when she tried to get a health program started when she was First Lady? We would not have this mess of low , none, high premiums medical/health coverage we have now had she had the backing to start this program 20 years ago. Perhaps she was stepping on too many male egos. I can't vote for her in the primary but I sure will be voting for her in general election!!! Only wish I could vote more than once. You go girl!!!!!!!!!!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
  353. Stacie

    With stations such as PBS showing us that computers purposefully change voters choices I think last night Americans just witnessed the first, but not last, successful election fraud to be pulled off. Jack thank you for your continued voice of reason and for allowing a little unimportant American like me voice my opinion. And could you please tell me why has CNN stopped talking about Ron Paul? He is the ONLY candidate that has never changed his platform? Not once.I'm so confused. I'm dedicated to CNN and you and I'm hoping you can help. Again thank you.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
  354. Steve T

    By the way Jack, If tears convinced people to switch votes then Mr. Obama should shed a few and take his votes back!!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  355. Carol Ann Sewell

    Thank You Jack for your question, I think that Hillary won because she takes the time to hear the people and their questions. My family spent the weekend listening to the candidates and their response to the questions and we watched as Hillary repeated each question and gve her answer point by point. She out did every one ..She is very intelligent and educated..What I liked best was a comment by a ninty year old republican who said that we have had a male president for over two hundred years and look at the mess we are in, it is time to let a woman have a try...there is no woman more qualified. By the way aren't we supposed to stand by our man and not to bail when things don't go as planned..She has proven herself to be selfless. Jack you make my day and I always look to you not to sugar coat anything...Go Jack...Run Hillary Run

    January 9, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  356. Robert

    Jack, it’s politically correct to say that women decided to support Hillary after she teared up and was perceived as having been picked on, or that Senator Obama’s supporters voted for Senator McCain because they thought Barack was going to win, but that’s only part of the story. All the polls were dead wrong a day before the election, and a few tears or switching to McCain are not enough to explain the outcome with record numbers voting. The only polls in the U.S. that have been that wrong a day before an election have all involved a black candidate whose support evaporated the day of the election. Any objective person has to realize it’s easier for a person to support a candidate of their race if he or she doesn’t have to reveal their votes to others.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  357. Claire


    The reason for Senator Clinton winning was that the people of New Hampshire, like the rest of us, were sickened by the punditry and news personnel that seriously tried to steer the elections away from Clinton. We don't need you guys telling us how to vote. Do you jobs and try fair and balanced news. And as for the rest... experience is the only thing that will get us out of the quagmire that the Bush Administration has gotten this country into. Those guys need to be tried in a court of law and thrown in jail. Impeachment is not good enough. And while we're at it... let's take all of their money away and give it to the poor.

    Obama can run 4 or 8 years from now, but for the time being, we need the facts and not effusive, flowery speeches that say nothing at all except "change" and "yes, we can".

    January 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  358. Karen

    John Edwards was arrogant in the debate, trying to push Hillary aside and declaring it to be a two-man race, and even Obama was less-than-gracious in his comment about Hillary's likability. The media was vicious to Hillary. Her considerable record of achievement and knowledge of the issues was tossed aside as irrelevant in the rush to coronate Obama.

    I watched HIllary on C-span answer voter questions. She showed great command of the issues and was able to answer every question with specificity and substance.

    I don't care at all about her style or whether the media thinks she's "authentic." The media thought George W. Bush was "authentic" and Al Gore was not. So we got an "authentic" president who took us into an "authentic" war. Meanwhile, the awkward internet geek named Gore would have kept us out of Iraq. We are not voting for Prom King or Queen here.

    I like Obama alot. He is still the strongest candidate in my view, but he needs to withstand tougher questions, as does Hillary. We need to know who the foreign policy advisers are for both camps and what their world views are.

    The media should think SUBSTANCE SUBSTANCE SUBSTANCE. Enough already with this House of Style obsession.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  359. Pam

    John Edwards' stupid remark about Hillary's emotional response along with all the post-mortem "She's Dead!" comments by the press after the IOWA Caucus put me over the top. I got pissed! I did something I've never done before – contribute to a candidate's campaign (Hillary's).

    January 9, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
  360. Ernie

    Presidential campaigns are tough business, I wish everyone would see that. But thanks Jack for tongue lashing John Edwards for being man enough to say it. He's the only honest candidate we have. God help us if we end up with the novelty of an Obama or Hilary. What will they do that first day, Obama would be clueless, and Hilary would just ask Bill. Hilary tears up and she gets a win in N.H.....pathetic..

    January 9, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
  361. Tim in Michigan

    Dr Ron Paul is the only candidate that hasn't accepted payoffs from companies and big biz. Check out his site and decide for yourself Ronpaul.
    He is also the only candidate that opposes the nafta super highway and the American union. We can either continue to be "we the sheeple" or vote for change with Ron paul and restore "we the people".

    January 9, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  362. Dana

    Two words Jack: tears and Bill!
    The tears definately helped because it showed she is human. Compare that human side to the current adminstation and you'll figure it out. Bill Clinton is still loved by all, even I would vote for him if he could run again. I am still undecided and independent
    Dana in Florida

    January 9, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  363. Judy Trueblood

    I am 55 years old and never registered to vote until 8 years ago. I was never one to take the politicians seriously as there was always doubts whether their words wre what you wanted to hear or a promise that was sure to be broken. But this election year I have been moved by Barack Obama and have found myself glued to the TV and internet to find out more, watch the caucuses for the first time and the primary in NH. Even more surprising I will attend an Obama rally in my home state of South Carolina on January 10. He has brought so much enthusiasm to me and restored faith that he can be trusted, how could I not follow him in his race to lead our nation. His charismatic demeanor and his dynamite speeches are enough to make anyone excited. I'm not sure what happened in NH but my disappointment of his second place finish will not darken my hopes or dampen my spirits. I will say this election has confirmed that I am an independent voter although I voted republican in my only 2 elections. I will never support Hillary Clinton and my newly found interest in politics will diminish greatly as taking a couple words from the former Clinton President, come to mind. lwill fight for a republican candidate if that is what it takes to keep "that woman" out of the White House.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  364. carla


    January 9, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  365. Claire

    That is: "Do your jobs..."

    January 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  366. Frantz


    I am a first time blogger although I have sent you some e-mails, in fact , sent you one just a little while ago. The media, even you and Wolf joined the bandwagon, burried Hillary prematurely and was more than willing to coronate Obama. The problem for the media is the pundits, prognosticators, polls sometimes are wrong, such as in this case. I must say I was disappointed to see you and Wolf koin in the demise of Hillary Clinton before she even had the opportunity to make her case to the good folks of New Hampshire.
    I hope you guys and the media in general scrutinize Sen Obama just as you have Sen Clinton, try to pin him down to find out where he stands on the issues, and explain the various contradictory statements he has made on the Iraq war. It is not enough to inspire people by making beautiful speeches and offering lofty rethorics, we need him to present his programs in a substantive manner and defend his positions. I am not aginst Obama, I am for Hillary Clinton, by the way, I am an African-American.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  367. PHIL

    Jack, yesterday I listened to the media as they pointed out Hiliary Clinton's weaknesses and faults....'she's tearing, she's emotional' . They showed Hilary discussing her personal feelings about herself and her country over and over. I found it disgusting that a group of men and some women could sit and try to convince the American people they shouldn't vote for Hilary Cllinton.
    Well, has it ever occurred to anyone that some of these newly converted 'Independents" in Republican clothing have some dirty trick up their sleeve. Sure, vote for Obama with a big push in the primary and vote Republican in the Nov. election . The Republicans rather face Obama as the nominee in the Nov. election than face Hilary Clinton. We've had 8 yrs. of Bill and Hilary...they left us with no debt, no killed and wounded from a manipulated war. Hilary may not have the 'gift of gab' of Obama but talk is cheap and I'd rather see a doer in the
    White House next year than a poetic unknown.

    Phil in Florida

    January 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  368. Jarrett

    Senator Clinton was able to win the New Hampshire primary because voters witnessed what I've been witnessing for several weeks now. The media (including you, Jack) have already ordained Obama as the Democratic nominee. However, no one appreciates being told how to vote. The anti-Clinton rhetoric from the media created a sympathy vote and a desire to give her a second look. Recall months ago when the media (again, including you, Jack) ordained Senator Clinton as the inevitable winner amongst the Democrats, things began to go sour for her and improve for Obama. The best way to predict the outcome of these elections is for the media to forego the hype and divisiveness and simply concentrate on the news.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  369. BM

    NH has spoken, they did not let the polls or media tell them how to vote. It doesn't matter what she does, she will not please everyone. The people need to wake up, we need a strong, sensitive, intelligent women to get this country out of this mess. Obama is not ready.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  370. linda

    I believe Mrs. Clinton won because she tore a page right out of Obama's play book. From the beginning Obama's been telling the American people we need change and that the do nothing disease in the White House can't stand dormant any longer. Mrs. Clinton was all about experience until yesterday. Last night she said she had found her voice,she found Barack Obama's voice. Obama got bushwacked last night.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  371. Robert

    Jack, it’s politically correct to say that women decided to support Senator Clinton after she teared up and was perceived as having been picked on, or that Senator Obama’s supporters voted for Senator McCain because they thought Barack was going to win, but that’s only part of the story. All the polls were dead wrong a day before the election, and a few tears or switching to McCain are not enough to explain the outcome with record numbers voting. The only polls in the U.S. that have been that wrong a day before an election have all involved a black candidate whose support evaporated the day of the election. Any objective person has to realize it’s easier for a person to support a candidate of their race if he or she doesn’t have to reveal their votes to others.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  372. Minda

    Once again I see the Clinton haters are alive and nasty on this blog! People decry the divisiveness and yet its not the Clintons who are nasty but the haters who are so full of their own shortcomings they project them on the Clintons.

    As for the election in New Hampshire it's the economy stupid. The people realize that great speakers are good to listen to for inspiration, but this time we need someone who can actually govern. Also people resent such a nasty press who try their best to destroy Hillary and put Obama on a pedestal. If Obama were to win the nomination, it would not take them long to begin to destroy him for his lack of experience.

    Of course, next they will bring up race. I saw what they did to Harold Ford here in Tennessee it was disgusting but the republicans are capable of any dirty thing to win in the fall.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:55 pm |
  373. debbie

    Are you required to show photo ID to vote in NH? Just curious. Hillary bussed people in from other states to make her crowds look bigger. How do we know wheter or not they decided to stay and vote for her as well?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:55 pm |
  374. Dr. Kenneth Buchholz

    Quite simple: the media suffer from RCI (Rectal-Cranial Inversion). To think that one win in one of the most unrepresentative states in this diverse union is enough to triangulate a winner is beyond fantasy. The media is actually responsible for the national herd mentality – say that Obama is the Front Runner loud and long enough and everyone will believe it. Doubt that? Then why don't you "call" races while the polls are still open, like you used to in the Good Ole Days? Why don't you talking heads simply stick to reporting FACTS and forget all the guessing that simply continues to demonstrate that you collectively don't have a clue?

    January 9, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
  375. joan

    If you build it they will come and the Clintons built it a long time ago. Go Hillary!

    January 9, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
  376. jeannette

    I think the polls simply got it wrong. People were inspired–I was, by Obama. Many women, however, want to be very sure that BOTH candidates go through the whole process. We want to see the senators go head to head throughout the primary process. I don't think professional women want the press to dictate the Barack will win anything–New Hampshire voters are not easily swayed by one speech or simple charisma. She was way ahead for months; Barack had a great week, but the press overstated his success, that's all. She didn't make a comeback. She simply held onto the lead DESPITE Barack's wave of success.

    Who CARES? Jack, we have an African American man and a white woman as the main contenders in my party. I simply want to celebrate that, listen as closely to each as I can, WITHOUT the press filters and pundits' takes, and figure out which one I REALLY want. If the other wins, I will STILL support that candidate. Let's look at the very large brains of both, recognize both have "sold out" to someone at some point to get there, and put their POLICIES and PROMISES under the microscope, not the campaign tactics.

    And elephants and pigs will fly.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
  377. DC NORM

    I am a life long Republican, and I am not so sure CNN did not play a key roll/part in the loss of Obama in New Hampshire…Why?? Because they intentionally reported Obama's relatives in Kenya. That US would have to pay for security service of his relatives in Kenya. Why did CNN not report on his life and up-bringing with his white Mother's parents in Kansas? Clearly, CNN found a way to send a message to incite those who believe the false rumors of Obama being a Muslim...HOW NASTY THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE..OBAMA NEEDS TO STEP UP AND LET IT BE KNOWN. Maybe the death of his white mother and the struggle of grand parents assisting Obama in getting his education would also gather tears and sympathy vote.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
  378. Kevin Zarbock

    Obama, Obama is cry'n now. He was supposed to have this thing all but in the bag. The quintessential slam dunk ha ha where Have we heard that one before?

    So much for those media types LOL. I'll say this it makes for an interesting primary.

    January 9, 2008 at 4:59 pm |
  379. Paula

    Jack, To answer your question as to why Hillary won ..
    my feeling is that most people did not listen to jerks like you who have nothing but negative comments about her.
    They obviously inquired/researched, weighed and choose the most qualified. and unlike you, found her most qualified.
    Thanks, Paula

    January 9, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
  380. Ron K - San Diegp

    Hi Jack:

    It was the "HANGING CHAD" ..

    Ron K. CA

    January 9, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  381. jane

    Jack: Do you really read this stuff?

    Anyway, I agree with others that there was a sympathetic backlash among white female voters in New Hampshire that was caused by a confluence of factors including the prefectly-timed Gloria Steinem op-ed Tuesday morning in the NY Times, Bill Clinton's accusations of media bias, Hillary Clinton's moment of zen the previous day in the cafe. My hunch is that women in New Hampshire like Obama but weren't ready to see Hillary leave the race so soon and voted for her in the primary even though they don't necessarily want her to win the nomination (because of her electability problem in the general). In other words, they let her get out of the NH "committee" and go to the "floor" of the rest of the country for a vote in subsequent primaries.

    P.S. I do wish Clinton and Obama had been more congenial toward each other (like McCain and Huckabee) because they would have made a wonderful ticket.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  382. Steve


    Please take note of this: the Clintons are playing *WITH FIRE*.
    Winning the nomination is okay, but if they savage the only viable
    African-American Presidential candidate we have ever seen,
    the way President Clinton and Senator Clinton did in N.H., they
    just might depress the black vote in November.

    African Americans who voted twice for Bill Clinton might
    stay home in November if Barack is roughed up by Bill and
    Hillary the way they attacked him in N.H. And if African Americans
    stay home in November, and Hillary fires up the GOP base (which
    she WILL do), you are looking at a Republican landslide. You heard it here

    January 9, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  383. Michael


    I think there were three reasons: First, there was the last debate when Edwards and Obama tag teamed her, which to me did not represent candidates looking for positive change, but rather more of the same old attack politics; even if Barack's attacks seemed less direct, like his comment that Hillary was likeable enough.

    Second, the media was all over Hillary for showing emotion when meeting a group of people; if it had been a male, like Bush after 9/11, he would be seen as caring and compassion, yet when it's a woman she's portrayed as weak or even insincere.

    Third, when Bill Clinton met with a group of people and indicated that Barack's record has been left mostly unchallenged, and concluded by calling it a fairy tale campaign, he drew sharp criticism from all sides. I was especially appalled when Donna Brazile made a comment on CNN that, as an African-American, she was offended by Bill Clinton's tone and earlier comment that Barack was a kid.

    Personally, I don't think Bill Clinton gives a hoot if Barack's black, white, purple, blue or any color, he come out in support of his wife's campaign; so when Donna interjected race into the campaign, I veiwed it as a cheap political shot meant to advance Barack's chances for victory. I mean what else could it be? I think Donna knows campaign politics can get down and dirty.


    January 9, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
  384. Paul


    Did you ever think that the voters in New Hampshire, and the rest of the United States are not sick and tired of the candidates, but rather sick and tired of "The Best Political Team on Television" telling them the outcome before they step foot out of the door.

    You and the rest of your band of belligerent, name calling, belittling, embedded reporters should be ashamed of the way that you speak about these people. Yes I said people, regardless of the views of CNN these are People and they have feelings and your continued name calling is totally uncalled for. Sure it serves for your sensationalism but like I said you should be ashamed.

    Why can’t you just report the news without the bull. I for one am sick of it, if CNN was running, I would move to another Country.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
  385. Steve


    Wonderful show always insightful. I am not sure if you recieved the email titled "what everyone needs to know about Obama"? It is a viral email that is circulating everywhere. In it their are claims that Barack was reaised a Muslim, attended a Madrassas and was sworn into congress using a Koran. All this is entirely false. This email was circulating hugely on Tuesday and I have to wonder if it may have been a factor in his unexpected loss.


    January 9, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  386. Rob

    Even though I love the excitement surrounding Obama I like more than just promises made by politicians. His message of change is just another campaign promise. He hasn't defined what "change" would be and that displays his lack of a track record. Enough of the media hype behind her tears, this entire process started way too soon and shows off Obama even more than Hillary. Even though I'm not a big Clinton supporter I'm still not convinced that there is anybody better. Democrats for McCain!

    January 9, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
  387. Tonya

    We all know that Hillary won because of the "tears" she shed. To me the tears do not prove anything because in order to run with the big dogs she has to be tough. Women already have fewer privilages than a man ,and for a women to run the country she has to be strong. The tears to me suggest that she cracks under pressure. Also for her and her supports to believe that they had already lost before everything unfold tells me that they are not optimistic. She does not posess the qualities of a strong leader which is needed to run this country. She was better off as a "first lady" not as a president. Tears are a form of manipulation used by children to get their way!

    January 9, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  388. Candace

    I would be surprised to learn the tears were not scripted. I firmly believe the media, including CNN, flooding the public with the continual replay of Hillary's tears is the cause of the change in the final vote vs. voters' polls. I saw very little by comparison of the other candidates on CNN yesterday. HOWEVER FOREMOSTLY, I don't want a President who cries under stress, do you?

    January 9, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  389. Cheryl


    Ok here come all the conspiracy theories about the NH Primary. This only shows me what things might be like in the event Hillary Clinton becomes president. There will be the hatred from both sides, the divided government, a divided people, blaming each other, and nothing will get accomplished.

    I support John Edwards and will support him until he runs out of money or quits. I believe asking John Edwards to comment on what he thought about Hillary tearing up was what I consider to be STUPID. What did people think he should have said about that (oh I feel so sorry for Hillary and please forgive her getting emotional, she is doing the best she can with all of these big bullies picking on her all the time),

    Back to the primary, I don't know why more people aren't furious about the comments made to Hillary during one of her speeches and if that could be the reason why people voted for her. Two men made sexist remarks and she so casually said, "Sexism is alive and well" I wonder what would have happened to those same two men if they had made racial comments during Obama's speech. Would that have been considered a hate crime, if so, why wouldn't a sexist remark?

    Oh, and Bill Clinton's remarks to attack Obama (yeah I know, NH voters don't like attacks, yeah right) the night before, where he had no time to defend himself, was a dirty, dirty trick. Why didn't Hillary ever bring that up before, like maybe at the debate that prior Saturday? Dirty, Dirty Tricks.

    Don't be fooled again people (to take a page from George Bush's book) John Edwards for President!

    January 9, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  390. Russ

    I live in Durham, NH – one of the college towns where all the young votes for Obama were supposed to come from. One key factor missed by the media pundits may have been that the primary was held so early this year that school was not back in session yet. The college students were still on winter break and not in town on primary day. Obama may have had the young people's support in the polls – but that doesn't matter if the young people do not show up to vote.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  391. Robert

    Clinton won by being a FOLLOWER. She dropped her laundry list of things-to-do-in-the-White-House and took up Obama's message of "change and hope". Then she copied Edwards after he spoke from the heart about his "personal" stake in the race. Next, she lifted Obama's strategy of saying "you, we, us, together..." vs. "I, I, I..." Clinton talks from carefully scripted notes. Obama speaks spontaneously from the heart. He is a true LEADER.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  392. Pam Child

    I think that Arnie Arneson( NH Liberal Lady and talk show host) said it best today on public radio - It wasn't the tears guys!!! The 'regular' type women in NH don't listen to NPR they listen to talk radio where Hillary was crucified for showing emotion - then these women went to the voting booth and voted with their middle fingers! Don't mess with women!

    I was so upset with how the press (especially you Wolf) was covering Hillary's impending loss and criticizing Bill for showing some emotion when saying - 'hey, Hillary has done it, What has Obama done? Why isn't the press asking him'?The man wasn't making a policy speech, he was campaigning for his wife! DUH!

    Scratching your heads?..... maybe you should watch your gender bias when speaking. There isn't a woman (for that matter anyone) who couldn't identify with the cracked voice of an exhausted Hillary - and most of us don't like the nasty comments by the pundits who are out of touch, obviously! Pam New London, NH

    January 9, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  393. questionauthority

    How did Hillary win? One word comes to mind- Dieblod.

    81% of New Hampshire ballots were tallied by Diebold machines.
    In the Diebold districts Hillary gets an increase and Obama gets a decrease.
    In the non-Diebold districts it's the opposite.

    Interestingly, the second place candidate in Diebold Districts is Obama with 36%; in non-Dieblod districts the second place candidate is Hillary with the same 36%. Meanwhile, all other candidates percentages in all districts are consistent.

    Maybe it's just coincidence; and then maybe those who cast the votes decide nothing, while those who count the votes decide everything.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  394. Jason in Ky

    If I was getting as much money as Hillary from special interests then I would have a chance too!!

    January 9, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  395. Carole

    What I can't figure out is why everyone is surprised! Just because some people start to talk about her being behind does not a funeral make.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  396. Paul

    It’s simple, there was some vote fraud happening… I don’t understand why the news is not reporting it….

    Sutton, NH for example reported Ron Paul at 0 votes and 100% precincts reporting, then after raising a lot of fuss on the internet and a family reporting that their vote was not counted. They found 31 votes… 0 versus 31… Is it not proof enough for a recount? I’m sure both Paul and Obama got shorted on this…

    There was another comparison done against the hand votes, and computer vote machines, and obama won in the hand vote counties and paul came in 3rd instead of 5th… Why are no news reporters watching these things…

    I hope a recount is called for…….. The accuracy of our presidential elections is of absolute importance.

    I tried to post this earlier with links but they wont let it through the 'moderator' maybe this one will.........

    January 9, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  397. Anthony Garritano


    Hillary Clinton is the best candidate. America knows that, but every election they buy into the candidate of false promises because he's likeable. As America sees more of Hillary the person, they'll warm to her more and more. We've had too many politicians promise a lot and not deliver. Hillary is different. She's always done what she said she'd do. If there's no substance behind the sizzle, it'll show over time. I'm glad it's starting to show this time around before America elects another President that says he'll unite us only to further divide us.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  398. lou

    What's wrong with the NH democratic primary pix? No, Hillary didn't win cuz she cried. Someone isn't telling the truth...either the pollsters or the people being polled. Business as usual, I'd say.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  399. Allison from California


    No one knows why Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire. We may never know, but what is important is women and men, young and old, came out and cast their votes for the best candidate. She has a tremendous variety of experiences that can help her lead this country toward peace and prosperity and bring us the respect of other nations, that was lost during the Bush Administration.

    I laugh when I hear people say it was that scene in the diner that got her the votes, and that Hillary might have forced the emotion she was displaying. - And - some of these people are women. Well, shame on them!

    It's very difficult for a woman to show certain emotions when she is involved in business, and I assume in politics as well. Therefore, we have learned to hide emotions that we think might show any weakness that could keep us from getting ahead. When they do surface and we start to tear up, we force them back. So I know that in that diner, when a tear or two welled in her eyes, Hillary Clinton was trying to hold them back. This was a personal moment for her. I know she was being sincere and I'll bet - when she left the diner - she was wishing the incident had never occurred.

    Hillary has worked for many years to make our country a better place in which to live and raise our children. She will continue to do so in spite of any obstacles that stand in her way. Why? Because she's a woman! And that's what women do.

    So, don't make light of us because we're "being women". We're a very powerful force in this great nation, and we always do what it takes to get the job done.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  400. questionauthority

    RE: DC Norm and the Kenya reports:
    I noticed the same thing. I also thought the video of Kenyans running around with machetes was curiously timed.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  401. lou

    Hillary won cuz the fat lady sang too soon. Don't believe everything you see on TV or read in the paper!

    January 9, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  402. marilyn

    1. people are tired of giving out private info; if someone asked me I would never tell them the truth...pollsters, projections in their own way manipultate elections by telling people who is going to win. Let the people decide and let the pollsters find out when we do...........it's just another media game to see who can project winners – same as football

    January 9, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  403. brandon perrault

    Why won't the media just admit they were wrong about the Polls?

    January 9, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  404. Elnora Walker

    Hillary won New Hampshire because she is the smartest one running. She has shown that for years. It seems as if the media (for the most part) is fighting against her. They seem to concentrate on hoopla about Obama. If he had to fight half as hard (by himself) as Hillary, no one would remember his name.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  405. Sammye

    I have to respond to DC NORM . . .your piece on Obama's grandmother in Kenya had positively nothing to do with his being or not being Muslim. DC, please read a little further and you will find that the Muslim connection does not come from his father's side but his mother's. She married a Muslim the second time and it was through him that Barack spent time in Indonesia. Just because he spent time in Indonesia with his mother and step-father does not make him Muslim. He is associated with the United Churches of Christ.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
  406. Julie

    Jack: the first thing that came to mind was: who did she pay off? The machine came through for her-possibly in more ways than one!

    January 9, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
  407. Gary W Diehl

    How come nobody is suggesting that the voteing machines have been compromised in one way or another?????

    January 9, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  408. Nick

    As a Clinton supporter I am struck by Obamas eloquence and can remember my first politcal awakening as a young adult as I would listen spellbound by John F. Kennedys graceful, enlighening words of hope and optimism. Older and wiser now I still get teary eyed by those eloquent visions, but then I awaken and still stand in Hillarys corner for she is, at this point in time, the best person for the job . And as Bill said not that long ago. Two for the price of one!

    January 9, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
  409. Ruth -VanReken

    Very easily. The media bought into her staged show (think back to the interview with her and Bill in the Gennifer Flowers days – another “human interest piece that turned the tide) and gave her more free publicity than ten million dollars could have bought her campaign.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
  410. Julie

    As a possible explanation, I have heard that the Republicans really, really want Hillary to be the candidate because they would gain so many votes from all the people, myself included, who not only would not vote for her, but would actively vote against her. Since this was an open primary, perhaps there was an attempt to ensure her spot on the ballot by Republicans voting for her.

    The crocodile tears nauseated me, by the way.


    January 9, 2008 at 5:36 pm |
  411. Matt

    Election Fraud...

    Do you job and report on it...Ron Paul had 31 votes from Sutton District and they reported he had 0...

    Diebold machines don't match hand counts...


    January 9, 2008 at 5:36 pm |
  412. Sam Elakkad

    The experts came up with some okay reasons but heres my explanation, the news media was so obsessed with Hilary crying that they put it on every channel and kept repeating it. Thus the news put Hilary in peoples minds over and over again that shes all they could think about. Stop showing one candidate more than another stop choosing our president media!

    now that I have answerered your question, bring up Ron Paul. Hes not going to be able to get rid of social security, homeland security, cia, fbi, department of education or the war on drugs because Congress won't let him but he has the perfect foreign policy for our saftey and that will improve our economy. We need him as president to balance the crazy Congress that wants to spend all the money and take over the world. He will lower taxes and introduce competition to health care, which will lower prices and increase quality. Stop pumping government money into these programs that hurt more people than they help, people can make more efficient use of their own money if there were lower taxes, they could afford health insurance and their mortage. Taxing people till they are poor than making programs for them does not work! Also Iran should not be our concern, get out of there and leave them alone, they will not get nuclear weapons because Israel won't allow it their inteligence is better than ours. Israel is our friend but that doesn't mean we should fight their battles, they can handle it they are pretty damn strong. We need to stop doing the dirty work for Israel they can handle themselves. We can be their friends without losing american lives.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  413. John

    With such a large disparity between the polls and the voting results, everyone seems to be asking what is wrong with the polls. I am starting to wonder if its not the polls that are inaccurate but the actually voting results. I hate to suggest something like this but with the high use of Diebold voting machines in New Hampshire its not impossible there is potential for fraud. Other than the differing poll results, the reason I mention this is a discrepancy in Ron Paul's voting numbers (I know, even mentioning him makes me a nut), where in Sutton, NH there were 3 family members that voted for Paul but the results showed 0 votes with 100% reporting. I hate to say it but maybe its not the polls that are inaccurate...

    January 9, 2008 at 5:40 pm |
  414. Pamela in FL

    The Independants, whom Obama needed, voted for Mc Cain because they knew he would be out if he lost.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:40 pm |
  415. Stephen

    You've got it right Jack. It was the Crocodile Tears. Some Americans are suckers for anything. I bet we'll be seeing more of those stunts from Hillary.

    January 9, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
  416. TG

    Clinton/Obama Battle

    I have always admired the Clintons, however, what I am seeing on the campagin trail is disappointing. They (Clintons) are utilizing tactics against Obama which the Republicans used against them during President Clintons tenure. I have not yet determine my selection in the primary. Considering what I am seeing with the Clintons, I would vote for anyone except her (Hillary). We need a change. Let's stop all this degrading of people trying to acquire the lead role. I am tired of the dirty politics. America wake up!!!!

    January 9, 2008 at 5:50 pm |
  417. Peggy

    Hillary is a blue-blood. New Hampshire voters sympathized with her in part because of how John Edwards "busted" her out as the "status quo" in the debates. Then, she was told that she was unliked among many, to which she responded genuinely "hurt". What about the several newspapers that portrayed her in a dimming light? The "hint-of-tears" moment was the sealer. Many middle-aged women who, in their minds, have been beaten down by male dominance positions, came to her rescue. Or...perhaps the 'race' vote, as it's termed. Those exiting the polls lied. Those entering the polls lied. There are those who didn't want it to end there...Never has a candidate won both New Hampshire and Iowa and didn't win the presidency. America is on it's way to a Black president and the "eagle" wants to stretch it out for as long as possible. After all, it's the Clinton's who are afraid of Obama...what does that say?

    January 9, 2008 at 5:59 pm |
  418. trina roland

    I cannot believe NH voters how gullible can you get to vote for someone because she was emotional give me a break I think she is nothing but a phony . How can you trust the most powerful nation in the world to a person who cannot stand the heat of a primary election who gets all tearfull when things dont go her way is beyond me . and by the way i am a woman and a democrat. If the democrats wanrt another 4 yrs with bill and hilary i am ready to vote republican.If democratic voters cant see how genuine Obama is then they deserve all they get if they vote clinton into office.


    January 9, 2008 at 6:04 pm |
  419. John Onyango

    Besides saying it takes a clinton to clean after a bush, or that you have been doing "this" for 35 yrs, whatever "this" is, or havng her husband gang up and fight for her, all you have to do is cry in public, and you got the women feeling your pain and voting for you, crocodile tears jack, I am not buying it, but thats how she won.

    January 9, 2008 at 6:07 pm |
  420. JOCELYN

    Clinton advanced by duping the public, especially the women, with her batting lashes, emotional inflection, and misty eyed PERFORMANCE. By "any means necessary"! I know that she and her family will never forget this academy award! Too funny that so many areso easily fooled.
    Obama's message of uniting all for the common good is refreshing and extremely important for our future. United we stand and divided we fall. No one else seems to understand that "we" means US not just one party, culture, color or gender.
    It's time for the new generation to lead. All the others seem to be out of touch with too much baggage and personal interests.

    January 9, 2008 at 6:08 pm |
  421. Kimberly/New York

    Wake, Wake-up America! The Democratic Party needs an experience, highly
    intelligent, tenacious politician who will fight tooth and nail to get this
    country back to respectability with the world. We have enough American
    Idols, rock stars and celebrities living in this country! America's
    nightmare is only beginning, if Obama is elected the Democratic nominee for
    President . The Presidency is not talk show!

    Experience is the best teacher...Hillary has the experience, ambition,
    drive, compassion and intelligence to return America back to respectability.
    I will vote Republican before I vote for a "rock star."

    Go Hillary!!!!!!!!!!! Your win yesterday is only the beginning of many more victories, therefore, Bama can remain the future American idol fad!

    January 9, 2008 at 6:11 pm |
  422. Anonymous

    The numbers in Zogby's latest polls, for all but Clinton and Obama, seem to have been dead-on the money for both the Republicans and Democrats. Edwards, for example, was polled at 17% in Zogby's poll, and he received exactly 17% .

    Zogby's predicted numbers: Obama 42%, Hillary 29%

    40% of New Hampshire's precincts are hand-counted, which equals about 25% of the votes. All the rest are counted on Diebold op-scan systems, the exact same ones that were hacked in the HBO Documentary “Hacking Democracy.” These machines are all programmed and managed by one small company, LHS Associates. LHS Associates controls everything – programming, upgrading, replacing memory cards, and also maintains custody of all memory cards after the election. Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org says, LHS is the "chain of custody" in New Hampshire elections.

    Research shows the voting very close between Obama / Clinton in NH. Most of the towns are very close – whether Diebold or paper ballot. However, three big cities, all where Diebold machines are used, show major differences. Ranging from 40 – 80% favoring Clinton: Manchester, Nashua, and Salem, the three biggest cities in NH.

    Obama won by 38.7% to 34.8% for Clinton (~4% spread) when counting only the hand-counted votes – those that can actually be verified. The spread is actually about a 7% shift if you take the % of votes Clinton picked up in the machine counts (+4.9%) and the % of votes taken away from Obama (-2.3%).

    There should be a recount of all the ballots that were put thru the scanners. Wouldn’t it be a hoot if that was done and Obama actually won!

    Very strange that when corruptible machines are involved, Obama loses – but without the machines, he wins.

    More analysis needs to be done, but something smells pretty bad here.

    January 9, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  423. Nello

    Jack, I cannot help but make a comment as to why Hilary won the New Hampshire election. The good folks in New Hampshire was con into thinking Hilary was showing genuine emotion. She knew exactly what she was doing when that question was asked of her. Her display of emotiom was calculating like the woman herself. I will not vote for that woman if she was the last woman on earth. Every time I look at her on tv I get this strong feeling she is not to be trusted. God help us all if she becomes president.

    January 9, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  424. Gary

    Could the first lady of New Hampshire endorsement got Senator Clinton her votes?

    January 9, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  425. Joe Kunkel

    I am not surprised that the pollsters were wrong. All night I was seeing that the stats were being calculated wrong! The raw numbers when calculated correctly had Hilary at 40% to Obama's 37% not 39 to 37. They rounded Obama's up to 37 but never rounded Hilary's up to 40 even when the raw numbers fluctuated to 40% for her. At the end the two were 2.7 percent apart but the statisticians still refused to round Hilary up. I guess there is some sort of resentment of being proven wrong. They would not put Hilary in the next decade up from Obama. Where is the truth in reporting and are the pollsters being emotional about their own numbers? Hilary won by 3% if were using whole numbers!

    January 9, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  426. Lloyd

    She was able to win because Americans are afraid to step out of their comfort zones. Hillary Clinton is and always has been a political opportunist since she stepped on the national scene, willing to say or DO anything to advance her political career. Everyone is clammering for change, well the way to get change is to stop voting for the same political machines in every election. I'm a democrat and for me Hillary represents the past, it is time to sweep all the "old guard" out and bring new, intelligent, leaders with truly fresh ideas to the political scene.

    January 9, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  427. K. Pack

    Clinton won the NH primarily on an "emotional performance", which did have an immediate impact. For those of you who feel that a candidate's emotions cannot [immediately ] affect prospective voters, rewind to 2004 and remember how the "Dean Scream" affected Howard Dean during his run for the White House.

    Many viewed Dean's "emotional performance" as maniacal, but in all truth he was simply enthused, but his enthusiam, however, had an immediate affect that proved to be adverse to his campaign.

    But let's not forget–we are a nation at war–and will be for years to come–and currently serving in our country's Armed Forces, I'm almost positive that "emotional performances" will not be taken into account by our enemies. When it's time to put warheads on foreheads, I prefer a Commander-in-Chief, not a Commander-in-Tears...

    January 9, 2008 at 6:39 pm |
  428. Maureen Glaser

    Has everyone forgotten how disgraced Bill was while in office...and how his self-serving attitude defiled the Oval Office? This wasn't just an affair played out in a hotel...this was the Oval Office. Therefore, if Hillary is elected, he comes back in under cover of her glory and perpetuates a belief that we Americans did not and do not care that he put the role of President of the United States in a horribly comprimising position. He bold faced lied to everyone! This situation is a mockery and Hillary should have divorced him and run under her own maiden name or lent dignity to the office she aspirees to by not running at all.

    January 9, 2008 at 6:44 pm |
  429. Violet Loveman

    I commented earlier, but for some reason, was cut off....maybe you received half of it.....

    Basically, I mentioned that I am quite new to being so involved in the political debates.....and am trying to be open-minded. You are above all, one of the fairest and honest news reporters I have listened to in many years. You are quick-witted, funny, and no one has to wonder "where you stand"....I love your integrity.

    I am thoroughly disgusted with the manner in which these many, many reporters are reporting "the news".....I realize it is all "opinions" and "interpretations", but I am concerned that the TV stations, the newspapers, the magazines....all the owners and CEO's of these venues, are turning a blind eye and ear to what their reporters are saying.....are they really voicing the opinion of the people who sign their paycheck, or are they so incensed at whatever turn of events goes against their opinion that nothing is sacred and everything is fair game?

    Chris Matthews of MSNBC, is a person to whom I will never listen again.....MSNBC is a station I will never click on and any time this man's name is mentioned in the same company as honest reporters, I will do my utmost to make my point of what a horrible person he must be. His comment this morning (and I might add, all the others at that table...went along) about the reason Hillary Clinton is even in the race was deplorable, sleazy, below the belt and whatever other reasons border on hateful. As a reporter, of a prominent TV station, that was below any sense of decency....I am not quoting it, but hope you have a chance to go back to review it. If you do not see personal vehemence and hatred in his eyes and hear it in his voice, then sobeit. I hope this comes back to haunt him.

    Thanks for listening....

    January 9, 2008 at 6:44 pm |
  430. Ron Prevost

    From a Canadian perspective, God help us all should Ms. Clinton end up in the oval office. If doing poorly in the primaries brings tears to her eyes, how in the world is she supposed to be the leader of the free world? Is she going to fall apart completely if the U.S. has to deal directly with terrorists under a Democratic whitehouse? And I don't believe anyone anywhere can believe that the U.S. will not be the target of more terrorist attacks. The ONLY options for the United States appear to be Obama and McCain.

    Just a note on Al Sharpton. WHY does ANYONE listen to this blithering idiot? All he is good for is jumping on ANY nearby pro-african/american bandwagon and spouting braindead rhetoric. Dr. Martin Luther King he is NOT, regardless of what he believes. What a moron. It's like watching a very collicky baby. Now, whenever he appears on television, I immediately turn the channel, even when I'm watching CNN, which is very sad.

    January 9, 2008 at 6:47 pm |
  431. Carol Hudson

    I think the tide started to turn for Hillary when she was double teamed by Edwards in the Saturday night debate. Edwards sounded a whole lot like Rush Limbaugh and I think some of that perception might have transferred to Obama. It may have taken some time for people to digest the piling on and perhaps her show of emotion coupled with Edwards' attacking her during the debate accounts for her pulling off the political coup of this century (so far). I was certainly irritated by Edwards' comments and it also caused me to turn down a solicitation for more money from an Obama fund raiser on Sunday.

    January 9, 2008 at 6:51 pm |
  432. Michelle

    Iranian boats taunting our navy in international waters, turmoil in Pakistan, Taliban resurgence in Afghanastan, Iraq still far from settled, the deficit looming larger than ever, the economy slowing to possible recession – this is the a list of just some of the current challenges. I think the people are begining to take stock of what is going to be needed...EXPERIENCE. Mr. Obama has served on 1/2 of a senatorial term. Sworn into the US Senate in 2005, and beginning to campaign in 2007 for this presidential race leaves very sparse experience indeed. Yes, he served in Illinois congress...but that is a far cry from Washington and what is needed in the space of foreign policy. I'm a lifelong democrat, and I have serious concerns if Mr. Obama gets the nomination if he is actually electable. This democrat would very seriously consider voting for McCain over Obama. This is something democrats need to weigh carefully. Hillary is ready, she has the experience, she is brilliant, and dedicated.

    On the question of our entrance to the Iraq war and the debate circulating over voting records...I watched Colin Powell's testimony to Congress, every word. I respect him, and I believed there was an eminent threat – so did our Congress. Unfortunately we were all (Powell Included) duped by the current administration. Let's put the blame where it belongs – Bush/Chenney. Our Congress was lied to.

    January 9, 2008 at 6:56 pm |
  433. RedSea Foreign National

    I have noticed also that CNN is on an anti-Hillary campaign!

    For me, a Hillary supporter, I can't believe that any people are so stupid that a few tears will really change anyone’s mind. I have my mind made up by looking at the Senate websites of both Obama and Clinton, and the Thomas Congressional library to see what kind of legislation both have been involved in.

    So now I will tell you why I do not like Obama.

    On immigration: Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

    HOWEVER Obama voted to bring low-cost foreign labor into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. What about the African-Americans who were displaced in that city ready and willing to work?

    On Iraq, he opposes using military force in Iraq, HOWEVER, his voting record shows that he supports the war. He voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home, as 1 exapmle. ANd he has removed some of his speeches from his website where he has talked in support of the war.

    In the beginning, I also supported the war in Iraq, but now I have changed my mind and think 911 was an inside job to gain the support needed by the public to support it! (Which is a whole other story!)

    Obama voted more than five times for USA-PATRIOT's renewal.

    Obama's record on choice is less than 50%. He pretends to be pro-choice while voting for anti-choice justices who have vowed to end choice.

    His most recently sponored legislation requires the US president to secure around the world all nuclear weapons and nuclear usable material. If this is not a law to sponsor US interventionism around the world, then I do not know what is.

    And on his voting record, just go to his website and see that during his term as Senator he is 'not voting' 85% of the time! He sits on the fence and then criticises the voting decisions of others.

    He may have been doing a little for Kenya in these days (coincidentally his grandmother lives there) while he is in the news spotlight, but before, he has mainly been busy trying to get funding for Fermilab, a local company contributing to his campaign. Whereas when Hillary was not in the news spotlight, she has visited Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places, long ago involved on an international level. Where was Obama? 'Not Voting' and cying about funding for Fermilab, where Hillary was on the Senate floor confronting Donald Rumsfield, Bush, and Cheney on no bid contracts and tactics of failure in Iraq, and even our resons for being there. Anyone ever read her speeches? ANyone ever read the speeches of Obama? Compare, and you will find the differnence between a person well versed on history, issues, and proposing detailed solutions and a person giving speeches filled with idealistic language and hype with no real soultions.

    Anyone else have anything of intelligence to say that they can back up with references or solid examples?? Please upgrade the quality of this blog by refering to specfic examples and reference regarding your statements! Otherwise you sound like Obama!

    And to think my vote would be based on some tears?

    Too CNN, I did not even need to know about her tears! This is not a real story or substantial issue to report, and I feel deliberately emphasized in the news to later imply that this is why she won, feeding off the gossipy catty nature of people who do not like Clinton. BBC and Al Jezeera are not making such a big deal out of it!

    January 9, 2008 at 7:01 pm |
  434. JIm Geminiano

    The voters in New Hampshire , especially the working people are intelligent and know the really issues affecting the country – the war in Iraq, terrorism, the economy , health care , immigration, etc. and they voted with their hearts and minds. Hopefully the rest of America, vote what is best for the country and what is best for the people .
    Oprah and the media should not influence your vote .!

    January 9, 2008 at 7:16 pm |
  435. Michelle

    Comment to Maureen Glazer....Let us not punish Hillary for the sins of her husband. First, let's be realistic...JFK did it in a closet in the whitehouse, and had numerous other affairs, so did many other presidents. (Not to mention there have been first ladies with addictions and other problems which did not represent our national image well either.) So Bill wasn't the first to bring shame to the office in his personal conduct. Obviously, she was seriously wounded by his conduct, what could be more hurtful for a wife? Then to have it dragged through the headlines? Should we wound her again??? She took stock of the fact that a marriage is a life-long committment, and that the vocation of marriage requires forgiveness. Did he deserve to be divorced by Hillary. Yes, he earned that. She rose above and gave forgiveness. That is grace.

    She will sit in the oval office, not him. He will have to be content to sit and watch her create a legacy which will be untarnished by such things, and ponder his own mistakes.

    January 9, 2008 at 7:28 pm |
  436. Joanna

    Because I said I would not vote for someone who grew up with the Koran under his pillow, you would not post my comment. Nice going. You better never try running for office. What happened to clean free speech? If Obama does win the next election, what are people going to say when he brings his Muslim family members into the USA and into the White House?
    Interesting to see if you post this comment of mine.

    January 9, 2008 at 7:35 pm |
  437. Mike Green

    Was it fraud? It's a valid question. Far from being a supporter of Ron Paul, I have now seen that some of his votes have gone untabulated. There are often minor errors in tabulations despite the best of intentions. But he was given zero in one precinct where voters knew they had voted for him. Those results have been revised. Given the highly unusual wide discrepancy between the polls and the reported votes, I hope someone does at least one recount, somewhere. Just to reassure.

    January 9, 2008 at 7:39 pm |
  438. Lisa

    Jack, one explanation for the "surprising" Clinton win is that some Obama supporters stayed home, thinking that they did not need to turn out. Another is that the samples used in the polls just weren't representative. The almost non-stop obsession with Hillary's tearing up moment certainly gave her significant visibility in the run-up to the election. Bill Clinton's mud-slinging probably did hurt Obama with some, though it only made me even more disenchanted with the Clintons.

    Obama's time is now. He has the proven ability to inspire Americans like no other in my lifetime except for, perhaps, Jack Kennedy. Neither Bill nor Hillary can hold a candle to Obama when it comes to the things that really count in a leader like character, integrity and the ability to build coalitions across party lines.

    Clinton's time was in the 1990s. The jobs that Bill Clinton sent abroad are not coming back. We can't turn back the clock, and electing Hillary will only keep the special interests of Washington entrenched in the White House. Clintons together with Newt Gingrich's bunch defined partisanship in the 1990's. Now we have a government in gridlock thanks to them. Who wants that again?

    January 9, 2008 at 7:43 pm |
  439. Segi Stevens

    This ploy that Hillary used win New Hampshire is as old as the republic. He played her gender card to appear so ‘vulnerable’, a sort of a damsel in distress. The unfair part of this is that Barack Obama can not talk about race factor in this. It’s a no win situation, although, the Clintons used a very slick racial allusions on him. Sort of like,’ he is ‘slick, a hustler, not ‘clean’ enough to use Baden’s term and finally please don’t know who this man is’ this type of approach. This is so subtle and not so subtle New England style racism and it worked.

    However, we know, the armor the Clintons have is now chinked. No matter what happens, she cannot redefine herself wholly. So we’ll see. As for Obama he will live to fight another day. Who told these two–Clintons—that they are owed the White House? There are enough problems to address in our country than to have these two tired and dysfunctional couple come into the lime light again. Give us break.

    January 9, 2008 at 7:46 pm |
  440. George

    Obviously, whoever shows the most emotion will win. Perhaps Obama should have stood in front of the crowds crying, blubbering that all the campaigning, all the late night pizzas, all the long flights, the late hours.....it would all be for the little puppy dogs and kitty cats.

    January 9, 2008 at 8:01 pm |
  441. George

    Must have been the CHADS!

    January 9, 2008 at 8:03 pm |
  442. Ethel Guttenberg

    Hillary Clintons win in New Hampshire really doesn't come as a big surprise to me.
    The vote in Iowa is a public (Caucus) vote. Women, although they may support Hillary voted for Obama in public with their husbands
    However, when voting in private in N.H. they voted for Hillary and told the pollster they voted just like their husband on the way out.
    Ethel Guttenberg
    Cincinnati, Ohio

    January 9, 2008 at 8:36 pm |
  443. Anna

    Hillary won in New Hampshire because (1) the media played the scene of her welling up over and over and over, and not the scene where Collin Powell praised Obama almost to the point of endorsing him, and (2) Bill Clinton not only lied about Obama's records on Iraq War but also called the Obama surge as 'a fairy tale,' a very unpresidential interference with the election in his zeal for getting his wife elected, and some naive people, especially women according to polls, bought them all. As many people already pointed out here, her tears were a rare display of her emotion, yes, but not because of her concern over the country as she claims, but because she found herself losing. she also lied about Obama's record in her New Hampshire debate. As Carl Bernstein pointed out, the Clinton campaign has no conscience, and I hope that there is some governmental check, and punishment, on lying about political opponents' records. I also hope that the media will be more aware of their impact on naive, indecisive voters and careful about dealing with their material..

    January 9, 2008 at 8:37 pm |
  444. Paul Conley

    Is it too much to ask for a President that will actually work for the betterment of the country and not themselves or their cronies?
    We pay them top dollar, give the every luxury that money can buy, servants at every hand, private jets, lifetime pensions and perks and it still is not enough. Every decision is made to further their or their cronies fortunes.
    It's disgusting. Maybe we should draw the president by lottery. It couldn't be worse.

    January 9, 2008 at 8:42 pm |
  445. Ivy

    Because she's the better candidate. Simple enough.

    I am shocked at the number of people that accuse women of voting for Clinton because she "cried." Get real. Women are not fools and this isn't the 18th century. Women read the news, watch the debates, hear the speeches, and make informed decisions. We're media-savvy, too.

    Just because one does not agree with another's decision does not make it ill-informed or a consequence of a few drops of salt water.

    January 9, 2008 at 9:51 pm |
  446. pat krauss

    I have seen people blog that they saw obama talk and were moved to tears.
    Reminds me of how we all thought we wanted to have a beer with George
    Bush so we voted for him. Look what we got. A man whowas not prepared to lead this country. I am sure obama can give a good speech. In fact, he sound too
    much like a preacher to me. Give me experience anytime

    January 9, 2008 at 10:30 pm |
  447. Noe'

    The only reason Bil Clinton's wife won-because that's what she has chosen to be viewed as now choosing to have Bill front and center in her Obama bashing-is the fake showing of "tears" broadcast all over CNN, that was just another strategic typical political move used in centuries of politics to deceive the public. No one really knows who this woman is, first she's the overconfident stern inevitable "when I'm President", then she's the attacking dirty politician that fabricates and distorts her opponents truths, and then when Obama's personal humanistic message of hope is succeding she simultaneously becomes a personal woman with feelings that cares about the country and cries to a non-provoking question. Wake up people, don't believe the hype. Be critical and formulate your own ideas. By the way, did anyone catch any of Obama's speeches? did they not make you want to listen and chant parts of his speech while he was delivering it? now that's something to make you shed tears of hope.

    January 9, 2008 at 11:12 pm |
  448. Kitty

    It was absolutely the squish squish. I am well accquianted with someone who worked for the Clintons for both terms. The word is that Hillary does not have a soft side and SHE was the president then.

    January 9, 2008 at 11:20 pm |
  449. Marty Morrissey

    The Brits had their Iron Lady , is it possible the men running for the Presidential Office In the U S are frightened at the thaught of the chance Hillary Clinton may well be the IRON LADY President of the U S A !!!!!

    January 9, 2008 at 11:39 pm |
  450. inthunder

    Marc Anthony is addressing the plebenians at Caesar's funeral. After the first dozen or so lines, he asks forgiveness for being overcome with emotion. Shakespeare shows that he has reason for fury, but lets him play for sympathy. Anthony has a Hillary moment. By the end of his speech he has caused a revolution.

    1. She was not overcome by emotion–she got in every one of her talking points in less than a minute.

    2. She snappped out of the pose when the moment passed.

    3. She is the least emotional candidate this year.

    The rhetorical figure is called reticantia. Her advisor Wolfson knew exactly how to make her suddenly "human" to the unreflective masses. He has read a book or two on the power of words.

    Watch for her fury, and discount all her soap opera behavior.

    January 9, 2008 at 11:39 pm |
  451. Dino....Lisle, Il

    Well, there is serious discusion on the network/web as to how and why Hillary fooled the polsters in New Hampshire. The race card has now been played in defense of Obama's loss last night.

    I think the polsters were fooled and it came from a group that no one expected. To review the facts, all polls showed Obama leading heading into Tuesday, and they showed him leading coming out of Tuesday. Even the Clinton and Obama camps had this same data, that is the key here! Both entrance and exit polls were in sync, even within both camps!

    What happened???

    What is obvious is the voters changed their minds in the voting booth. We have heard women, young voters, & race used as excuses, but I think the real difference came from MEN! Think about it, what demographic would lie about who they voted for in an exit poll? It would not have anything to do about race. If you didn't want to vote for Obama because of race, then you would just say you voted for Hillary because she is the best candidate. Middle aged men would be reluctant to admit to friends and polsters that they voted for Hillary. Our wives may openly support her, but married men would do it behind closed booths, just because......

    Obama received 60% of men, according to polls, but was that true? Think about the possibility that men (30-50) who said they voted for Obama, actually voted for Hillary?

    January 9, 2008 at 11:40 pm |
  452. PamelaB

    Almost as well-reported as the outcome of the New Hampshire primaries was the fact that the media "experts" got it wrong. How could this happen? They each seem so very surprised by the results.

    Here's an opportunity for a lesson learned:

    The media is supposed to report what we do, not tell us what we are going to do. Egos in check, everyone?

    January 9, 2008 at 11:55 pm |
  453. Pat

    The media (individually and collectively) media types got it wrong in New Hampshire. Get over it. Take down the flag of invincibility, take a bite of humble pie, and quit favoring ANYONE in your presentations. Don't predict the winners, don't give any candidate "favored son" treatment. Give us facts, history and voting records so we can make our own decisions.

    January 10, 2008 at 12:07 am |
  454. Jane


    Hillary has the most experience, she came off well in the debate last weekend and Obama does not only feel the wind, he is a big wind....all talk, no substance.

    It wasn't race, it wasn't tears -I didn't see any- it wasthat she is ready on day one.

    Oh yeah, the bashing that the media, including CNN gave her, helped to get women to the polls....and the rest is history!

    January 10, 2008 at 12:12 am |
  455. CJ

    I'm a 49 yr. old white female voter from Texas...........Please give ME a break ~ to suggest older women came out for Clinton because she showed a vulnerable side suggests we have no common sense ! Sure I can sympatise with her situation but THAT in NO way would influence my vote. If she can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen . I don't care if the canidates were rainbow colors ~ We need a Smart, Honorable , Gutzy ,& Compassionate person to lead us. Bill fell another notch (as if he could slid any lower and I voted for him ) by his response to Obama. Obama keeps to the higher road and is to be commended !
    I judge a person by what they do if they think no one is looking
    Seems the Clintons have shown us that

    January 10, 2008 at 12:28 am |
  456. AJ

    ...............................Dirty Tricks Used in the N. H. primary...............................................

    It's simple people, dirty tricks were used in the N.H. primary. Suddenly, there was a mirade of sexists talk, sexism, and womanly guilds(tearing up on the campaign trail) in New Hampshire to sway and polarize the women voters. It is almost a defenseless trick that even a seasoned, popular, and well supported politician can't get around. So, we shouldn't blame Chris Matthews of "Hardball". No, this was the untrusting political machine of the Clintons that I had never seen and understood before- until now. Pretty much like the planted question on the trail; the constant use of the gender card on the campaign trail and in the election process; and the planted question in the Nevada debate.

    This is ridiculous. I expected more honor, integrity, and fair play from Hilliary and the Clintons. Not behind the scene campaign tricks by her and her campaign managers. I thoughts she was above this sort of stuff before the campaign, but I see that I was totally wrong. For someone to go to those measures to win have there own interests in mind and not the American voters.

    January 10, 2008 at 12:31 am |
  457. Anonymous

    Its simple people. There were dirty tricks played in the New Hampshire.

    Suddenly, there was a mirade of sexists talk, sexism, and womanly guilds(tearing up on the campaign trail) in New Hampshire to sway and polarize the women voters. It is almost a defenseless trick that even a seasoned, popular, and well supported politician can't get around. So, we shouldn't blame Chris Matthews of "Hardball". No, this was the untrusting political machine of the Clintons that I had never seen and understood before- until now. Pretty much like the planted question on the trail; the constant use of the gender card on the campaign trail and in the election process; and the planted question in the Nevada debate.

    This is ridiculous. I expected more honor, integrity, and fair play from Hilliary and the Clintons. Not behind the scene campaign tricks by her and her campaign managers. I thoughts she was above this sort of stuff before the campaign, but I see that I was totally wrong. For someone to go to those measures to win have there own interests in mind and not the American voters.

    January 10, 2008 at 12:35 am |
  458. Steve For Obama

    From What I'm seeing, this campaign has been appealing and trying to connect wtih the american people. Barack Obama has succeeded in this in Iowa with his strong inspiring message of hope and real change. Clinton had to find a way to tap into this emotion bank with the American people, and boy did she do it at the last minute in her own way. Bill's twisting of Mr. Obama's words on the day of voting, mixed with her tearing up and having a fan base still left there from the Bill days ultimately got her the win in New Hampshire.

    January 10, 2008 at 12:45 am |
  459. Julie

    It was yet another very calculated move. Told that women were not resonating with her demeanor, the ever resourceful Hillary with a massive staff who told her to be more reachable did exactly what she was told she needed to do. She's got more $$ than anyone in this race and a lot of it comes from corporate lobbyists – why is that not widely understood? I am ashamed that women are buying this. A minute of feigned emotion doesn't cover up a lifetime calculated to get to the White House. Look at what Hillary has been willing to do – stay with a cheating spouse and run for senate in a state that she really knew nothing about or cared about yet knew had a high # of electoral college votes. Remember that you are buying into a machine with her – the best advisors, the most $$. Don't let that be what determines our nest President.

    January 10, 2008 at 12:50 am |
  460. Joe Craig

    New Hampshire has shown the potential for gender polarization still exists and that is disappointing. I believe women voted for Hilary because she was a woman. In addition I believe the young adult and student support expected by the Obama camp never materialized. He would not be the first nor the last candidate to be disappointed by that portion of the population when faced with such a daunting choice between doing something responsible and going to a "kegger" that group will always choose the latter.

    January 10, 2008 at 12:56 am |
  461. Joe Craig

    In reference to the Senior Clinton staffer that stated John Edwards was unsympathetic with his response to the now famous "half- tear incident" if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Campaigns are tough but being President is tougher . It is nice to know (but hardly comforting) that the potential future leader of the free world has finally found her own voice 8 months into the campaign.

    January 10, 2008 at 1:04 am |
  462. Christopher

    Clinton won NW because the stations, like CNN, played the Hilary clip over 50 times before voters made their vote on Tuesday night.

    And for anyone that makes the headline/comment "come back" is disturbingly wrong, a few months ago even the thought of Barack winning one of these primaries was ludicrous, the comeback kid isn't Hilary, its Obama.

    I really wish the media would quit messing with the way people view these primaries....they are playing a part in the way people vote, and that is absolutely not right.

    January 10, 2008 at 1:24 am |
  463. Nobs

    It is sad, really sad how some the news media is embarking on campaign of character assassination against Hilary Clinton. John King, William Schneider and others of CNN have had nothing positive to say about her. The CNN so tagged "best political team" have demonstrated to be a bunch of Republicans who seemingly are scared of Mrs. Clinton's candidacy. The only rationalization to the lie behind the CNN poll is that it was stage managed for deceptive motives. How else can you explain the unprecedented high margin of error? I trusted CNN but not anymore.

    January 10, 2008 at 1:52 am |
  464. Joyce Allen

    Clinton won by using the same technique she is going to use throughout the race because she knows she can get away with it.
    When the polls appear to be against her, she will say do not let 'that' man do this to me. Then all of the ignorant racist old people will go save her reputation by lynching that black man. Oh I foresee many lynchings to come because the only ones who can protect him are too politically correct too intervene.

    January 10, 2008 at 2:55 am |
  465. DC NORM

    Questionauthority Thanks for your comments; The CNN's report was curiously timed and incomplete.

    Sammye You are preaching to the choir. I’m aware of Senator Obama’s family and the false statements and reports made by the media. Obviously you have not been listening to the various news reports regarding Senator Obama.. I say that because it has been reported numerous times on CNN, MSNBC, NBC and ABC that “Senator Obama’s father is Muslim” among other false derrogatory statements. They did not take the time to identify that it was his step father. Nor have they reported on Senator Obama’s Grand parents on his Mother’s (white) side in Kansas. My point was simply to identify CNN’s timing and one sided reporting of Senator Obama’s Family without reporting on his mothers white family, the ones who helped raise Senator Obama and sent him to high school and College. DC Norm

    January 10, 2008 at 4:12 am |
  466. J. Kahn

    If a Republican was down double digits in the poles and won, the MSM and Dems would cry foul, file law suits and demand a re-count. After all, these are Clintons, or is that the reason ?

    January 10, 2008 at 5:20 am |
  467. Sue/New York

    The people who are obsessing over , Hillary showing personal emotion and whether, she does or not , or whether it was real or not, has no reflection on how she does her job for this country. GET OVER IT!!! She has proven herself through the years, that she has compassion for the American people by the "CHANGES 'She has made for the betterment of the Middle Class American's .
    Do people who work ,strive to do a good job in there Work place or is there jobs based on who shows emotion . Did The word "professional "go out the door??? This is a serious JOB POSITION.

    January 10, 2008 at 8:05 am |
  468. Joe Tyrrell

    Anyone who hinks that Hillary made up 15 points over night is delusional. The real question is why were the polls so wrong. Did they use electronic voting? The Robin Williams senario comes to mind but nah. I suspect the the pollsters tried to guess ahead, xpecting the apparent trend to continue.

    Joe in Delware

    January 10, 2008 at 8:41 am |
  469. PJ

    Easy, by crying on national TV. Just what we need a President who crys when they don't get their way.

    January 10, 2008 at 9:08 am |
  470. George Jordan, PEI, Canada


    Anderson Cooper interviewed you and 3 others on CNN during the New Hampshire primary, but did it in an unfair way. He placed too much time with Bill Bennett, & Ralph Reed, and left you and Donna Brazile out. Why didn't he give each of you a chance to have input?

    January 10, 2008 at 10:35 am |
  471. Vic P

    I did some research myself and interviewed Nashua resident Stanislaus Wozsinski and he indicted most of the poles he knew voted for Obama.

    Maybe the press hired Hans Blix to do the polling?

    January 10, 2008 at 12:13 pm |
  472. Bob Robertson

    Vote fraud has been going on since the beginning of elections. Maybe the "unwashed masses" will care enough some day to demand what every other country that _achieves_ the vote demands: Paper ballots with a clear and verified audit trail.

    Going to electronic voting machines is insane.

    January 10, 2008 at 12:53 pm |
  473. Mary Joy

    The polling figures were right. It's the analysis of the data (by media) that was wrong.They failed to emphasize the undecided numbers and which way they are leaning. Undecided voters must be analyzed by gender, by age, by race and by economic status especially in a tight race like this.
    Furthermore, women were turned off by Obama's "likable enough" comment and how he said it during the debate. In my opinion, he comes across as arrogant. On one on one interviews, it takes a while for him to answer meaningfully. That shows inexperience.

    January 10, 2008 at 1:25 pm |
  474. Jo-Ann M.

    How did Hillary win New Hampshire?
    One word........Diebold.

    January 10, 2008 at 1:31 pm |
  475. Annette Reed

    Sore losers. The Obama fans can't stand to see their tale-spinning star of hope do a poor performance. It happened and will continue to happen. This man's anemic experience is not suited for the highest office in the land.
    Clinton won because she is an excellent campaigner, has years of experience as a New York Senator and hard worker in the political trenches. She was exhausted and in a moment of emotion experienced brief–very brief–tears. This tiny bit of information was shown over and over and over on TV by reporters who would rather have her lose, but when she won THEN they then began an interpretation of "phony" tears, OR dishonest NH voters OR broken voting machines, OR that she really didn't win–it was all a mistake. Loonies! 99% of Americans have had no chance to vote. Can't we give them a chance before we follow Dionne,Jr. newspaper correspondent , who mentioned a coronation for Obama? Keep a cork in the champagne bottle, its too early.

    Jack, I love your bitter humor and rapier wit. Thanks for your book.

    January 10, 2008 at 1:56 pm |
  476. Curtis

    I thought about it on Wednesday – following the NH primary. What the media is not reporting is the fact that most, if not all, of the colleges and universities in New Hampshire were still closed for the holiday break. This fact would, to some degree, explain why "President-Elect" Obama did not receive the number of votes expected from those between the age of 18-25. This is significant when one takes into consideration that he (Obama), and perhaps the polls were taking these votes into consideration.

    America, schools are back in session – “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”

    January 10, 2008 at 2:01 pm |
  477. mel17

    On the verge of tears, with her chin cupped in her hand, looking vulnerable and female, Hillary revealed (inadvertently I believe) a side of herself that most of us had never seen. I think it was an authentic moment, a picture of her that many women had been hoping existed but had no reason to believe did. At that moment, Hillary appeared to be "one of us"; that is, with emotions that sometimes rule the day (or the evening or the moment).

    Nevertheless, I still voted for Obama because I had met him in October, before the "rock star" persona. I had read his original book "Dreams of my Father", and felt I understood how he became the kind of person who honestly dreams of a country where neither blue nor red prevails, but where we can work together despite our differences for common good. I think his work in Chicago before he became a Senator is truly remarkable.

    Admittedly I was a bit disappointed when he returned to NH with Secret Service and monster size media cameras disallowing the "mere voters" to get anywhere near him. Hopefully he'll learn something from the experience.

    January 10, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  478. Curtis

    What the media is not reporting is that most, if not all, of the colleges and universities in New Hampshire were still closed for the holiday break. This fact would, to some degree, explain the why President-Elect Obama did not receive the number of votes those between the age of 18-25. This is significant when one takes into consideration that he (Obama), and perhaps the polls were taking these votes into consideration.

    America, schools are back in session – “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”

    January 10, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  479. Joe

    More people voted for her, suggesting that they like her more than Obama.

    Basically the polls were wrong and the media's love affair with cheap words like "change" and "hope" were/are misguided.

    January 10, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  480. Doug Pierson

    I'm not sure how Hillary won NH. I do know that tears and anger from a presidential candidate are somewhat scary. When the going gets tough will she break down and cry? Now Bill will be back in the White House if she gets in. Will he step up and fix things when it is just too emotional for her? Will we have more exciting scandals to read about? I am sure however that Bill will step up and tell that Putin off if he gets nasty. My god what is wrong with this picture?

    January 10, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  481. Jonathan

    Hillary won because the machines were wrong. Of ballots counted by hand, Obama won. Of ballots counted by machines, Clinton won by a lot. This needs to be looked into. Why should voting via hand or machine make a difference?

    January 10, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  482. sylvia

    God help us if the next President of the United States wins by crying! We don't need an empathy vote from middle aged women to elect the most powerful person on this planet, (by the way, I am a middle aged woman who is a democrat). There have been many amazing and powerful women on this planet, to name a few, Maggie Thatcher, Golda Mier and most recently Benezir Bhotto who gave her life for a cause she believed in, I can't imagine any of them weeping with self pity.

    January 10, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  483. Sue W.

    It is a terrifying thing to even consider that Hillary won that poll by a weepy voice and a teary eye. If that proves to be the case, then God help us because the same gullible fools that believed there were truly weapons of mass destruction and who backed Bush for a war, are at it again. We don't improve economy, we don't end or win wars, or create positive changes or re-establish global respect by crying.
    It worries me that Hillary makes the statement that she has "listened to you and has finally found her own voice..." Does this mean that nothing she said before can be taken as truth?

    January 10, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  484. aisha naeem

    why hillary won .very simpl we still have more people living THIER LIFE in real world to knowTHAT change is not a fairytale word and it does not happen overnight its continous struugle and thats what hillary is been doing and all those young people voting for him they are all about fiction movie and special effects generation .is our younger generation really living truth because if they were they would not listen someone ,s charming talk but look at what they have done and what they can do with the experience .thats what people in NH DID .AND THATS HOW HILLARY WON.....GO HILLARY

    January 10, 2008 at 6:07 pm |
  485. berry wilson

    when will bill clinton get his face off the televison ? every yime you turn on the televison there is Bills ugly mug griping about something please tell him he can't walk on water so go home .

    January 10, 2008 at 6:38 pm |
  486. Mrs. Anderson

    Perhaps if every news organization didn't play that Hillary femme fatale spot every three minutes from 4-7pm during election time. with a back up of the former philanderer President rescuing the damsel in distress and taking on the big bully of Obama, perhaps the results would have been different. The woman just reacted to the first time in public that someone had empathy for her and she dropped the dragon lady facade. The salivating jackals of the press will ruin this election before the nomination and we will live with the results of another eight years of failure. It's not the press's job to predict. It is to report. The press is the culprit for the results of New Hampshire.

    January 10, 2008 at 7:40 pm |
  487. Cathy Pully

    You were just on John Stewart – you're still hot in my eyes and now you're even hotter!!!! Cathy Pully

    January 10, 2008 at 8:36 pm |
  488. Dwayne

    I certainly hope that the women in this country are more intelligent than to vote for a candidate "just because she is a woman".
    I hope they realize that MOST men don't have a problem voting for a woman, as long as she is the right woman.
    I don't believe Hillary Clinton is the right woman. She WILL NOT be able to unite this country. Whether she gets the nomination or not, there are still way too many people in this country that do not and will not like her.

    January 10, 2008 at 11:37 pm |
  489. Charles

    How did they win? They put on they performance of a lifetime. Give them the Golden Globe, an Oscar and an Emmy.

    I think the poles were right and when the Clintons saw what was happening
    on the eve of election day, they went into pity mode(Hillary) and saying Obama
    is not being honest(Bill), so they got the last minute pity voters.

    If the pole counts stayed a little longer, they would have seen the change and
    got a true count.

    There is still people who believe everything the Clintons say.......
    Can you say gullible?

    January 11, 2008 at 9:32 am |
  490. tyrone blackshear

    Hillary Clinton is such a phony it’s nothing authentic about her… She was raised in a very red republican household and once she went to east cost college and took her conservative views with her but changed her views because of beaten down liberal pressure in that school. She now tries to say that she changed her views because of Martin Luther King death but anyone with a half a brain can tell it was peer pressure and at that time in college most kids were against the man because of the Civil Rights Movement and Anti-Vietnam. Her husband was caught allowing some intern giving him an unmentionable act and she did nothing but support him… I’m not saying she should have left him but please don’t go around with a big smile on your face and act like nothing happen… Is this the example we want to set for our young girls? Watching the debates over the weekend I notice that Edward was talking about why being the President was so personal for him and the next morning Hillary copied that same speech verbatim but with a little tear and won New Hampshire by a nose. Now she is trying to still Obama’s word “change” … Hillary if you want a word that best describe you I would say “Phony”.

    January 11, 2008 at 10:16 am |
  491. Joe


    Please shine spotlight on the possibility of voter fraud in NH. Apparently there are discrepancies between machine counted ballots and hand-counted ballots. In districts that had paper ballots, Obama won. Districts that counted ballots via Diebolds optical scanners had Clinton winning. We need a hand recount in NH. Perhaps this will explain why exit polls - thats EXIT POLLS - predicted Obama the winner.

    January 11, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  492. Ed Early

    I wonder which group of voters outnumbers the other:

    1. The Hillary-haters (who fail to list any valid reasons for their hate), or
    2. The latent bigots, who, in the privacy of the voting booth, will never
    vote for a black person (who fail to list any valid reasons for their bigotry)?

    I believe it's number 2 and, if the Democrats nominate Obama, they will
    perpetuate the occupation of the Oval Office for the Republicans.

    January 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  493. Terry D

    Hillary Clinton has won this, but mistakes happen. This does not mean she has won the election. Far too much money and obligations to special interest groups. Debts that will come back to haunt the american people. Not if I have a vote...

    It's time for the middle class to change the way things are being done in Washington. Money cannot buy everyone, only politicians.

    January 11, 2008 at 6:08 pm |