Something Happening Here
Written en route from New Hampshire to Nevada
On Monday afternoon in Manchester, New Hampshire, I called my Executive Producer in New York and said that we needed to pencil in more time than we had allotted for Andrea Mitchell's report on the Clinton Campaign. It needed to be enlarged to include a 48 second soundbite of Hillary Clinton at a roundtable, answering a question about the campaign. She was tired, and she was emotional. She did what any of us would have, and have done at times: she briefly lost control of her emotions. At that very moment, while he was miles away and unaware of it, Barack Obama started to lose control of what we'd been told was a commanding lead in New Hampshire.
I am a son of New England — my father is from Framingham, Mass., my parents met in college in Maine, and over a lifetime of immersion I came to know the psyche well. The core of the older, native New Hampshire population (albeit in a State that is rapidly changing) is still made up of the sons and daughters of the original Puritans. They take civic responsibility seriously, they take care of those who need it and they take pride in "process". In modern political terms, they generally don't like negativity, they reward the downtrodden, they earnestly deliberate over their choice of candidate and they venerate the sturdy among us. In short, they are good people to have in your corner. Hillary Clinton was bloodied in New Hampshire. The people of New Hampshire saw it and didn't like it. They saw assumptions forming and didn't like them. Some felt they were being told what to think: the race was decided, Hillary was desperate and inauthentic. Worst of all — and this was made very clear to me by more than one person: when some in the media quietly doubted that Hillary Clinton's emotions at that roundtable were real (there was quiet snickering about an "acting job" born of an urgent need to seem normal) it was proof to them that cynicism had taken hold of the politics/media realm — and they simply refused to believe that.
Had Bill Clinton not famously coined the title "The Comeback Kid" for himself, his wife would have rightfully claimed it for herself in New Hampshire. That the same State rewarded these two imperfect politicians, in the same way, years apart, is remarkable.
Also remarkable was the apparent transformation of the candidate. The Senator who failed to gain the full support of women voters in Iowa was saved by them in New Hampshire. The woman who gave a victory speech after losing in Iowa — admitted in her New Hampshire victory speech that what she'd really lost...was her own voice.
There will be numerous deconstructions over the days to come. Theories about how African American candidates for office have confounded pollsters (see: Bradley, Wilder, Gant, Jackson) will receive a thorough airing, and deservedly so. We in the media will beat ourselves bloody (and deservedly so) for reaching conclusions before the voters have spoken. A further prediction? Give us a few weeks — we will promptly forget the lessons of this debacle in polling, predictions and primary politics. We will all live to screw up another day, though our performance in New Hampshire will be hard to beat.
It should be noted that virtually everyone got it wrong. The only point of agreement among all the competing campaigns in New Hampshire was that Barack Obama was headed for a double-digit victory, as they told anyone who'd listen. I have an email from a Clinton fundraiser who denounced Hillary as a lost cause and threw his support to Obama...while the polls were still open on Tuesday. A veteran Clinton loyalist spoke of the campaign in New Hampshire in the past tense on the morning of the election, saying the Senator from New York had run smack into "an ideal...a movement," called Barack Obama. There was no defeating an ideal, said this completely defeated politico. Not this year, not in New Hampshire.
In his beautiful, soaring concession speech, Obama mentioned the town of Lebanon for a reason, and listening to him, I knew why. I was with him in Lebanon the day before -- and what we saw there was something of a defining moment in the campaign — it surprised him, his staff members, the Secret Service on board the campaign bus...even the bus driver. We turned the corner toward the event and saw hundreds of people lined up through the streets of the town just to see him, to feel his aura and to later say that they'd done it — they'd been there. There were hundreds more than the venue could hold, and they stood there anyway, and kept coming. Obama, overwhelmed by the overflow crowd, insisted on an outdoor speech before his indoor speech. This much is important, and should be said: any journalist covering any candidate that day, in that town, would have come away as I did after seeing those people, saying something akin to the old song lyric, "something's happening here." A colleague of mine contends Obama got caught up in the history he was making. I don't think that's quite fair. The candidate didn't change his message as much as Iowa changed the way we heard it.
That day, I saw people embrace Barack Obama the way people embrace loved ones returning from foreign battlefields. I saw people with small children, brought along simply so their parents could years later tell them, to the point of predictable annoyance, "you were there...". Losing in New Hampshire may well make Barack Obama a better candidate. While it's the kind of thing that is always said at times like these by those of us whose names have never appeared on a ballot, I think it might just be true in this case.
On the eve of the primary, I attended the last big rally of the Clinton New Hampshire campaign. While large and boisterous enough to distract attention from the decidedly inelegant venue (the indoor tennis courts at the Executive Health and Fitness Center in the shadow of the Manchester airport control tower) it was packed and it was emotional. Our producer spotted tears in Chelsea's eyes. Campaign workers were trying to seem upbeat. A British journalist called the press credential hanging around his neck "a ticket to the last supper." Senator Clinton gave her stump speech, only infused with more emotion: shades of anger, melancholy, frustration and wistfulness. She made a forceful and direct appeal for support, at one point aimed specifically at the women in the audience. Her husband nodded and clapped supportively behind her and shook every hand in the rope line afterwards. I stood several feet away, watching the familiar ballet of incoming hands and thinking of the two years I spent covering his Presidency, and how much has changed since then. He's still in the family retail business, where the basic transaction remains the same.
New Hampshire voters, masters of retail politics and educated consumers all, saw what their Iowa counterparts had done days earlier, and chose not to follow the same path. They instead gave their approval to a former POW, and a former First Lady. Poles apart in many ways, now joined together in the history of this strange process.
As politicians, John McCain and Hillary Clinton have a lot of mutual respect for each other. They have traveled to Iraq together during a dangerous time in the conflict, and they lived to tell about it. Now they can say the same thing about New Hampshire.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The sad part is not that the media were wrong. It's that, once again, you will not learn from your mistakes.
"Something's happening and you don't know what it is...".
It's populism, corporatism and the Class War waged on Middle Class America. That's what's happening Mr. Williams.
If Hillary doesn't recognise this struggle, at best she'll be a place holder for her one and only term.
I used to watch US networks quite a bit (being a news junkie) but recently have stopped in order to maintain some sanity. I agree with Democrab's comment about the snottiness of the "imperfect politician" remark. I also agree with SpencerCat regarding Matthews and Russert - these two gasbags have got to go. It is like watching the new TV channel OBN - Old Boys Network. It is truly sickening (and insulting) how rightwing it has become and how much they try to influence the American public's thinking.
Something's happening all right -
Diebold Electronic Voting Machines Without A Paper Trail -
THAT'S what's happening.
If you know anyone who actually believes the New Hampshire results
I have a great Bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them.
I think Obama is toast, and I guess that is why I am so sad today. The inevitable is happening again in American politics and I guess, I will never see the "change candidate" again in my lifetime. I know we have a long way to go, but N.H. spoke volumes about the kind of people who turn out to vote, and how they vote.
Are we really so surprised when in America people end up voting for the Devil They Know? Why do you think Bush and Co won again in 2004? Sure- they stole Ohio- but it shouldn't have even been close then.
With the negativity that spewed out of their mouths in this primary, Billary won the battle but lost the war with me.
NH was the Clinton firewall. Obama and Hillary tie on delegates. Not much of a story.
ZZZZZZZZZZ
comeback?!?! why does the MSM feel so compelled to come up with slogans or corny story lines??
Two weeks ago, Clinton was ten points ahead of Obama in NH polls; so she ends up winning by 3% and it's a MAJOR COMEBACK (simply because in the last few days the pollsters got it wrong...ag
The only story here is that the media and the pollsters rival weatherman, the CIA and politicians for GETTING IT WRONG AND STILL KEEPING THEIR JOBS!
hmmmm. if we were gonna make "comeback" references, it seems to me that the immortal words of LL Cool J fit this bill better:
"Don't call it a comeback. I been here for years."
from Mama said Knock You Out.
Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss. Why do we even bother?
I have to say that the team covering last night on MSNBC was pretty solid ... Olberman, you Mr. Williams, and Tom Brokaw had nuanced and intelligent points to make. At one point, Olberman tossed a lead-in to Matthews something like, "It should be noted that in the first two contests of this primary the winners were a black man and a woman, each placing first and second respective
Mr. Williams:
I appreciate your analysis, and your take on the presumed character of the people of New Hampshire. But I have to take this opportunity to say that I believe your industry, with its obsession with faulty poll numbers and lust for handicapping candidates' wins and losses like some debased sports bookie, has a lot to answer for.
I believe we are at a critical juncture in American history, and the upcoming presidential election may be the most important of the first half of this new century. Your industry has a tremendous responsibility to provide the American people with the important information they need to make an informed and vital decision about the future of our country. Unreliable numbers and pundit's breathless hyberbole is not the information we need.
I'm certain you have some sway over the editorial content of your newscast. You would be doing all of us a great service if you could find some airtime to simply explain the various positions of the candidates rather than just endlessly telling us the score. For example, I keep hearing the gestalt that Clinton and Obama's positions are "nearly the same." How about producing a story that actually details the differnces and gives us the facts? Maybe you could present a split-screen, with an issue at the top and the candidate speaking their position on video from one of the numerous recent debates. Then freeze that candidate, and on the other side of the screen, have a video of the other candidate explaining their position on the same issue. I think that sort of fact-based rather than editorial-based reporting could be a lot more important and useful to all of us.
I am particularly enjoying listening to and reading various members of the media and Bloggy McBloggersons talk about how badly they got it wrong and how they shouldn't have done this or that or blah blah blah and all the while they're now writing the first lines of Obama's obit just like they did Huckabee's and McCain's and Clinton's.
It's a little sad to think that NH would support someone because they didn't want to be like Iowa or because that person got a little bloodied during a campaign. Maybe, and I only say this because it's true, maybe a candidate needs to be bloodied because they are simply wrong and their opponents are right. I would hope NH would consider that before supporting someone just because they feel bad that person had their feelings hurt.
I'd like to see a moratorium on polls by Zogby, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, WashingtonPost and all 7+ days before an election day.
There's enough noise and confusion in making up one's mind on who to cast a vote for without taking into account who the media thinks the winner will be.
How about a poll on how polls skew voting?
Here's what happened in the final days in NH:
As of yesterday, it looked like it would be a blowout for Obama.
The polls in the final days really missed the outcome in New Hampshire. Obama's internal poll predicted Obama to win NH as of Tuesday by +14%. Clinton's internal poll predicted Obama to win NH by +11%.
Obama's margin seemed to be growing every half-day, concurrent with the glowing media coverage of Obama and the cynical "it's over" coverage of Clinton. The pictures they showed of her were mostly downbeat or odd, while the pictures of him were heroic. The headlines were diametrically opposed.
But it's hard to poll right down to the final hour and process the numbers in time for the election. And something happened in the second half of Monday, and even early Tuesday.
The media played that clip over and over again of Hillary talking to the coffee house group about how "it's hard" and she "cares so much about this country." The headlines that went with that mostly suggested that she was at the breaking point.
But a good chunk of the electorate, namely women in her age group and others, found her to be genuine in that moment as we haven't often seen her before. They heard the headlines or the news anchors that promised that this tape was going to show her cracking up. And when the tape didn't show her cracking up, the viewers thought, "what is the news media trying to tell me? why do they say crack up when it's just normal human reflection at a stressful time? she's not a robot - she's a person who cares."
And with that, they called their best friend, talked about it and got out to vote on a spring-like day in January.
And they showed the media who's the real boss - the voters are. They won't be told what to think of a 2-minute clip--they'll make up they're own minds about it--particularly if the headlines and pundits characterize it as something it wasn't.
This is all really crazy. Throughout the NH campaign starting a month ago, Obama was way behind, then just behind, then a little behind, then at the end neck and neck. All of sudden, in one day, Saturday, he was way ahead. Hillary then squeaked out her win, which had been predicted last Thursday, and is now the comeback kid.
Truth is, with the establishment Democratic machine behind her, she was supposed to smoke Obama in NH. Obama started upsetting the crony coronation party by closing ranks fast. Now because of inaccurate polling she looks like the person with momentum when she barely hung on to what was supposed to be a cakewalk.
However, if the polls had not been skewed over the week end the opposite perception would have persisted.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
