About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Novak: "only the naive can believe" Clinton's emotional moment was genuine

January 10, 2008 11:01 am ET

SUMMARY: Discussing a recent campaign event during which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's voice broke as she talked about why she is seeking the presidency, Robert Novak wrote that "only the naive can believe Clinton was not artfully playing for sympathy from her sisters." Novak's remarks echoed other media figures who characterized Clinton's emotional moment as "pretend[]" or not "genuine" or "calculated."

45 Comments

In his January 10 syndicated column, discussing a recent campaign event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, during which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) voice broke as she talked about why she is seeking the presidency, Robert Novak wrote that Clinton's "lachrymose complaint" was "widely compared to [then-Sen. Edmund S.] Muskie's [D-ME] crying jag in Manchester 36 years ago, which began his downfall. But whereas Muskie's tears were involuntary, only the naive can believe Clinton was not artfully playing for sympathy from her sisters." Novak added: "It worked."

Several other media figures have similarly characterized Clinton's emotional moment as "pretend[]" or not "genuine" or "calculated," reviving a characterization frequently made by the media that Clinton is "calculating."

From Novak's January 10 column:

It is difficult to exaggerate the funereal tone inside the Clinton camp on primary day in New Hampshire. Sen. Clinton's campaigning there after her third-place Iowa finish was uninspired and uninspiring. Even her husband seemed to lose his famous vibrancy. One Democratic old pro who supports her compared the atmosphere to the last days of Edmund Muskie's failed candidacy in 1972. Expectations of a double-digit defeat Tuesday led to speculation of at least a "relaunched" post-New Hampshire campaign and even a withdrawal before a possible embarrassment in her home-state New York primary Feb. 5.

With that background, Sen. Clinton's lachrymose complaint in New Hampshire on Monday that "this is very personal for me" was widely compared to Muskie's crying jag in Manchester 36 years ago, which began his downfall. But whereas Muskie's tears were involuntary, only the naive can believe Clinton was not artfully playing for sympathy from her sisters. It worked.

Bill Clinton's accompanying belittling of Obama as unqualified ("the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen") was similarly regarded within the party as a serious blunder. That indeed was the reaction from the Obama camp. Obama himself was condescending about his powerful detractor: "I understand he's feeling a little frustrated right now." In fact, an attack by so powerful and popular a Democratic icon should have been taken seriously by the neophyte candidate.

— M.G.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dbeden4153 (January 10, 2008 11:23 am ET)
         
      "from her sisters." nice. Although you do have to give him props, he does say Obama being unqualified is "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Novak switching sides on us perchance?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (January 10, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
           
        Captfoster2 writes that "only the naive can believe Novak is actually a trustworthy source for anything but idiotic vile sewage that is then somehow seen as something worthy by the standards of the media today!" Priceless!!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tex (January 11, 2008 9:37 am ET)
             
          Another champion of empathy and compassion heard from ... Bob Novak, expert in matters of emotion and the heart. Hilarious!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 11:48 am ET)
         
      Every conservative/Clinton loathing pundit, commentator and columnist will come down on the side of she "faked" it, or it was planned, or whatever......and those that defend her will say otherwise. Calculating and manipulative and insincere are qualities her detractors have pushed for decades, this only adds to that for them. For me, whether it was genuine or not is irrelevant - people have every right to vote for her for whatever reason they want to. If they felt some empathy for her, or this humanized her to them in some way, so be it......it's their perfect right. Time to get off the Clinton bashing camp of personal foibles and focus on issues and policy.......this is tiring.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (January 10, 2008 12:54 pm ET)
           
        Heard an interesting comment on the local radio yesterday which might explain the press' poor treatment of Hillary Clinton. His contention was that nobody in the press likes to cover her campaign because her staffers treat the press terribly (compared to the other candidates' staffers) and they get no access to Hillary. He stated that this was a universal experience by reporters trying to cover the former first lady. This might explain a few things, although they (the press) should still be more professional and unbiased. I think that's where the term "calculating" comes from in characterizing her because the press feels she treats THEM that way.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (January 10, 2008 1:06 pm ET)
             
          Sounds a lot like a certain current President there, and how he, and his staff treat the press, which is absolutely horribly rotten.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by atheist (January 10, 2008 2:50 pm ET)
             
          Sounds like an absurd excuse.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by MHK (January 11, 2008 11:14 am ET)
             
          The media isn't suppose to allow their personal feeling to cloud their reporting. If that is true it's the it extremely un-ethical. Personally I'm not buying it, Bush is notorious for treating the press poorly. I think it fair to say that Junior hasn't received anything close to what HRC has experienced from the media.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Clevenative (January 10, 2008 12:09 pm ET)
         
      "Sen. Clinton's lachrymose complaint" is not half as tearful as Novak’s LACKYmose article.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Governor (January 10, 2008 12:12 pm ET)
         
      MSM's job is to report on events, not the sincerity of events. People can make their own judgments. It's clear to me from watching the morning news, that various media outlets want viewers to question Clinton's motives. Why?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (January 10, 2008 12:20 pm ET)
         
      I wish one of right wing smear mongers would explain what distinguishes the emotional moments of Romney, Gates, Bush 41, Bush 43 and Boehner from that of Clinton. Have any of them even tried?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by chin music (January 10, 2008 12:37 pm ET)
           
        They will never do that, because their job is to SMEAR, not offer honest "commentary". If anyone believes that novak's deliberate revelation of the identity of a covert CIA operative was not complicit in the smearing of a bush critic, it is they who are naive. He has more than earned the moniker "douche bag of liberty" (per Jon Stewart).
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MickD (January 10, 2008 12:44 pm ET)
             
          The navel gazing on this issue is absurb. This morning on the 'Today Show' they had a psychologist hack and Dee-Dee Meyers raising hay on the issue. For once, I'd like to see one of those panelists say "why the hell are you focusing on this rather than the issues? If you did one segment a day just on educating the American people on these candidates viewpoints we'd all be better off."
          Report Abuse
          • Author by atheist (January 10, 2008 6:32 pm ET)
               
            Because in order to talk about the issues they have to KNOW about them !!! And it's much easier for them to just spew personal insults and opinions about trivial actions than to talk about defense or economic issues.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (January 10, 2008 12:50 pm ET)
         
      lachrymose? Cool I just learned a new word, thanks Robbie. Well if Robert Novak says Hillary was scamming us, I believe him ;-) One other thing Mr. Novak sir, Bill Clinton was referring to Obama's record on the Iraq war as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen" and not suggesting that Obama was unqualified as a candidate or a fairy tale.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (January 10, 2008 1:16 pm ET)
           
        Lachrymose - I had to use dictionary.com on that one too, Jetter2 (after your post, I guess I can admit it too. LOL) I’m glad you cleared up the “fairy tale” comments because that is the way it read to me. I’ve been fighting with myself lately trying to figure out why the “creative writings” of these right wing pundits is so skewed and entwined with outright lies. About all I can figure is that these people’s brains are wired differently than ours. It’s almost as if it’s some sort of psychopathic anomaly. I’d like to think that it is something more than just a moral failing so that I could just ignore them as if they can’t help themselves. There are a lot of things in life we all would like the real answer to, but this is one we may never fully understand. I guess it’s sort of like me trying to argue with a straight person about what it means, or is like, to be gay. They just don’t get it – how wrong they are.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by kromecom48 (January 10, 2008 5:46 pm ET)
           
        WOW Jeter! It's nice here in the light isn't it? Good analysis and not because I agree with you on this one, but because it's rational as opposed to purely partisan.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (January 10, 2008 6:59 pm ET)
             
          Hey Krome I keep telling ya I'm the most fair & balanced poster here :-) I'm no partisan, I always strive to post common sense reasonable observations.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 12:52 pm ET)
         
      All of these columns/Fox reports are geared towards those who would never vote for Clinton anyway, right? Here are my two questions: 1) If all of this "buzz" created by this incident is causing more people to vote for her (which I doubt, but who knows), are these anti-Clinton talking heads hyping this on purpose because they want her to be the nominee (and not Obama) or....... 2) Does the smear machine see her nomination as inevitable and therefore is already campaigning against her? At this point, I have no clue.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 12:57 pm ET)
           
        Hi Fried, Good points......and probably a little of both. I think that those that really despise the Clintons cannot help themselves, their knee-jerk reaction is, bam, always negative and critical - I doubt they give much thought at that moment to whether or not she is the nominee, or if it helps or hurts her?......force of habit. I believe all this helps her in the long run - those doing it just look petty and desperate and it appears their unhinged hatred for her is piling on and unjustified. I think that is partly the reason for her NH win.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 2:18 pm ET)
             
          Hi Tommy, So, I am being a bit paranoid that the hate-fest is somewhat driven by those hating her wanting her to be the nominee? Maybe I should find my tinfoil hat ;).
          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 2:22 pm ET)
               
            No, I don't think you're paranoid at all. I am sure there are plenty of those that hate her and would love to see her as the nominee, they have as much as said so many times - at least a dozen times just today on Fox alone. ;)
            Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 3:35 pm ET)
               
            Tommy, Why is it that Hillary evokes such a visceral dislike by so many? Could it be that everyone who dealt with her and is not a sycophant dislikes her? Could it be she flip-flops on the war? Could it be that she and her serial sexual abuser husband have been implicated in scandals since her days in Little Rock? Could it be she puts a wall between herself and the press? Could it be she oozes insincerity? That her defining moment to make her likable is almost crying when someone asks who does her hair? For what its worth, I think she's played her poor victim card and it won't work again. It's a long way to February and even longer to November. Of course I may be wrong, but I think the Democrats will lose again if they nominate Hillary.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 3:50 pm ET)
                 
              AA, I have no idea. I am no big fan of hers, but I don't hate her or despise her like some do......she just doesn't get me all worked up like she does some people. Her private life is irrelevant to me, it's mostly her liberal policies that I am against. I have said I admire her toughness, but I don't like it when she plays the gender card........I do think she would govern more from the center like her husband did, out of political expediency. Would I ever vote for her? Highly unlikely, but not impossible.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 3:59 pm ET)
                   
                Yeah, she's tough all right. But so was Bonnie Parker. ;-)
                Report Abuse
              • Author by conleytgwinn (January 10, 2008 7:11 pm ET)
                   
                OTOH, it is her neo-con crapola that upsets me: Corporatist, hawk, and prone to seek approval as opposed to seeking justice.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 5:46 pm ET)
                 
              AA, Why is it that Hillary evokes such a visceral dislike by so many? (I think its totally irrational, but I will try to compare her to another politician and his wife Could it be that everyone who dealt with her and is not a sycophant dislikes her? (Examples? I know there was a forwarded email while was debunked by Snopes) Could it be she flip-flops on the war? (Not even close to as bad as someone who flip-flopped on nation-building, is it?) Could it be that she and her serial sexual abuser husband have been implicated in scandals since her days in Little Rock? (Why does anyone put up with GWB who would sometimes be so drunk he spent the night out of the house? What about the numerous scandals of this administration? Why did Laura put up with the drinking and rumored drug abuse? The scandals are too many to number, but how could she stay with someone who mocked a death-row inmate calling for mercy?) Could it be she puts a wall between herself and the press? (Have we ever had a President have FEWER news conferences than this one? Examples of Hillary, please). Could it be she oozes insincerity? (Examples? Ever see a Bush press conference? Is he insincere? What about his statement that Jesus was his favorite think cause Jesus changed his heart. Do you believe him?) That her defining moment to make her likable is almost crying when someone asks who does her hair? (that wasn't the question. What is Bush's defining moment? Grabbing a bullhorn?) For what its worth, I think she's played her poor victim card and it won't work again. (as opposed to playing the everyman card when he is richer than rich and never had a job where his dad didn't bail him out?) It's a long way to February and even longer to November. Of course I may be wrong, but I think the Democrats will lose again if they nominate Hillary. (Finally, we agree)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (January 11, 2008 10:29 am ET)
                   
                Fried, My comments were simply a rant but thanks for taking the time to reply. Comparing Hillary to Bush only shows me that perhaps you dislike Bush as much as Hillary? :-) (As for your final comment, glad we agree on something.)
                Report Abuse
            • Author by atheist (January 10, 2008 6:38 pm ET)
                 
              1) Hillary didn't flip-flop on the war, 2) Bill did not commit sexual abuse, 3)Implications are not convictions,4)Hillary speaks to the press constantly, but she puts voters first, 5)Hillary is not insincere, 6)Hillary did not cry, 7)AA, When you get your facts straight, then you can have a valid opinion.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 10, 2008 7:59 pm ET)
                   
                I think AnotherAmerican has a vivid imagination and an am radio.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by tex (January 11, 2008 9:44 am ET)
                   
                ATHEIST: You prove that "Hillary hatred" is, at best, irrational and purely emotional. Thanks.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (January 11, 2008 10:34 am ET)
                   
                Hahaha... Thanks for the reply. I guess, until then I'll just have to live with my invalid opinion. :-) ps. If you can, please help me out. What is an invalid opinion as opposed to a valid opinion? Thanks.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 11, 2008 3:12 pm ET)
                     
                  I would say that a valid opinion is one based on facts and informed speculation and an invalid one is based on wild speculation with little basis in reality.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by layman26 (January 10, 2008 12:55 pm ET)
         
      "lachrymose complaint" Somebody got a thesaurus for Christmas. I bet he is just grumpy because he really wanted the Dick Cheney Puppy Juicer.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by layman26 (January 10, 2008 1:51 pm ET)
           
        You really can't blame Novak for wanting one haven't you seen the commercials for the Dick Cheney Puppy Juicer. They go like this: "Tired of listening to your servants complain out the inhumanity of Juicing Puppys? Tire of having to settle for canned Halliburton Puppy Juice.? You deserve fresh squeezed just like Dick Cheney. Anything less is just plain liberal class warfare. Order now and we'll upgrade you at no charge to the coal powered model that polutes while it juices."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (January 11, 2008 9:56 am ET)
             
          that pollutes while it juices part is absolutely true. it's as if some of these people take some kind of perverse pride in not only mocking anti pollution efforts, but going out of their way to do the opposite. limbaugh does this stuff all the time.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by the crapture (January 10, 2008 1:57 pm ET)
         
      Just like only the naive and the terminally stupid think that Novak is not an integrity-impaired GOP lackey who should have gone on trial right alongside Scooter Libby.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 10, 2008 3:15 pm ET)
           
        Novak is actually a respected and credible journalist. If he wasn't, could he get on Fox News on a regular basis to comment on issues?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by atheist (January 10, 2008 2:52 pm ET)
         
      Novak just demonstrated his extreme misogyny. If he has a wife or daughters, I feel very sorry for them.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sams Politics (January 10, 2008 4:57 pm ET)
         
      She did not CRY! She just showed some healthy human emotion. A Fox New expert on the subject verified it was not faked. It's on historic record that GWB and his father cry. That's a good thing! Hillary's emotion together with all the hatred, and false reports that she was history... Has propelled her to victory in New Hampshire. They have had enough and showed all the Media and (4H Club) that they were dead wrong. (4H Club = Horrible, Hostile Hillary Haters) Most people, in their heart of hearts, can see right thru the false media reports and the hateful pundits. If these ugly attacks continue it just might help Hillary win her party's nomination. This is getting interesting. RepubliCan'ts are becoming Desperadoes.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (January 10, 2008 5:27 pm ET)
         
      You have to be an acutal human being to recognize humanity from others. Novakula doesnt qualify.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kromecom48 (January 10, 2008 5:49 pm ET)
         
      LOL . . . "NOVACULA" that's spot on! You bring the stake solon and I'll bring the crucifix. Quick its almost sunset!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kromecom48 (January 10, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
         
      Actually, if you ever see Novak in person you'll be shocked. He's only about 5 ft tall and has a club foot. So I think he's more like Igor.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.