Clinton Certainly Felt Snubbed

Check out this Q and A from last night:

WALLACE: Finally, Senator Clinton, there was an incident last night at the State of the Union address that is getting a bit of attention. When you get into the hall – we’ll put the picture up -- you reached out -- Senator Kennedy and Senator Obama were standing side by side. Senator Kennedy shook your hand, and Senator Obama said he was looking to talk to somebody else. Some people are saying that he snubbed to you. Do you feel like you were snubbed you last night?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Chris, I reached out my hand in friendship and unity and my hand is still reaching out. And I look forward to shaking his hand when I see him at the debate in California. But what is important here is that any differences between us as Democrats pale in comparison to the differences between us and the Republicans, and I think we will have a unified Democratic Party... We will come together, not only as a party, but as a country in this election year, and I am confident that we are going to present a very strong case to the American people as to why Democrats should once again be in the White House

Comments

Another "Tears" moment for her. They are trying to play on sympathy for her, just like in New Hampshire. Pathetic.

Posted by pittanylion | January 30, 2008 9:38 AM

Wow...I'm surprised Hillary is taking the "inevitability" tack again. You'd think she'd learn. Someone said that the Clinton campaign's big weakness is its tendency to get cocky when it seems to be on top.

Posted by Daniel Munz | January 30, 2008 9:39 AM

False Headline. Clinton is certainly spinning that she felt snubbed, because she thinks it might help her.

My guess is that she thinks she was snubbed about as much as she thought Obama is a Reaganite. It's just grist for her cynical mill.

Posted by Ban Johnson | January 30, 2008 9:40 AM

I don't buy it. She didn't answer the question. She's milking the non-incident for sympathy.

Posted by Shzbat | January 30, 2008 9:40 AM

Can she open her mouth without lying?

Posted by John | January 30, 2008 9:41 AM

This whole thing is rediculous.

Posted by jf | January 30, 2008 9:42 AM

Hillary Clinton is a decent fine lady and showed a lot of class with her attempted reconciliation.

Obama is arrogant. He comes across as a less chummy version of George W. Bush who at least could put on an act of hearty good will.

Posted by ken | January 30, 2008 9:47 AM

Not to double-comment, but the more I think about this, the more it just makes me so tired of her bullshit.

I think a lot of this is at the root of my support for Obama -- do we really want to spend four/eight years defending this kind of stuff? Letting it distract from things like, oh, I don't know, insuring 47 million Americans?

I'm just so...tired...of...her.

Can I get an Amen here?

Posted by Daniel Munz | January 30, 2008 9:50 AM

I don't understand. She wasn't reaching her hand out to Obama, she was reaching it out to Kennedy (who shook it). The whole "issue" is that Obama seemingly turned away when it happened. Why is her hand still reaching out?

Posted by Mike | January 30, 2008 9:51 AM

Hillary Clinton is a decent fine lady and showed a lot of class with her attempted reconciliation.

Seriously? Do people really believe this? That Hillary's carefully calculated attempt to give this stupid nonstory legs counts as a classy attempt at reconciliation? (Note, that this was a carefully calculated attempt to give this story legs holds whether or not Hillary really felt like Obama snubbed her)

Posted by John | January 30, 2008 9:51 AM

Hillary Clinton is a decent fine lady and showed a lot of class with her attempted reconciliation.

Muwaahahahahaha! Well played.

Posted by Nice one | January 30, 2008 9:51 AM

Daniel,

Amen!

Posted by texasdem | January 30, 2008 9:52 AM

Edwards getting out?

Posted by sa | January 30, 2008 9:53 AM

I wonder if we'll here Obama apologize like he did after the "You're likable enough..." incident. It would help kill this non-story off.

Posted by Chris in Cal | January 30, 2008 9:53 AM

"Hillary Clinton is a decent fine lady and showed a lot of class with her attempted reconciliation."

What, her attempted reconcilliation after the Clinton campaign's race baiting? A lot of class indeed. And he's arrogant.

Posted by jf | January 30, 2008 9:54 AM

"Hillary Clinton is a decent fine lady and showed a lot of class with her attempted reconciliation."
You forgot the emoticon at the end of the sentence.

Posted by Pittanylion | January 30, 2008 9:54 AM

Amen! Daniel. And I'll throw in some extra VOMIT. VOMIT. VOMIT.

Posted by Saeid Ghandi | January 30, 2008 9:54 AM

Shouldn't you be reporting on actual news? Like the fact that Ben Smith says Edwards is dropping out today?

Just a suggestion.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | January 30, 2008 9:54 AM

Any man who downs Hillary is Gay ...

Posted by Laurasbush | January 30, 2008 9:56 AM

Wow- you guys are amazing!! Why don't you just say it - 'That Hillary Clinton, she sure is a bitch'.

Come on, give it a break. Obama was at worst a rude little SOB, at best inattentive, and Clinton gave a short answer to a question from a FOX analyst.

Gee Munz - where's the 'inevitability' in her statement? - no where. Gee John, where's the lie. Gee Johnson - where has she said Obama was a Reaganite? Only on bullshit MSNBC shows does that load of crap get repeated. She said Obama said that the Republicans over the last 10-15 years were the party of ideas - which he said!!

I strongly suspect that a lot of Obama supporters on the web are really just Republican trolls trying to stir the pot, because God knows real Democrats would not say the load of stupidity in the first five comments here.

Posted by DougMN | January 30, 2008 9:56 AM

Kennedy reached for her first. She wasn't holding out her hand for anyone. But I am sure she will play it for all it is worth...

Imagine I thought she'd just say, "this is much ado about nothing, let's get back to the campaign."

Posted by joe | January 30, 2008 9:57 AM

I guesss Edwards dropping out is pretty irrelevant in the light of such overwhelming events.

Posted by Gwen | January 30, 2008 9:58 AM

Obama when asked about this stated that as he was approached, Claire McCaskill called his name and he turned to speak to her. Claire McCaskill confirmed that she did call Obama by name.

Posted by vicissitudes | January 30, 2008 10:00 AM

It's really disappointing that this kind of non-story gets traction in today's media, and it's hard not to lay some of the blame for that at the feet of the bloggers who have trumpeted it. Where's your sense of responsibility? Do you really think anyone should be deciding who to vote for based on the possibility that one candidate avoided another at an awkward moment? I don't think this is an anti-Obama bias, I think it's just an anti-substance bias -- and it's a sad day when even The Atlantic is getting in on it.

Posted by Rebecca | January 30, 2008 10:04 AM

Well, since 'feeeelings' are the most important qualification for Prznt, and are most at important in any campaign---wait a minute! They're not--policies to address specific issues are!

And Senator Clinton had to lift the no-brainer of universal health care from Sen. Edwards. Huh. Thought she was the expert on that.

And Senator Clinton couldn't be bothered to stand up for the Constitution---as a Senator. Huh. Thought experience and track record mattered. Mattered.

Because when Senator Clinton sez:
"Well, Chris, I reached out my hand in friendship and unity and my hand is still reaching out."

All I know is:
I, too, reached out MY hand in friendship and unity, to Senator Clinton, and asked that she uphold the Constitution.

And got snubbed. I most "certainly felt" snubbed---and still feel that way.

If Senator Clinton is the nominee---she'll lose.

Posted by johnsturgeon | January 30, 2008 10:05 AM

pittanylion nailed it in one.

Posted by calling all toasters | January 30, 2008 10:08 AM

I think everybody's making way too big a deal out of this. Should we make a big deal out of the fact that Hillary "snubbed" Obama when he walked over to her seat to shake her hand following the end of the SC debate? He clearly was trying to be cordial and she just "ignored" him. Or maybe she was just exhausted and not paying attention. Can we move on to some real issues now, please?

Posted by pgilford | January 30, 2008 10:09 AM

DougMN, I don't really like the sexist connotations inherent in words like "bitch." So let me put it this way: If Hillary were a guy, he'd be a real asshole.

Posted by Daniel Munz | January 30, 2008 10:09 AM

Shzbat, pittanylion and Ban Johnson, you forgot to state whether you believe a snub occurred.

John, you forgot to specify the claimed lie in Hillary's response.

It is quite obvious from the video that Hillary WAS snubbed (either that, or Obama is legally blind). Clearly Hillary did not wish to lie by saying there was no snub, nor did she wish to keep the issue going by directly stating that there was a snub, so she gave an unresponsive answer. It happens all the time in political interviews. Get over it, people.

Posted by SB | January 30, 2008 10:11 AM

she would say anything if it helped her get the white house. she is probably in disbelief it is this easy to get pundits to roll over and let her play the hurt victim.

Posted by cgibson | January 30, 2008 10:12 AM

Obama responds to the BuLL:

"I was turning away because Claire [McCaskill] asked me a question, as Senator Kennedy was reaching for her [Clinton]... And senator Clinton and I have had very cordial relations on the floor and off the floor; I waved at her as we were coming into the Senate chamber before we walked over. I think there's a lot more tea leaf reading going on here than I think people are suggesting."

Posted by opulent | January 30, 2008 10:13 AM

An absolute non-story to detract attention from the growing Obama momentum. Hopefully, Edwards will endorse Obama, creating an even larger surge for Obama who stands a much better chance to defeat McCain than Billary. It cannot understand how anyone can be for the Clinton team. Why foment another dynasty. Why support a co-presidency. Why look to the past when there is such a formidable and unique candidate such as Obama to take us into the future.

Posted by tango belle | January 30, 2008 10:14 AM

It's disappointing that Marc Ambinder and others who do such an outstanding job covering the race keep focusing on this. Whether it was a snub or not, why does this matter?
Hillary Clinton is happy to keep the story alive despite the fact that it was Ted Kennedy who initiated the handshake with her. The jury is forever out as to what would have transpired next, had Obama not turned away.
There are 2 possibilities. First, Obama is upset at the tenor of a very heated campaign and blew her off. Probably not the best idea, but not the end of the world. The other is that his interpretation is correct and this is a shameful misdirection.
No doubt there will be a lot of gratitude from the Clinton camp, and a candidate always willing to play victim when it suits her, for the conflict-obsessed, soap-opera driven media to keep this story alive.

Posted by paddy | January 30, 2008 10:16 AM

Feb 5 almost upon us. Numbers indicate Sen. Obama loses 18 states. Now that Edwards is out there will be no ambiguity about who won and who lost. This race may be over. Delegates or no, how does any candidate maintain viability after losing 18 primaries in one day?

Bet's please for the date of Obama's concession speech.

Posted by jd-winterbottom | January 30, 2008 10:17 AM

Hilliary is SUCH a LIAR.

The truth is that she extended her hand as BOTH Sen Kennedy and Obama approached, and that Kennedy grabbed her hand first while Obama responded to Claire on the other side of the aisle.

Hillary is shameless, trifling and just putrid.

Look out though because she may be our next President...

Edwards has dropped out of the race and we do not know if those voters are anti-black or anti-Hillary.

Posted by vicissitude | January 30, 2008 10:18 AM

>>>Hillary Clinton is a decent fine lady and showed a lot of class with her attempted reconciliation.

Posted by Elizabeth | January 30, 2008 10:23 AM

Not this again. Is she going to cry again???

Is sympathy the only way she thinks she can get votes???

Posted by More Axe | January 30, 2008 10:24 AM

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! @
Daniel Munz | January 30, 2008 9:50 AM

Hillary is just an asshole. Always has been. Now she will be our Chief Asshole in the WhiteHse with Edwards dropping out, there will be more shit from her daily and with Bill in tow we need to all just get use to being shyt on with a smile. Those two know how to shyt up a friggin storm from sea to shining sea.

Posted by elrapierwit | January 30, 2008 10:25 AM

If Barack Obama is so delicate that he cannot bear to shake Hillary's hand, and if he gets the Democratic nomination, he'll be in for a shock when the Republican slicing and dicing machine starts in on him. He'll remember the primaries as the good old days.

How could Mr. Obama possibly deal with the nasty leaders of enemy nations if he cannot take the heat from someone who is merely his political opponent -- not his enemy, just his political rival?

I think Obama is not ready for prime time.

Posted by Dream | January 30, 2008 10:26 AM

--excerpts from: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0127edit1jan27,0,847324.story

"At SOTU, Obama's Clinton snub was the news" by Frank James, The Chicago Tribune - Jan. 29, 2008

Obama returned to stand by his seat next to Sen. Edward Kennedy who endorsed Obama today in a widely watched event that reverberated across the political world.

As Clinton approached, Kennedy made sure to make eye contact and indicated he wanted to shake her hand. Clinton leaned towards Kennedy over a row of seats and Kennedy leaned in towards her. They shook hands.

Obama stood icily staring at Clinton during this, then turned his back and stepped a few feet away. Kennedy may've wanted to make peace with Clinton but Obama clearly wanted no part of that.

. . .

The sense in the press gallery was that Obama didn't cover himself in glory. Someone even used the word "childish."

Posted by Dream | January 30, 2008 10:39 AM

As a women, I tend to think sometimes Hillary doesn't get a fair shake. So, maybe he did snub her maybe he didn't. How is she really gonna know. He tends to work it both ways himself, I personally get exhausted by all the animosity - it actually makes me more in favor of Hillary.

Posted by LS | January 30, 2008 10:40 AM

BHO is basically an arrogant prick without the minimum required political ability to even fake the chummy good will necessary for success. When he dislikes someone, he dislikes them openly.

Clinton at least tries to overcome the hostility aimed at her by being gracious and welcoming to reconciliation.

Obama and his rabble are the most hateful and divisive charactors since Richard Nixon.

Posted by ken | January 30, 2008 10:45 AM

Hillary has iced him several times in the senate and now she claims to have been snubbed??? She is such a b****.

Posted by Leona | January 30, 2008 10:45 AM

Obama and his rabble? Do go on, Ken.

Posted by Not Ken | January 30, 2008 10:57 AM

This is just like the faux outrage at the Wellstone funeral. It is a completely ginned up non-issue.

But just as that influenced voters, this could, too.

Another bit of brilliant and slimy political strategy from Hillary Clinton and company.

Posted by Sue | January 30, 2008 10:57 AM

DougMN: "Wow- you guys are amazing!! Why don't you just say it - 'That Hillary Clinton, she sure is a bitch'."

Because that would speak cruelly to dogs.

Posted by Callimaco | January 30, 2008 11:02 AM

What in the world did Hillary say to Wallace that is so wrong and what answer could she have given that would have been satisfactory? She was asked a question and she answered it in two very short sentences without accusing him or putting him down. There was no ranting or raving but only a gracious reply indicating how she felt. Seems to me she is dammed no matter what she says.

We are lucky to have two very competent and highly qualified candidates. We do not have to hate one to like the other. Even though I have looked at the issues and have chosen who best speaks to my concerns, come November I will vote for the candidate who is chosen because I believe either would be good for the country.

Posted by Donna | January 30, 2008 11:05 AM

The AP put out a story in which the very first thing they said was wrong - that this happened before the SOTU speech - when, in fact, it happened after the speech was over. So, it seems to me that if you begin a "story" with something that is factually untrue, then the rest of the story should be taken for what it probably is - untrue. People were standing and clapping because the speech was over, no one was standing and clapping before the speech. Andrew Sullivan has a 4-photo sequence, clearly showing Clinton leaning over and talking to someone while Obama is standing and looking straight ahead while Kennedy is looking at Clinton. As Clinton finishes talking to the person beside her and raises her head, Kennedy starts reaching his hand toward her and Obama is already turning his head to his left, which is where McKaskill is standing. When Clinton sees Kennedy extending his hand, she extends her hand back to him, at which time Obama's head is alreaady turned more to his left. So, perhaps you should all contact AP and ask why they put out a story that begins with a lie.

Posted by Linda Tinjum | January 30, 2008 11:05 AM

AMEN , Daniel! I normally feel nauseous when GWB appears on my tee-vee, and HRC in a few short weeks is giving me the same reaction. And Sue, the Clintons' campaign(make no mistake, it is the TWO of them) has taken slime to new heights. The most outrageous part of their strategy is that they expect all of us to "make nice" if they win the nomination-it ain't gonna happen!

Posted by beth | January 30, 2008 11:06 AM

Oh puhleeze. It's not like Hillary hasn't been on the other side of that equation.

As Maureen points out:

Their relations have been frosty and fraught ever since the young Chicago prince challenged Queen Hillary’s royal proclamation that it was her turn to rule.

Last winter, after news broke that he was thinking of running, he winked at her and took her elbow on the Senate floor to say hi, in his customary languid, friendly way, and she coldly brushed him off.

...

Again and again at debates, he looked eager to greet her or be friendly during the evening and she iced him. She might have frozen him out once more Monday night had he actually tried to reach out.

And this reported last August by the Caucus blog:

The day he opened his exploratory committee, several Senate observers said, he extended his hand and said hello on the Senate floor. She breezed by him, offering a cool stare.

Posted by passing by | January 30, 2008 11:07 AM

Correction: I believe it was the Nevada debate (MSNBC) where Hillary "snubbed" Obama after it was over.

Posted by pgilford | January 30, 2008 11:08 AM

What is with the headline??? Where in the transcript do you get Clinton saying she "certainly felt snubbed"? It is ludicrous how people are harping on this.

Posted by Pete | January 30, 2008 11:08 AM

Obama made an amatuer mistake. He should have CAPITALIZED on the opportunity to look like the bigger person and sought any opportunity to smile and greet her. Like it or not, this is politics. This is what gives me a great deal of pause about him. Is he smart? Yes! Is he inspirational? Yes! Is he ready to take on the presidency without making some serious, serious mistakes? Not convinced! Whoever wins, EVERYONE better rally behind the democratic nominee, Hillary or Barack. If not, the petty delite of screwing the other candidate will pale in comparision to continued economic devastation, dead Americans and innocent people in an endless war, more and more uninsured and a world who thinks America is arrogant and out of control.

Posted by Kathy | January 30, 2008 11:09 AM

The more comments I read the more Republican talking points about the Clintons I hear - Billary, really now? I see this a lot in progressive blogs- people 'defending' Obama by using Republican talking points. Strongly makes me suspect that these 'Obama supporters' are no such thing. Lets hear it- the next person who defends Obama using a Republican talking point about what a mean, dirty politician Clinton is, are you really voting for Obama, or are you just a Republican troll? First person who says 'if Obama doesn't win the primary I'm voting for the Republican nominee' gets the dumbass of the day award.

Posted by DougMN | January 30, 2008 11:10 AM

Oh, and the first person to say, 'John McCain or Hillary Clinton, what's the difference?', gets the Naderite dumbass of the decade award.

Posted by DougMN | January 30, 2008 11:13 AM

Why do some so-called Obama supporters have so much in common with Republican trolls (e.g., an apparent inability to read and an aversion to telling the truth)? Could it be because many of them are the same people?

Some examples:

"...now she claims to have been snubbed."

Except she did no such thing. Which is why this statement is classified as a lie.

"Hillary Clinton is happy to keep the story alive despite..."

Except, of course, she did no such thing, as she did not even dignify the reporter's stupid question with an answer. See above as to how this classifies this statement.

There's no lie, no play for sympathy, no trumpeting of a non-event, no claim to inevitability, or anything else untoward to be found in her innocuous answer to a dumb question posed by a reporter hoping to sow dissension in Democratic ranks. If you folks piling on are Democrats, you should be ashamed to have adopted Rovian talking points.

Posted by solar | January 30, 2008 11:14 AM

Daniel,
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

Honestly, I'm a woman and lifelong Dem in my 40s who would love, LOVE to vote for a woman for president, but Hillary Clinton makes me want to pull my hair out. Take a clue from Edwards, HRC--he kept losing this primary season, but he never resorted to the alternately manipulative and self-pitying tactics you and your husband have deployed (and subsequently denied) every time things haven't gone your way.

The Clintons have had their 8 years. Bring on the new!

Posted by Lisa | January 30, 2008 11:18 AM

It cannot understand how anyone can be for the Clinton team. Why foment another dynasty. Why support a co-presidency. Why look to the past when there is such a formidable and unique candidate such as Obama to take us into the future.

Let me help you understand, tango belle. A lot of us share your concerns about dynasties and the co-presidency, but not all of us assume that Obama would be a more effective president than Hillary.

Being new and a good mimic (JFK this week, MLK the week before last) is fun and stimulating, but his policy on health care is weak and his method of listening and looking for areas of possible compromise before entering the fray is scary.

Maybe it would help if we think of dynasties and co-presidencies as novel ideas. Or maybe we could accept that the Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys may have had something to offer. Experience with successful families breeds confidence in their brand. Does that make sense?

I'd like to see more of Barak before I assume that he is what his rhetoric says he is. Right now he's a bit more of a gamble than Hillary. That said, if she tanks, I'll gladly support him over any Republican.

Posted by vdomeras | January 30, 2008 11:19 AM

DougMN, the more I read of comments like yours, the more I'm reminded of Bush's most loyal supporters -- you're either with them, or some kind of troll. And that, really is the difference. Obama talks about building a working coalition for change that -- horror! -- includes some Republicans! Hillary thinks the only coalition she needs is the one between her left lobe and her right lobe.

Look, there's a lot to like about Hillary, but it seems like she's spent the past few months vindicating her worst critics and disappointing her staunchest defenders. I defended the Clinton administration through the 1990s because a Democratic presidency is always something worth defending, especially against the odious cancer on this country that was the Gingrich crew. But given my choice, I'd rather not have had to play defense quite so often. And now, I, uh, have a choice. So, goodbye to all that.

Posted by Daniel Munz | January 30, 2008 11:21 AM

Marc, don't play dumb.

Clinton obviously knows about this BS junior high school of journalism fake controversy.

Posted by bob | January 30, 2008 11:23 AM

And will HRC supporters please stop accusing everyone who doesn't like her political tactics of using Republican talking points. Sorry to break it to you, but it is NOT all just a vast, right-wing conspiracy. As far as I'm concerned, the Clintons weren't good for the Democratic party in the 90s--they left behind a battered, bloodied party that had to spend all kinds of capital defending them. The Clintons play the victim over and over. They're not victims. They were in the White House for 8 years. That makes you an underdog? Geez.

Posted by Lisa | January 30, 2008 11:25 AM

You Obama lovers will believe anything. It's obvious he isn't turning away to speak to Claire McCaskill because he continued to clap. Who tries to listen to a question in a crowded room of clapping people and doesn't lean in and stop clapping. The problem isn't the snub, it's the fact that Obama lied about it and all Obamites beleive him because he's the man of inspiration and integrity. Please, let's not deify him. I'd vote for him if he's the nominee but he's just another politician. He's a politician that will, I believe, promote my interests in Washington (as any of the Democrats will). I still think Hillary is a better choice because she'll get stuff done and she doesn't have to pretend she's something above the fray.

Posted by g8grl | January 30, 2008 11:26 AM

You Obama lovers will believe anything. It's obvious he isn't turning away to speak to Claire McCaskill because he continued to clap. Who tries to listen to a question in a crowded room of clapping people and doesn't lean in and stop clapping. The problem isn't the snub, it's the fact that Obama lied about it and all Obamites beleive him because he's the man of inspiration and integrity. Please, let's not deify him. I'd vote for him if he's the nominee but he's just another politician. He's a politician that will, I believe, promote my interests in Washington (as any of the Democrats will). I still think Hillary is a better choice because she'll get stuff done and she doesn't have to pretend she's something above the fray.

Posted by g8grl | January 30, 2008 11:27 AM

You Obama lovers will believe anything. It's obvious he isn't turning away to speak to Claire McCaskill because he continued to clap. Who tries to listen to a question in a crowded room of clapping people and doesn't lean in and stop clapping. The problem isn't the snub, it's the fact that Obama lied about it and all Obamites beleive him because he's the man of inspiration and integrity. Please, let's not deify him. I'd vote for him if he's the nominee but he's just another politician. He's a politician that will, I believe, promote my interests in Washington (as any of the Democrats will). I still think Hillary is a better choice because she'll get stuff done and she doesn't have to pretend she's something above the fray.

Posted by g8grl | January 30, 2008 11:28 AM

g8grl, that's a respectable opinion, but I have to wonder: What's the evidence that Hillary will "get stuff done"? Obama, at least, has what seems to be a well-earned reputation as someone who can skillfully guide initiatives through the legislative process with leadership that's under-the-radar but ultimately effective. That may be true of Hillary, but I don't see the evidence for it.

Posted by Daniel Munz | January 30, 2008 11:36 AM

Of course Obama snubbed her and of course she felt the snub. Obama always seems to believe he breathes some sort of rarified air and that 'the rules' don't apply to him. The snub was the same as his debate stage whisper- 'You're likable enough , Hillary'. That snub and his disparaging remarks about Florida voters and their primary will come back to bite him.

Posted by Moishele | January 30, 2008 12:00 PM

Marc Ambinder == Tim Russert for people who can read.

Posted by Joe Strummer | January 30, 2008 12:05 PM

Shouldn't the headline be something more like "Mark Penn's Polling Says Clinton Claiming She Felt Snubbed Will Help Her Win a New Cycle"?

Posted by MikeS | January 30, 2008 12:09 PM

"Well, Chris, I reached out my hand in friendship and unity and my hand is still reaching out."

OMG. This is even more phony and calculating than her teary-eyed response in New Hampshire. Hillary simply has no shame. None whatsoever.

Posted by Mark F | January 30, 2008 12:12 PM

Some may claim I'm a blowhard. My boyfriend certainly thinks so.

Posted by ken | January 30, 2008 12:15 PM

By the way, Mr. Ambinder, if Hillary had felt snubbed, she could have simplied said so. This answer was a non-answer. Just another in a long series of dishonest ambiguities to proceed from the mouth of one of the most opportunistic figures in American politics.

Posted by Mark F | January 30, 2008 12:15 PM

By the way, Mr. Ambinder, if Hillary had felt snubbed, she could have simply said so. This answer was a non-answer. Just another in a long series of dishonest ambiguities to proceed from the mouth of one of the most opportunistic figures in American politics.

Posted by Mark F | January 30, 2008 12:16 PM

"Come on, give it a break. Obama was at worst a rude little SOB, at best inattentive, and Clinton gave a short answer to a question from a FOX analyst." "I strongly suspect that a lot of Obama supporters on the web are really just Republican trolls trying to stir the pot, because God knows real Democrats would not say the load of stupidity in the first five comments here."

Anyone that would put 'Fox' and 'analyst' in the same sentence has a lot of nerve calling someone a Republican troll. Bitch, please!

Posted by Dawn | January 30, 2008 12:40 PM

Hey Mark F, maybe you can share that data showing that Clinton is one of the most opportunistic figures in American politics, if you can pull it out of Karl Rove's ass.

Whatever. She's opportunistic, she's conniving, she wants it too much, she thinks it should be handed to her - all GOP BS thrown at every Democrat for the last 20 years. And it will be thrown at Obama if he wins the primary.

Posted by DougMN | January 30, 2008 12:44 PM

Hillary's only hope is to cut this crap out, sideline Bill indefinitely, and just let us see her as she is: An impressive, knowledgeable, compassionate person who will make a decent President. It's a risk, but their other strategy has completely backfired. They threw everything they could at Obama, and he's proven largely bulletproof. As with ex-President Clinton, his personal charisma has largely let him rise above any negative attacks. Hillary still has the edge -- establishment candidates always do -- and she should just ride it out.

With every nonsensical statement out of her mouth, it makes me prouder to support Obama. Forget unifying the country. She is going to have a hard time unifying the party when this is all over.

Posted by noho1 | January 30, 2008 12:58 PM

It's disheartening and disappointing to find that even on supposedly "enlightened" sites like this, one finds the majority posters behaving like Freepers. Reflection of the true spirit of Americans when they operate from their anonymity I guess.

Anyway, I like both remaining candidates but prefer Mrs. Clinton. I suppose mainly from the experience point of view and from the fact that I know more about her.

I just don't know enough about Mr. Obama at this time and don't feel comfortable with his experience yet. He's a young man and he'll have his day.

Posted by Disgusted | January 30, 2008 1:32 PM

Enough already with Hillary's Pity Party Club. God forbid a black man should disrespect a white feminist on a path to world domination.

Hillary is no more entitled to be the Democratic nominee for U.S. president than all the dictators in the world are entitled to rape and kill women and children and anyone who crosses their path in order to stay in power.

Do you seriously think that the leaders of China, the Soviet Union, Iraq, Israel, and most of Europe and Africa give a rats *** about some female who drops a tear and chokes up when she can't have her way? Benazir Bhutto never had it so easy.

Posted by Audrey | January 30, 2008 1:52 PM

Hillary Clinton is too phony for words.The fact that there are people who are willing to believe in her at all is very disturbing.
All that surprises me is that Obama is EVER able to be cordial to her. I wonder if he has read his letter from Kathleen Willey yet.

Posted by gtfly | January 30, 2008 1:54 PM

What woman among us of Hillary's age hasn't felt we are condescended to by certain kinds of men. I was a Kucinich supporter, then tended to Edwards for his progressive positions, and now don't know who to vote for, but I am deeply offended by Obama's apparent contempt and I'm pretty sure I won't vote for him.

Posted by Susan | January 30, 2008 2:29 PM

The photos show her reaching out to Kennedy, not Obama. The fact that Hillary is playing along with the negative spin on this non-event indicates that she has a pretty slimy character. Why would Americans want someone like this as the next President? Haven't we been lied to enough by Bush?

Posted by Linda | January 30, 2008 2:51 PM

'It's crying time again"...close to a election.

Posted by lyn | January 30, 2008 3:02 PM

'It's crying time again"...close to a election.

Posted by lyn | January 30, 2008 3:02 PM

I can't believe how slimy the Clintons have become. I thought they were great for years then they outright distort Obama's record, play the race card, and now this slime? Let's not forget the political game they're playing with Florida, they suddenly want their "voices to be heard" yet Hillary ditched South Carolina once she realized she was defeated, didn't stick by and say thanks and goodbye to her supporters.

Let's not also forget how the Clintons were ok with the casino caucuses closing in Nevada after the Culinary endorsement went to Obama instead of Clinton.

I guess the Clintons only want the votes to count if it's to their benefit.

Also this photo proves that OBAMA DID NOT SNUB HILLARY:

http://img.waffleimages.com/1979e894bbc9cc0b6ee7f4013221e0e6345c9e27/mills-sou-four.jpg

1- You can clearly see Ted Kennedy is reaching for Clinton, not the other way around.

2-You can see Obama is turned before Hillary is even in his FOV, also there is someone standing between them, blocking his view of her.

Seriously the Clintons are willing to do anything to win.

To anyone on the fence about Clinton vs Obama, let me tell you that Obama will have a much easier time vs the Republicans in the general. Hillary is far too polarizing and the GOP will be out in force against her. Obama on the otherhand gets lots of crossover support from independents and Republicans.

Posted by mike | January 30, 2008 3:54 PM

DougMN, I think its looking more and more like the "Obama supporters" posting here fall into three catagories - Republicans messing around to yank our chains and to gin up anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democratic base; guys with unresolved Oedipal crises who are only part of the Democratic party because they want to get back at "daddy" (the DNC, the DLC, Bill, you name it); and true Obamabots who lack the cognitive skills to grasp anything more complicated than a slogan.

Why do I think this? Because missing in action are the people who would defend Obama's record and position on real issues - its all "let's beat that bitch" (from the first two groups) and "Obama is my New Jesus" from the third.

The Obamabots are really starting to resemble fundamentalists. Like fundamentalists, their worldview is manichean; they believe faith trumps fact; and they can't stop yak yak yakking about the divine grace of their saviour, and warning the unconverted that they face a hellacious fate in the afterlife (after November) if we don't wake up and see the light.

I can't wait till the Rapture (Super Tuesday) is over and all the true believers are spirited away...

Posted by Ciccina | January 30, 2008 3:55 PM

Ciccina, and DougMN, if it is Hillary who wins the nomination, then I can't wait till November when she will be easily defeated by GOP's full force+ independents.

As usual, Democrats will nominate the unelectable politician, just like Gore, and just like Kerry. Have fun with that.

Posted by mike | January 30, 2008 4:14 PM

Mike - "I can't wait till November when she will be easily defeated by GOP's full force+ independents" - spoken like a true Republican (group #1)...

Although, given the amount of spite you're showing, I wouldn't rule out the Oedipal crisis (group #2)...

Plus you argue that Obama didn't *really see* Hillary in her bright red suit, despite the photos and video, because you know Jes.. I mean Barack's heart and he would never do a thing like that. That puts you in the Obamabot fundamentalist camp (group #3)....

Mike, you are a conundrum!

Posted by Ciccina | January 30, 2008 4:43 PM

hillary = crock

Posted by justin | January 30, 2008 4:48 PM

Good job justin... keep practicing, and soon you'll be able to tackle the two-syllable words!

You guys are too easy.

Posted by Ciccina | January 30, 2008 5:05 PM

I wouldn't shake her hand either,but it will give her something else to whine about.

Posted by ron | January 30, 2008 6:16 PM

I wouldn't shake her hand either,but it will give her something else to whine about.

Posted by ron | January 30, 2008 6:16 PM

to "DREAM"

you are dreaming - you quote a post as if the Chicago Tribune wrote it and in fact the link is the the Chicago Tribune ENDORSEMENT of Sen Obama -- and what you quote is a "comment" from some reader

Very tricky -- you must support Hillary
---
This is a ridiculous article - below Marc to post and some absurd comments-

There are way bigger issues here people

Posted by AMBER | January 30, 2008 8:56 PM

She was trying to create a moment by shaking Ted Kennedy's hand after the big endorsement. She is maximizing the New York NOW hysterical reaction to nothing. For all that is holy! If these entitled, privileged women don't go find something purposeful to do. I bet other photographers have other shots of that exchange but we won't see them until after the campaign because only this image feeds the current media narrative. Further, I can't believe all those journalist allowed her free air time after Florida. They should have told her non-story.

Posted by RealB.G., Sacramento, California | January 30, 2008 9:25 PM

DougMN

You are right on about the Obama and Republican cyberbullies. Keep up the good work!

Posted by EWard | January 30, 2008 10:13 PM

Right, RealB.G. ... I'm sure the college+, 80k+ income young white guys who make up Obama's base of support know nothing about privilege.

You know nothing about NYS NOW, who their members and staff are, and what issues they work on.

But who needs facts when you've got prejudice to rely on, right?

Enjoy it while it lasts, buddy. We have hammers.

Posted by Ciccina | January 30, 2008 11:28 PM

I personally believe that the photos were somehow faked or posed by Clinton and some campaign aid or politically ally.

How is it possible that of all the camera crews, for all the news organizations, nobody caught this "snub" on video? Especially when it is obvious that most of those news organizations were probably videotaping everything Hillary and Obama were doing. I just don't buy for a second that this wasn't caught on tape, if it really happened.

Posted by David | January 31, 2008 9:58 PM

I personally believe that the photos were somehow faked or posed by Clinton and some campaign aid or political ally.

How is it possible that of all the camera crews, for all the news organizations, nobody caught this "snub" on video? Especially when it is obvious that most of those news organizations were probably videotaping everything Hillary and Obama were doing. I just don't buy for a second that this wasn't caught on tape, if it really happened.

Posted by David | January 31, 2008 9:59 PM