During an interview on Wednesday morning with the Democratic victor in the New Hampshire primary, CNN’s Kiran Chetry asked Hillary Clinton if there was a hint of sexism in the response to the senator’s apparent show of emotion in the lead-up to the vote. "Do you think it's a double standard or a little harder because you're a woman to show you're a strong leader, but also be able to show some of your human side?"
In addition to this emotion/gender issue, Chetry, like her co-host John Roberts had done two days earlier, questioned Hillary about the Iraq war, specifically about the success of the troop surge. "You opposed the troop increase when the president proposed it, even introduced legislation to try to reverse it. Since then though, the attacks have fallen by 60% and a lot of the observers say that the surge is working. Do you acknowledge that the surge is working now?"
Clinton acknowledged the recent downturn in violence, but then went on to claim that "that was not the purpose of the surge. The purpose of the surge was to try to convince the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that, so far, it has not made. So, I don't believe that that is a real justification, and we've had such a terrible year in the loss of American lives."
Chetry’s final question dealt with Bill Clinton’s "fairy tale" critique of Barack Obama’s record on the Iraq war. "Do you think that your husband Bill Clinton was playing fair in characterizing Obama's record on Iraq?" Hillary, with a bit of nuance, did not contradict her husband’s take on Obama.
The full transcript of the interview, which aired 15 minutes into 7 am Eastern hour of Wednesday’s "American Morning:"
KIRAN CHETRY: Well, it was an amazing win for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire last night, considered to be on the ropes after a loss to Barack Obama in Iowa. Senator Clinton bounced back in the Granite State.
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON, NEW YORK: Let's give America the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me.
CHETRY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Democratic ballot for president now for real? I'm sure it was all along. But how does it change the game this morning? How did Senator Clinton do it? She's joins us from Chappaqua, New York, getting probably, what, a few minutes' rest in your own bedroom before you have to get out there again and get back on the campaign trail to South Carolina?
CLINTON: That's true, just a few minutes of rest. But it's great to be home. I'm so excited about the win last night. It was a great moment for me, and I think it really demonstrated what the people of New Hampshire have time and time again. They take a hard look at everybody. They ask a lot of tough questions, and they render their judgment. They're famously independent and they sure showed it last night.
CHETRY: Here's what the New York tabloids had to say this morning, 'The Daily News' saying 'Who's Crying Now?' And 'The New York Post' -- 'Back From the Dead.' You know, you couldn't talk to an advisor yesterday before the election who wasn't saying that you were going to lose in New Hampshire. What do you think changed between the polling and the voting that brought you a win?
CLINTON: Well, I was, I guess, about 15 points down, and we had a debate on Saturday that really helped to clarify a lot of the issues in this campaign. And I campaigned really, really hard across New Hampshire, answered hundreds of questions, really had a lot of personal experiences with voters, covered as much of the, you know, record that I'm presenting to people as I could, and talked about my vision and, you know, my dreams for America's future. And I went out to see some of our poll workers at a couple of places starting before dawn yesterday. I felt really good. You know, I don't pay a lot of attention when people say that I'm up or when people say that I'm down. I sort of, you know, take my own measure of what voters are doing, and I came back from going to all of those polling places, and I really believed that I had a very good chance to win. Nobody else believed it, but all day, I did. And I'm very grateful that the people of New Hampshire gave me that victory last night.
CHETRY: You know, you talk about the message getting out there. But perhaps it was also the way the message was delivered. In fact, a lot of people in the last 24 hours of the campaign, the talk of New Hampshire, was your display of emotion. Let's take a look.
CLINTON: You know, I had so many opportunities from this country. I just don't want to see us fall backwards, you know? So -- you know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political, not just public. I see what's happening. And we have to reverse it.
CHETRY: You know, even your top advisor Terry McAuliffe said that you made up ground in large part because people had a chance to see your human side. Do you think that pushed you over the edge in New Hampshire?
CLINTON: Oh, I don't know what all of the factors were. But I'm really glad that I had a chance to say what I believe with all of my heart. That, you know, politics isn't a game. It's not a horse race. It's about people's lives. You know, that's why I do what I do. It's obviously really, really hard to get up every day and, you know, go out and stand up for people who don't have a voice, don't have a advocate. Sometimes, they're just rendered invisible. But that's what I think we're supposed to be doing, and I've done it for 35 years. And there was a, just a really wonderful moment there when, you know, people, I think, got a sense of why I do what I do, and why I think it's so important, and why I think I'm going to wage this campaign for the future of our country, and to give everybody the same set of chances that I was given. That's what I believe should be really the American birthright, so that everybody can live up to his or her God-given potential.
CHETRY: It is interesting though, because Governor Romney has teared up in interviews. We've seen our current president also become emotional and be moved to tears at times. But so much was made over the fact that you -- your voice waivered a little bit in that response to voter's question. Do you think it's a double standard or a little harder because you're a woman to show you're a strong leader, but also be able to show some of your human side?
CLINTON: Oh, I don't think so. I don't think anybody doubts that I'm a strong leader. I think that, you know, people, you know, know that I can lead. I have the experience to lead. And I believe that over the course of these four days in New Hampshire, more people, not just in New Hampshire but around the country, realized that, you know, the reason I do this is because I love this country, just so profoundly, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that it does fulfill the promises. We need to deliver on all of the change that everybody talks about. And when the camera's turned off and the speeches are done, what have we actually accomplished for people to give them a better life. That's what I care about.
CHETRY: Another one of the big issues, in fact the number two issue among voters polled, was Iraq, in New Hampshire. You opposed the troop increase when the president proposed it, even introduced legislation to try to reverse it. Since then though, the attacks have fallen by 60% and a lot of the observers say that the surge is working. Do you acknowledge that the surge is working now?
CLINTON: Well, I have the highest admiration for our young men and women in uniform, and I always assumed that they would, in greater numbers, be able to suppress a lot of the violence that, unfortunately, has plagued the Iraqi people and resulted in so many deaths and injuries. But that was not the purpose of the surge. The purpose of the surge was to try to convince the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that, so far, it has not made. So, I don't believe that that is a real justification, and we've had such a terrible year in the loss of American lives. Even though the violence is now down, 2007 was the worst year for American casualties since this all began. So, I still believe that nobody is better than American military. But it's time for us to begin to withdraw our troops, and to tell the Iraqi government they do not have a blank check any longer. They've got to start, you know, making the tough decisions that only they can make for their countty, and that's what we'll support them in doing, but we're going bring our troops home.
CHETRY: You know, your husband, Bill Clinton also said that the media failed to be as tough on Barack Obama when it came to Iraq policy, accusing Obama of shifting his position on the war and calling it a fairy tale. Obama fired back by saying that he felt that your campaign was distorting his record, and that it's because you were frustrated. Do you think that your husband Bill Clinton was playing fair in characterizing Obama's record on Iraq?
OBAMA: Well, I don't know about the characterization, but the facts are indisputable. You know, Senator Obama made a speech in 2002 against the war in Iraq, and he deserves credit for that. Then by 2004, he was publicly saying that he didn't know how he would have voted, had he actually been in the Senate, and actually agreed with George Bush on the conduct of the war. He said he would never vote to fund the war, and then in 2005 and '06 and '07, he voted for $300 billion worth of funding. Those are the facts, and I'm not going characterize them. I'm just going to, you know, describe them, and I think people with draw their own conclusions.
CHETRY: All right. Senator Hillary Clinton is off to South Carolina. Congratulations on your New Hampshire win, and thanks so much for being with us.
CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you so much.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
new purpose of the surge???
January 9, 2008 - 13:49 ET by SouthJersey1953I have never heard this ridiculous "purpose" of the surge:
"The purpose of the surge was to try to convince the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that, so far, it has not made." Where did Hellary come up with that??????
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
"The purpose of the surge
January 9, 2008 - 14:01 ET by WhoIsJohnGalt"The purpose of the surge was to try to convince the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that, so far, it has not made."
What? Where was I when this intent was announced?
Sure, sending troops in on the ground in greater numbers is always used to persuade a friendly government to change policies, right? I guess my USNA war college training was wasted on me...
This exchange proves that some interviewers brains are completely in neutral...how could that statement land on anyone's ears without them being stopped dead in their tracks, kind of like a statement of "Sure, my wife was named after Sir Edmund Hillary"...HUH?
The purpose of the surge
January 9, 2008 - 13:50 ET by motherbeltThe purpose of the surge was to try to convince the Iraqi government to
make the tough decisions that, so far, it has not made. HRC
The surge was to force the government to make decisions? Excuse me????/
Why would they need a big increase in troop numbers to get the government to make decisions?
Didn't the surge come after months of complaints that we didn't have enough troops there to quell the violence???
Talk about rewriting history, but that's nothing new.
Wrong MB, The purpose of
January 9, 2008 - 14:06 ET by LeonWrong MB,
The purpose of the surge was to stabilize Iraq long enough for the Iraqi government to take control of their own country. To allow them the peace necessary to start doing something, ANYTHING at all.
According to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs Mark Kimmitt yesterday, 2008 is going to be far tougher to enact the US strategy than in 2007 in Iraq.
His rationale was that, "it [The US Strategy] depends far more on the Iraqis themselves to show progress on key legislation, on their economy, and reconciliation."
Furthermore Kimmit presented a much more sobering outlook on Iraq than leaders like McCain who have already proclaimed the surge a success:
"2008 and beyond will be a success, the surge will be a success, if the gains in security can be translated into gains in stability…if I had to put a number to it, maybe it’s three in 10, maybe it’s 50-50, if we play our cards right. "
Kimmit also stated that it was disheartening to see so much security success followed by so little reconciliation success:
“[Seeing] such significant progress in security with only the foundations of progress in reconciliation is a bit disheartening, not to mention sobering.”
LINK
So her comment that the point of the surge was to force the Iraqi government into action is not revisionist history at all. That's exactly what the purpose was. Who cares if we can temporarily reduce violence in Iraq if we can't get establish a functional government? If we can't finish reconstruction? It's all for naught if Iraq doesn't get anymore independent.
Wrong MB,
January 9, 2008 - 20:26 ET by motherbeltWrong MB,
The purpose of the surge was to stabilize Iraq long enough for the Iraqi government to take control of their own country. To allow them the peace necessary to start doing something, ANYTHING at all. -Leon
Leon,
The part about quelling the violence (i.e. providing stability) was from me.
"I always assumed that they would, in greater numbers, be able to
suppress a lot of the violence that, unfortunately, has plagued the
Iraqi people and resulted in so many deaths and injuries. But that was
not the purpose of the surge...
"The purpose of the surge was to try to convince the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that, so far, it has not made." (emphasis added).
That was from Her Royal Clintoness. She's the one who said the extra troops weren't for stability, but to convince the government. Sounds like your disagreement is with her, not me.
Which part of "convince the Iraqi government" did you not understand?
MB, Hillary Clinton is
January 10, 2008 - 13:46 ET by LeonMB,
Hillary Clinton is right. The purpose of the surge was to convince the Iraqi government to make tough decisions. Essential to this was curbing the violence.
Stability and government action go hand in hand.
I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.
You claimed she was wrong b/c the purpose of the surge wasn't to convine the Iraqi government, but in fact, that was the ultimate goal.
Wrong Leon. MB is right.
January 10, 2008 - 13:50 ET by bassndudeWrong Leon. MB is right. The surge was to assist in curtailing the attacks so that the goverment could concentrate on getting the things under control. And that is happening. The diffrent factions are starting to work together and combat AQ.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, Did you even read
January 10, 2008 - 14:14 ET by LeonBass,
Did you even read my posts?
The surge was to assist in curtailing the attacks so that the goverment could concentrate on getting the things under control.
This is exactly what I've said. MB claimed the surge wasn't about allowing the government to take control.
You and I agree believe it or not.
The purpose of the surge
January 10, 2008 - 14:18 ET by bassndudeThe purpose of the surge was to convince the Iraqi government to make tough decisions.
Dont sound like you said that. Sounds more like we were using force to "convince" the Iraqi goverment.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, Pay some
January 10, 2008 - 14:22 ET by LeonBass,
Pay some attention.
Those are Hillary's words.
Furthermore, we ARE trying to force the Iraqi Government to do something. We canNOT succeed without the Iraqi Government doing their job. In essence, we're saying, we'll take care of the violence and give you some space to operate, but we expect you to do something with this peaceful time.
Leon, speaking of attention
January 10, 2008 - 14:26 ET by bassndudeLeon, speaking of attention you typed, ready for this?
Hillary Clinton is right. And you said that just prior to the former statement. I was paying attention. Seems like you were not.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, You are way out of
January 10, 2008 - 14:32 ET by LeonBass,
You are way out of the loop.
I've been very clear as to my stance.
Did you read MBs first post? Are you sure she's right?
Leon, first you say that
January 10, 2008 - 14:36 ET by bassndudeLeon, first you say that you dident say it, that hillary said it. But you said she was right, but you dident mean it. What is it boy? Speak up and clarify yourself. you agree with her, or not? If you dont, you need to go edit your posts.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, Since you obviously
January 10, 2008 - 14:19 ET by LeonBass,
Since you obviously commented without reading anything, here's a recap:
MB said:
The surge was to force the government to make decisions? Excuse me????/
Why would they need a big increase in troop numbers to get the government to make decisions?
Didn't the surge come after months of complaints that we didn't have enough troops there to quell the violence???
LEON said:
Wrong MB,
The surge was to assist in curtailing the attacks so that the goverment could concentrate on getting the things under control.
Hey in the future anytime you feel to lazy to read again, just let me know and I'll put together a nice easy recap for ya!
Leon, see above. Save
January 10, 2008 - 14:21 ET by bassndudeLeon, see above.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, learn to
January 10, 2008 - 14:24 ET by LeonBass, learn to read.
LEON'S Helpful Tip of The Day:
The threads read from top to bottom.
See above Leon, pay
January 10, 2008 - 14:27 ET by bassndudeSee above Leon, pay attention of take your toys back to your room.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Oh, I don't know - there's no double standard for..
January 9, 2008 - 13:50 ET by Gary HallOh, I don't know Matthew- there's no double standard for.. the women who present the news on CNN, MSNBC or the Network news -- if the candidate is liberal, female or black, the standard is that they are going to much prefer them.
Gee, everyone picked up on
January 9, 2008 - 13:52 ET by motherbeltGee, everyone picked up on the same thing...LOL
Pretty obvious, huh, that she's fudging the facts again.
Ya think?????
Hillary?--Nooo!
January 9, 2008 - 14:01 ET by iveseenitallHillary???--- fudging, bobbing, weaving, ...lying??? You must have her confused with someone else.
NEVER, NEVER trust a "liberal"
Yes, there is a double
January 9, 2008 - 14:12 ET by lotrYes, there is a double standard, but it is directed against men, not women. Males in (or seeking) public office are hard-pressed not to lose public composure, whether it be sniveling, tantrums, hissy fits, etc. (behind closed doors, of course, is another matter). If there were anyone who would be justified in losing his composure, it is George W. Bush, who has suffered the most ruthless, degrading, ungrateful, unsupportive, treasonous offenses to ever be heaped upon a sitting U.S. President (barring those who were physically assassinated, of course).
"that was not the purpose
January 9, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Airforce_5_O"that was not the purpose of the surge. The purpose of the surge was to try to convince the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that, so far, it has not made. So, I don't believe that that is a real justification, and we've had such a terrible year in the loss of American lives."
Which freaking planet is this idiot from? If it doesn’t fit what you want then make some crap up and make it fit.How the H-E-double hockey sticks, is a troop surge supposed to make the Iraqi government work harder? Were we holding them hostage and threatening them? NO!!!
How is it that this brain dead liberal can come on and say whatever she wants too without a challenge on her statement?
Wait I know; because the one asking the question is just as freaking brain dead!
Where is the coverage of
January 9, 2008 - 17:16 ET by docbWhere is the coverage of --her FALSE direct mail piece about Obama and partial birth abortion--her FALSE rumour of a Fed lobbyist who happens to be only a state lobbyist--where is the exposure of her slam of MLK, Bill's invective[ public and private] of Obama. How about manditory sentencing for crack and her flip flop. The AF community will be furious that they have betrayed them again. How about the sly 'spadework' comment.
Who is really coddled -- not clinton.
Ask Hillary about Liberal Racism
January 9, 2008 - 18:19 ET by Lame CherryWhy is it when WHITE IOWA is up for grabs the question is America RACIST when it is WHITE FLY OVER COUNTRY?
But when Dame Hillary wins in New Hampshire among those WHITE EASTERN PATRICIAN LIBERALS NO ONE ASKS WHY IS NEW HAMPSHIRE RACIST???????
All Chetry can come up with is sobbing women and surge questions, but FAILS to note that the real racists in America are EASTERN people while the people in the midwest VOTE BLACK.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Liberal loon Chetry
January 9, 2008 - 23:10 ET by KrisI get such a kick out of these liberal reporterettes who find any way they can to blame sexism for everything that doesn't go their way. Here we have Ms. Chetry, big time co-host of American Morning, and Hillary Clinton, contender for President of the United States, and they still try to use the lame excuse that sexism may be unfairly used against them? For goodness sakes, these women are far more successful than most average men could ever dream of being, and they still want to talk about sexism? They're out knocking elbows with the big boys, so ladies, it's time to quit whining about sexism. Chetry does well for CNN, but I wonder if a seat on The View will be available any time soon? She'd do real good on the set with Behar and Goldberg. The liberal NARAL toting, Bush bashing extravaganza would have an extra punch and a little more personality with someone like Kiran. FOX did good in unloading her. Who needs a liberal spy for CNN in their midst anyway? She did a softball interview with Clinton. Typical Clinton News Network gibberish.
Double Standard!!
January 10, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Chris JuddCHETRY: It is interesting though, because Governor Romney has teared up in interviews. We've seen our current president also become emotional and be moved to tears at times. Do you think it's a double standard ...?
Keith Olbermann made the exact same observation last night. Must be a Media Matters crusade. Except…Was Romney moved to tears over how he was treated in the campaign? Bush?
Hillary was smart to turn down this particular media campaign contribution.
Excellent point Chris - I was thinking the same thing
January 10, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Dee BunkBush teared about the treatment of others and Hillary teared from self pity. There is a big difference and while all of us have cried from self pity at some point, most of us do it in private. The President of the free world can't gain any respect by crying when people gang up against him/her at the U.N.