Government And Elections Videos

During Fox News January 8 "You Decide 2008" coverage of the New Hampshire presidential primaries, Fox News political contributor and recently hired New York Times columnist William Kristol attributed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (D-NY) victory in the Democratic primary to "the tears," saying, "She pretended to cry; the women liked it." Anchor Brit Hume asked Kristol, "You think she pretended?" Kristol responded, "I do," to which Hume replied, "I don t." Kristol added, "The women were sorry for her, and she won." Hume had previously asked Kristol if "there [is] anything else to attribute it [Clinton s victory] to," to which Kristol said, "No, it s the tears." Kristol was referring to a recent campaign event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, during which Clinton s voice broke as she talked about why she is seeking the presidency. Kristol s January 8 comments came moments after Fox News political contributor and National Public Radio special correspondent Juan Williams said of the incident, "Now, Hillary Clinton shows a little emotion, and people say, hey, wait a minute, the ice queen is melting. There s a real person inside." As Media Matters for America documented, Kristol is one of several media figures who described Clinton s actions as "calculated," reviving a characterization frequently made by the media that Clinton is "calculating." On the January 7 edition of Fox News Special Report, Kristol said, "I don t believe it was genuine. I think no Clinton cries without calculating first," adding, "She s crying for herself, and I don t even believe it s genuine. I think it s entirely calculated." The blog Think Progress also noted Kristol s January 8 comments. From the 10 p.m. ET hour of Fox News January 8 "You Decide 2008" coverage: HUME: And quite an achievement for her, I suppose, to come back with only a few days and the momentum coming out of Iowa and all that, and the Barack Obama -- I mean, the, good Lord, you certainly -- there was nothing about the media coverage of the last several days that would have generated any momentum for her -- unless, as one of my colleagues suggested tonight, that perhaps that incident in the restaurant when she showed a little emotion. WILLIAMS: That s right. HUME: That that might ve -- I mean, that was obviously seen everywhere. I mean, there are very few people who -- WILLIAMS: In fact it was headlines. It was headlines. HUME: It was headlines. WILLIAMS: And inside the Clinton campaign, they were calling it the anti-Muskie, you know, the reverse Muskie, because, remember, Ed Muskie cried here, and everybody thought he had broken down and he was a weak man and certainly couldn t be our president. And all of a sudden he went down. Now, Hillary Clinton shows a little emotion, and people say, hey, wait a minute, the ice queen is melting. There s a real person inside. And this has to do with her redirecting her campaign in the last few days, because, as we ve seen in the exit poll numbers, it was the last few days that seemed to have changed the tide here. And if that s the case, Hillary Clinton showing emotion, Hillary Clinton starting to offer some sort of vision beyond I m Bill Clinton s wife and I m a policy wonk, that started to stir people up. And her appeal to women on the abortion issue, I think -- HUME: So your view of it was then that in doing that, with her voice soft, and whatever it was, it was certainly feminine, that that was appealing to voters? WILLIAMS: It was appealing to women voters specifically, Brit. And I think it s going to pay off. And I think going forward -- you know, we ve talked about the black vote, we have not talked about the Latino vote, but the Latino vote is strongly with Hillary Clinton. Going back to John Edwards for just a second, I think at this point he s a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the unions, and that s why he stays in. You know, his "Two Americas" speeches way back in 04 was very effective, talking about the need to care for the poor, health care, education. But, you know what? It s gone away from that now, and I think it s become personal between him and Hillary. And if that s the case, I think a lot of people are just gonna turn off to John Edwards as he s got his problems, but it s not about the leadership and future of the country. HUME: Here s old stone heart here with his data. KRISTOL: No, I, well, I m -- unfortunately, senior women are not stonehearted, as I am, and they went big for Hillary. It s interesting if you look at when people decided. This was an even race before Iowa. I mean, let s not overdo this. It s not as if Obama has been here for weeks or months. He was behind, he caught up, Hillary Clinton was slightly ahead. People who decided sometime in the last week strongly for Obama. He did get a bump out of Iowa. Sometime in the last few days, a little bit for Obama. In the last day, for Clinton -- a small margin, but still for Clinton. HUME: Well, is there anything else to attribute it to? KRISTOL: And that s the tears. No, it s the tears. She pretended to cry; the women liked it. HUME: You think she pretended? KRISTOL: Yes. HUME: I don t. KRISTOL: The women were sorry for her, and she won.

In an interview with Sen. John McCain (AZ) about his January 8 win in the New Hampshire Republican primary, during the January 9 edition of ABC s Good Morning America, co-anchor Diane Sawyer did not challenge McCain s claim that he "ran a positive campaign" in New Hampshire. In fact, McCain ran a negative TV ad in the state and, in the days leading up to the primary, his campaign posted three negative Web ads about one of his opponents, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R). Explaining why he felt he had won the New Hampshire primary, McCain told Sawyer "I came back to tell them the truth and have lots of town hall meetings. We had over our 101st yesterday. Day before yesterday. And we ran a positive campaign." When Sawyer asked if "Governor Romney [is] authentic or not," McCain responded: McCAIN: Well, I think it s clear that Governor Romney has changed positions on a lot of issues, but I think he s a very fine person. And works very hard. I think he s very sincere. But also I think that has to do with the fact that we ran a positive campaign, and obviously, there was a slew of negative ads. And, so, I think that contributed to the positives that we had going into the election yesterday. In neither instance did Sawyer challenge McCain s claim that he "ran a positive campaign." In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, in a December 28 press release, McCain s campaign announced the release of its TV ad "Consider," which quotes a Concord Monitor editorial asserting, "If a candidate is a phony ... we ll know it. Mitt Romney is such a candidate." Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin reported on his Time.com blog The Page that the ad was the "first negative ad by any candidate besides Romney." In a December 28 post on ABC News blog Political Radar, Matt Stuart reported that Romney responded to the ad, saying: "It s an attack ad. It attacks me personally. It s nasty. It s mean spirited. Frankly, it tells you more about Sen. McCain than it does about me that he would run an ad like that." McCain s campaign has also posted three negative Web ads against Romney in January. Additionally, the Nashua, New Hampshire, Telegraph reported on December 18 that McCain "launched an attack -- a direct mail campaign labeling New Hampshire primary front-runner Mitt Romney as a serial flip-flopper that voters can t trust. " The Telegraph added that the "mailing is believed to be the first, campaign-paid flier in New Hampshire by any candidate critical of former Massachusetts Gov. Romney, who holds onto a solid lead in GOP primary polls here." Media Matters has noted several media outlets, including the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, the Politico, The Washington Post, USA Today, the New Hampshire Union Leader, and CNN, quoted or paraphrased McCain saying that negative campaigns or ads don t work without noting McCain s negative ads against Romney. From the January 9 edition of ABC s Good Morning America: SAWYER: Good morning to you, Senator McCain. So "comeback kid," huh? How old do you feel this morning? McCAIN: Well, I m going to say the noun "kid" doesn t fit very well. So "Mac is back" is our -- is our phrase. Feeling very good, very grateful to the people of New Hampshire, and now, as you know, we re on to another state. I came back to tell them the truth and have lots of townhall meetings. We had over our 101st yesterday -- day before yesterday. And we ran a positive campaign. SAWYER: Let me ask you about the exit polls and some of the things they seem to be showing. They show that among voters who say that they re voting for a candidate who says what he believes, you defeated Governor Romney, 53-13. That s massive. This is the question. Is Governor Romney authentic or not? McCAIN: Well, I think it s clear that Governor Romney has changed positions on a lot of issues, but I think he s a very fine person. And works very hard. I think he s very sincere. But also I think that has to do with the fact that we ran a positive campaign, and obviously, there was a slew of negative ads. And, so, I think that contributed to the positives that we had going into the election yesterday. SAWYER: You have stuck with the surge and stuck with your position on the surge in Iraq from the beginning, and as you probably know, one of the most viewed videos now on YouTube is the video of you saying -- interjecting when someone talks about being in Iraq for 50 years, and you say, "Could be 100 years." Explain that.

While 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, several media figures have baselessly claimed that Clinton s actions were not "genuine" or were "pretend[]." For example, CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck said of the incident, "Hillary Clinton isn t just running for president, but she s also making a run for the best actress nomination," while New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, in her January 9 column, quoted an anonymous Times reporter s assertion: "That crying really seemed genuine. I ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand." Further, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin wrote: "Anyone who believes Hillary spontaneously teared up and got emotional on the campaign trail has been in a coma the last three decades." As Media Matters for America documented, Weekly Standard editor and New York Times columnist William Kristol similarly claimed on Fox News that "[s]he pretended to cry; the women liked it," adding, "The women were sorry for her, and she won." The characterization of Clinton as calculating is one frequently invoked by the media. During the January 8 edition of CNN Headline News Glenn Beck, Beck opened the program by asserting that the "[b]ig news from New Hampshire tonight is: It cries." During his recurring "The Point" segment, Beck asserted: BECK: I don t buy the hype of the tears. I don t think you should, either. Apparently, Hillary Clinton isn t just running for president, but she s also making a run for the best actress nomination. And here s how I got there. Believe me, I know what it s like to get caught off guard and break down occasionally. I mean, I cry on this freaking show like every 10 minutes, so don t get me wrong here. I get it. And I appreciate somebody who can cry. But I m a big sissy in a purple shirt, and I m not running for the leader of the free world. You know what I m saying? After airing a clip of Clinton saying, "You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don t want to see us fall backwards," Beck said, "Is it just me? Maybe because I just don t buy any of her bullcrap anyway." Later in the segment, Beck added: BECK: Hillary, we see what s happening here. You re losing, and this is some sort of bizarre, last-ditch strategy to ingratiate you with women, maybe? Or make you seem less like the Terminator? I mean, I ve -- I wouldn t put it past you to have your eye fall out and this little red light coming out of your eye socket. I m just saying. For those -- for those of you who thought those tears were for our country, I think you re mistaken there. Maybe, I think, if the tears were real, they were just because of the grind that she is under right now. In her Times column, Dowd wrote: "When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes." Dowd added that one "reporter joked: That crying really seemed genuine. I ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand. He added dryly: Crying doesn t usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships. " In her January 9 syndicated column, Malkin wrote of the incident: "So long, feminist hero. Hello, weeping willow. Anyone who believes Hillary spontaneously teared up and got emotional on the campaign trail has been in a coma the last three decades." Malkin later added that Clinton "can t tolerate someone else out-politically-correct-ing her. This was supposed to be her year. Her triumph. Her her-story. Maybe a few of those tears welling up in her eyes were real after all. Expect more as this contested race -- a race she thought would be a cakewalk -- continues." From the January 8 edition of CNN Headline News Glenn Beck: BECK: Well, hello, America. Big news from New Hampshire tonight is: It cries. After spending decades stripping away all trace of emotion, femininity, and humanity, Hillary Clinton actually broke down and actually cried yesterday on the campaign trail. So, I guess, here s "The Point" tonight. I don t buy the hype of the tears. I don t think you should, either. Apparently, Hillary Clinton isn t just running for president, but she s also making a run for the best actress nomination. And here s how I got there. Believe me, I know what it s like to get caught off guard and break down occasionally. I mean, I cry on this freaking show like every 10 minutes, so don t get me wrong here. I get it. And I appreciate somebody who can cry. But I m a big sissy in a purple shirt, and I m not running for the leader of the free world. You know what I m saying? Let s a take minute here just to look at the Hillary episode where she was responding to the question, "How do you do it?" CLINTON [video clip]: You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don t want to see us fall backwards. BECK: Is it just me? Maybe because I just don t buy any of her bullcrap anyway. I just -- wow. You might want to go grab the tissue if you need one, because the waterworks is just beginning. The tough-as-nails attorney and political animal tried to choke back the tears and dig deep for the words, and she offered this. CLINTON [video clip]: This is very personal for me. It s not just political, it s not just public. I see what s happening. And we have to reverse it. BECK: OK, that part I was OK with. But then she went into, and you know, some people just aren t prepared. And it just seemed like more of the same old-same old. Hillary, we see what s happening here. You re losing, and this is some sort of bizarre, last-ditch strategy to ingratiate you with women, maybe? Or make you seem less like the Terminator? I mean, I ve -- I wouldn t put it past you to have your eye fall out and this little red light coming out of your eye socket. I m just saying. For those -- for those of you that thought those tears were for our country, I think you re mistaken there. Maybe, I think, if the tears were real, they were just because of the grind that she is under right now. From Dowd s January 9 New York Times column: When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes. A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the "humanized" Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. "We are at war," he said. "Is this how she ll talk to [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-il?" Another reporter joked: "That crying really seemed genuine. I ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand." He added dryly: "Crying doesn t usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships." Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message. She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters. From Malkin s January 9 syndicated column, as published in The New York Post: Many will point to Hillary s watery-eyed performance at a Portsmouth rally on Monday as a watershed moment. Down in the polls and facing imminent defeat, the erstwhile anti-Tammy Wynette turned on the spigot and played damsel in distress: "It s not easy, and I couldn t do it if I didn t passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don t want to see us fall backward, you know?" The steely voice -- infamous for uttering profanities at staffers, state troopers and her Secret Service detail, bellowing at the Bush administration and Rush Limbaugh, and imitating a fiery Southern drawl -- turned drippy: "You know, this is very personal for me. It s not just political; it s not just public. I see what s happening, and we have to reverse it." Insert heartfelt pauses and choke-ups as directed. So long, feminist hero. Hello, weeping willow. Anyone who believes Hillary spontaneously teared up and got emotional on the campaign trail has been in a coma the last three decades. Bill Clinton s diarrhea of the mouth didn t help. He flailed at reporters for putting his poor, poor wife at a "breathtaking disadvantage" (never mind the countless regal magazine covers of his wife and softball coverage over the years); lamented that he can t turn her into something "younger, taller, male," and whined that "the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us" (never mind their $100 million war chest). [...] You can t fake a core. You can t fake charm. And you can t fake humility. Mannequin Hillary tried during the ABC News debate in New Hampshire over the weekend when questioned about her likeability. "Well, that hurts my feelings," she coyly purred in attempted mock self-effacement. One problem: The Clintons are too steeped in the politics of self-entitlement to pull off credible self-effacement. Seated next to a rival who has stolen her liberal thunder and who might make history as the nation s first black president, Hillary couldn t help declaring: "I am an agent of change, I embody change. I think having the first woman president is a huge change." She can t tolerate someone else out-politically-correct-ing her. This was supposed to be her year. Her triumph. Her her-story. Maybe a few of those tears welling up in her eyes were real after all. Expect more as this contested race -- a race she thought would be a cakewalk -- continues.

During MSNBC s coverage of the January 8 New Hampshire Primary, Hardball host Chris Matthews, responding to exit polling regarding women voters, asserted of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (NY) performance in the January 5 Democratic presidential candidates debate at St. Anselm College, "I thought the debate Saturday night, and I was in the room, was a draw. I wasn t clear at all that she won it. But maybe she was good enough to seem good enough here for women who wanted to root for her anyway." Matthews continued, "By the way, we keep forgetting, this is the first campaign a woman can actually win the presidency in, ever. So it s just as striking as a pioneer opportunity for women voting -- especially older women voting, who may figure this is their last chance to elect a woman president." After Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC s Countdown, noted that "there was a survey of girls who thought -- 40 percent of them thought they would not see a woman president in the next 10 years and still some large number, 30-35 percent, thought they would never see a woman president? That s from five years ago," Matthews asserted, "Well, there s only one candidate still. And even one -- there s not even another on the horizon. Where are the governors? Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one." Four of the last five U.S. presidents had previously been governors, and several of the men currently running for president are or have been governors. But Matthews did not mention that several of the states that currently have women governors are comparable in population to the states in which the male candidates serve or have served as governor. A Media Matters for America analysis of 2006 U.S. Census population estimates indicated that: Massachusetts, where Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney served as governor, had an estimated population of 6,437,193. By comparison, Christine Gregoire (D) serves as governor of Washington, a state with an estimated population of 6,395,798; and Janet Napolitano (D) is governor of Arizona, a state with an estimated population of 6,166,318. Arkansas, where Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee served as governor, had an estimated population of 2,810,872. By comparison, M. Jodi Rell (R) is governor of Connecticut, a state with an estimated population of 3,504,809; and Kathleen Sebelius (D) is governor of Kansas, a state with an estimated population of 2,764,075. New Mexico, where Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson serves as governor, had an estimated population of 1,954,599. Matthews mentioned that Jennifer Granholm (D), the current governor of Michigan, a state with an estimated population of 10,095,643, is constitutionally ineligible to run for the presidency since she was not born in the United States. Other incumbent women governors include: Linda Lingle (R), governor of Hawaii, a state with an estimated population of 1,285,498; Ruth Ann Minner (D), governor of Delaware, a state with an estimated population of 853,476; and Sarah Palin (R), governor of Alaska, a state with an estimated population of 670,053. From the 10 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC s January 8 New Hampshire Primary coverage: OLBERMANN: Lee Cowan at Obama headquarters and he s right about the women: 47-34, Clinton over Obama. And Chris, in Iowa, of course, that was 35-30 Obama over Clinton. And when you ask where John Edwards was, we re waiting for his comments in a few moments. Obviously he s not going to win this. It will be very interesting to see what he says this night compared to what he said in Iowa after the strong second-place finish there. MATTHEWS: Well, this was fairly predictable until a week or so ago. The Democratic Party is still driven largely by women, issues like health care, education, child enrichment, parental issues like Social Security and Medicare. The Democratic Party has made those issues its preserve. Those are the ones they re primarily interested in. OLBERMANN: What was number one in the exit poll for both parties tonight? It was the economy. MATTHEWS: Right. Well, that s of interest to every family, by definition. OLBERMANN: All right, fine. MATTHEWS: But clearly, Hillary Clinton -- well, we re going to know more because we re going to get more anecdotal information over the next couple days of people who saw her on television break down to some extent. She did not break down. She had an emotional -- OLBERMANN: Teared up. Teared up is the easiest way to describe it. MATTHEWS: Yes. Possibly watered up a bit. But I think that was it. And I have to say that I thought the debate Saturday night, and I was in the room, was a draw. I wasn t clear at all that she won it. But maybe she was good enough to seem good enough here for women who wanted to root for her anyway. By the way, we keep forgetting, this is the first campaign a woman can actually win the presidency in, ever. So it s just as striking as a pioneer opportunity for women voting -- especially older women voting, who may figure this is their last chance to elect a woman president. OLBERMANN: What was the number from just five years ago, six years ago, that there was a survey of girls who thought -- 40 percent of them thought they would not see a woman president in the next 10 years and still some large number, 30-35 percent, thought they would never see a woman president? That s from five years ago. MATTHEWS: Well, there s only one candidate still. And even one -- there s not even another on the horizon. Where are the governors? Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one. They don t exist. Michigan, she s a Canadian. She can t make it. OLBERMANN: Yeah, Governor Granholm. That s right, she s ineligible. Unless we change the, you know, Schwarzenegger rule to bring her in as well. MATTHEWS: That would be the Schwarzenegger-Granholm rule, I think you d have to call it. OLBERMANN: All right. We haven t checked in with Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow going head-to-head on the issues in a little while. Let s bring them back in now. Pat, what about this still-too-close-to-call Democratic race and the shift, particularly for women from Iowa and how they voted for Barack Obama handily there, to how they voted for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire? PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC analyst): This is an astonishing development. Look, the pollsters were dead wrong. They were predicting seven, eight to a dozen points for Obama. The press was dead wrong. We had virtually canonized Obama and said he d been born in Bethlehem, and now you ve got a race where Hillary Clinton is running three or four -- MATTHEWS: I don t think you were on that list of apostles. BUCHANAN: -- three or four points ahead of this fellow. Something has happened. There is a hidden vote here somewhere, or my guess is this: The New Hampshire voters said, look, the press has been telling us Obama s the second coming. We don t think so. The press has been telling us she s gone, and the women came out and said, no, she s not. What New Hampshire did was stand up and body slam the national establishment, the press corps, the pollsters, the whole bunch that came in here, as well as Barack Obama s folks, who must be in a state of shock tonight. RACHEL MADDOW (Air America host): Pat, I will tell you that on the influential -- influential perhaps on the left -- website Talking Points Memo today, you want to know who they re blaming for women voters breaking for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? Who they re blaming for this late showing in a big vote for Hillary Clinton? They re blaming Chris Matthews. People are citing specifically Chris not only for his own views, but also for as a symbol of what the mainstream media has done to Hillary Clinton. MATTHEWS: Which website is this? MADDOW: This is talkingpointsmemo.com. And it s -- you re being cited anecdotally, not statistically. MATTHEWS: My influence in American politics looms over the people. I m overwhelmed myself. MADDOW: People feel that the media is piling on Hillary Clinton. They re coming to her defense with their votes.

In discussions and reports on the January 8 presidential primaries in New Hampshire, numerous media outlets and personalities praised Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) both before and after McCain s victory in the primary, claiming that he is authentic, real, independent, and a "maverick," and describing him as "Mr. Straight Talk." For example, a January 9 USA Today editorial called McCain "straight-shooting" and claimed that "John McCain s decisive win over Mitt Romney was a triumph of authenticity over packaging," while a January 9 Los Angeles Times editorial similarly claimed that Romney "looks far less appealing than the flinty independence of John McCain." On MSNBC, host Chris Matthews repeatedly called McCain a "maverick" throughout the evening of January 8. Matthews claimed that "in New Hampshire, there are a lot of Republicans who like mavericks," adding that if McCain won the primary, "[h]is challenge will be to go against the grain nationally" and that "[i]t s always going to be hard to be a successful maverick." After McCain s victory became apparent, during Fox News January 8 coverage of the primaries, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron called McCain "Mr. Straight Talk": "And across the country, Republicans now have to begin to ponder the possibility of having Mr. Straight Talk as their standard-bearer, a candidate, a Republican that many of them have had an awful lot of issues with over the years. And now GOPers have to figure out whether or not they can get their arms around John McCain all over again." During CNN s coverage of the primaries, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger also referred to McCain as a "maverick," saying that being the "establishment candidate ... didn t work for him, so after July when he was broke and he had to fire most of his staff, he said, I m going to go back to being John McCain. I m going to go back to New Hampshire and work those town halls and be who I am, and I m going to become the maverick Republican again. Well, this is a year for mavericks. In case you hadn t noticed, all we re talking about is change, so that worked for him." Later on CNN, after McCain gave his victory speech, host Anderson Cooper said that McCain is "real": COOPER: And an amazing night watching him speak. You know, not the best speaker out there. Certainly, he read -- he doesn t like teleprompters. He reads from, you know, paper -- stuff written on a page. He stumbles from time to time. But he is real, and that certainly comes across. Additionally, in claiming that McCain s victory "was a triumph of authenticity over packaging," the USA Today editorial added: "Even when it has hurt him, such as on immigration reform and the war in Iraq, McCain has stuck stubbornly to unpopular positions." Yet McCain has, in fact, acknowledged that he has shifted his stance on comprehensive immigration reform -- as Media Matters for America noted -- now calling for border security first before the creation of a guest-worker program or a path to citizenship. McCain told reporters that he "understand[s] why you would call it a, quote, shift." Moreover, the editorial did not explain what it was referring to by McCain s "unpopular positions" on the Iraq war, which he supported and continues to support. From the January 9 USA Today editorial: Among the Republicans, John McCain s decisive win over Mitt Romney was a triumph of authenticity over packaging. Even when it has hurt him, such as on immigration reform and the war in Iraq, McCain has stuck stubbornly to unpopular positions. By contrast, Romney has drawn derision for repeatedly abandoning positions -- on abortion, gay rights, embryonic stem cell research -- that he held as governor of blue-state Massachusetts to cater to a more conservative national Republican audience. McCain sarcastically zinged Romney for being the "candidate of change" during Saturday night s television debate. Polls of voters leaving voting booths showed the straight-shooting McCain, the oldest candidate in the field at 71, leading the GOP field among voters ages 18-29. McCain s win, on the heels of Mike Huckabee s victory in Iowa five days earlier, leaves the Republicans with the sort of chaotic, wide-open race usually associated with Democrats. Romney, seriously wounded after staking his strategy on Iowa and New Hampshire, makes what could be his last stand next week in Michigan, where his father was governor. And Rudy Giuliani was both a loser and potential winner: He finished dismally in New Hampshire, but his ignore-the-little-states strategy could pay off with a Jan. 29 win in Florida, where polls show him narrowly ahead of Huckabee. From the January 9 Los Angeles Times editorial: Some of the same dynamics are at work among Republicans. Suddenly Mitt Romney, a second-generation politician, looks far less appealing than the flinty independence of John McCain. There, the politics of change are murkier, complicated by McCain s enduring popularity in New Hampshire, Mike Huckabee s popularity with Christian conservatives and Romney s inability to convince voters that he is a man of genuine conviction. Still, for Republicans as well as Democrats, it s a tough year to be a candidate whose principal credential is experience. Indeed, for Republicans it s a tough year to stand for anything, as the GOP remains in search of a standard-bearer. From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the January 8 edition of MSNBC s Hardball with Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: Good evening. I m Chris Matthews. Welcome to Hardball, tonight from NBC News headquarters in New York. This is the night, the night that could be the beginning of the end of a front-runner s presidential candidacy, a night that could turn a movement -- or turn a moment, rather, into a movement, a night when a maverick Republican could rise from the ashes to claim victory, a night when conventional wisdom crumbles and change becomes the touchstone for this country. Tonight is the night of the New Hampshire primary. From the 6 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC s coverage of the January 8 New Hampshire primary: MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, David [Gregory, NBC News chief White House correspondent]. It seems to me that this anger is hard to read, if you look at all the candidates on the Republican side. You know, John McCain, although he s a maverick, has sided with the president on the war. And you could argue maybe if you re very pro-Bush, you d stick with McCain. But on the other hand, his personality is so different than Bush s and his person. It s hard to read that, isn t it? From the 7 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC s coverage of the January 8 New Hampshire primary: MATTHEWS: Well, the wild thing about John McCain is, although he s a great military man who has served his country and is obviously a patriot in all the great ways you could be a patriot, both in public service and in his military career and his sacrifice, he s not popular among the regular Republicans, the people that go to meetings and organize the Republican Party victories. He s not popular among the evangelicals, right? KEITH OLBERMANN (Countdown host): Mm-hmm. MATTHEWS: Who does that leave? It leaves the media, and it leaves people who like mavericks. I think in New Hampshire, there are a lot of Republicans who like mavericks. They like Pat Buchanan. They like going against the grain. His challenge will be to go against the grain nationally if he wins tonight. That s a hard one. It s always going to be hard to be a successful maverick. From the 8 p.m. ET hour of Fox News coverage of the January 8 New Hampshire primary: CAMERON: McCain now has to look forward to Michigan, a state that he also won in 2000 by only 8 points. He dropped from an 18-point victory in New Hampshire to an 8-point victory in Michigan. This time they go back to Michigan feeling particularly confident. Mr. McCain has been spending a tremendous amount of time there as well as in South Carolina. And across the country, Republicans now have to begin to ponder the possibility of having Mr. Straight Talk as their standard-bearer, a candidate, a Republican that many of them have had an awful lot of issues with over the years. And now GOPers have to figure out whether or not they can get their arms around John McCain all over again. From the 8 p.m. ET and 9 p.m. ET hours of CNN s coverage of the January 8 New Hampshire primary: BORGER: It s been so interesting because just six months ago, Anderson, we had all these headlines last July. He had $250,000 in the bank when he was the establishment candidate. He had to fire half his staff, and the question on the campaign trail was, "Can a souffl rise twice?" And in John McCain s case, tonight, he just proved that it could. And what he s done is he was the establishment candidate. That didn t work for him, so after July when he was broke and he had to fire most of his staff, he said, "I m going to go back to being John McCain. I m going to go back to New Hampshire and work those town halls and be who I am, and I m going to become the maverick Republican again." Well, this is a year for mavericks. In case you hadn t noticed, all we re talking about is change, so that worked for him. [...] COOPER: And an amazing night watching him speak. You know, not the best speaker out there. Certainly, he read -- he doesn t like teleprompters. He reads from, you know, paper -- stuff written on a page. He stumbles from time to time. But he is real, and that certainly comes across.

On the January 7 edition of ABC s World News, in a report on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (D-NY) question-and-answer session that day with voters in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, ABC News anchor Kate Snow commented that Clinton s "answers were detailed, even tedious." Snow said that Clinton spent "10 minutes" answering a question "on real estate insurance," then showed a brief clip of Clinton saying, "I think we should raise FHA [Federal Housing Administration] limits." Clinton has promoted Federal Housing Administration reform, aimed at easing the subprime mortgage crisis and increasing opportunities for home ownership. Snow did not quote any attendees saying they found her housing-related answers "tedious," nor did she provide any further detail about what Clinton was talking about in her response. From the January 7 edition of ABC s World News with Charles Gibson: GIBSON: So we ll begin with the Democrats and ABC s Kate Snow with Hillary Clinton in Salem, New Hampshire -- Kate. SNOW: Charlie, good evening. Senator Clinton never actually let a tear escape from her eye and roll down her face, but if you were in the room, you could tell that she was clearly fighting back tears. And the question now with her campaign struggling is: Will this one moment help or hurt? [begin video clip] SNOW: Clinton had been fielding questions for an hour, sitting in a Portsmouth coffee shop with 17 undecided voters. Her answers were detailed, even tedious -- 10 minutes on real estate insurance. CLINTON: And I think we should raise FHA limits. SNOW: And then one final question. MARIANNE PERNOLD-YOUNG (New Hampshire voter): As a woman, I know it s hard to get out of the house and to get ready, and my question is very personal: How do you do it? CLINTON: I couldn t do it if I just didn t, you know, passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don t want to see us fall backwards. This is very personal for me. It s not just political, it s not just public. I see what s happening, and we have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game. They think it s like who s up or who s down. It s about our country, and it s about our kids futures. And it s really about all of us, together. You know, some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds. But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven t really thought that through enough. SNOW: We spoke to people in the room, both before and after Clinton s appearance. That moment swayed some voters from Obama to Clinton. Did that clinch it? ALISON HAMILTON (New Hampshire voter): Her whole thing today really convinced me, but that really did clinch it for me, yeah. SNOW: The moment was the talk of New Hampshire politics today. A reporter asked John Edwards to respond to Clinton s emotion. JOHN EDWARDS (Democratic presidential candidate): I really don t have anything to say about that. I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve. And it s -- you know, presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also very tough business. SNOW: Clinton herself has taken on the weight of her campaign. It was her idea to take so many questions and confront Barack Obama. CLINTON: That s not change. SNOW: Late today, in an interview for tomorrow s Good Morning America, [anchor] Diane Sawyer asked Senator Clinton if different standards apply to female candidates. CLINTON: Now, as a woman, I know that I ve got to be, you know, always presenting a very, you know, sort of organized front, and nobody s ever said that, that wasn t one of my strong suits. But I, also, you know, I m a person, much to some people s surprise. SNOW: Clinton is hoping showing that other side will help bring women to the polls tomorrow. Kate Snow, ABC News, Salem, New Hampshire.

On the January 7 edition of Fox News Hannity s (D-NY) comments during a January 7 campaign event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in which her voice broke when she responded to a question, Fox News contributor Dick Morris stated: "I believe that there could well come a time when there is such a serious threat to the United States that she breaks down like that." Morris continued, "I don t think she ought to be president." Likewise, during the January 8 edition of Fox News Fox t have people who break down and start crying at the most difficult moments. I mean, come on. This is the big time. She s in the big time." Ingraham went on to say, "[C]ome on, this is the big leagues. You can t start crying because you re behind. I mean, welcome to politics." As the blog News Hounds noted, Hannity s Meet the Press, Romney became emotional after host Tim Russert noted that "it wasn t till 1978 that the Mormon Church decided to allow blacks to participate fully." Romney appeared to choke up during his response. He stated, "I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and -- and literally wept. Even at this day it s emotional, and so it s very deep and fundamental in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God." After asserting that Romney "cried on Meet the Press," Colmes asked, "Should he not be president because he cried with Tim Russert?" Morris responded, "No, but I m not sure that ... he cried in sympathy for himself." Morris went on to say, "Hillary s crying ... is I m being victimized. " Although Ingraham discussed Romney during her appearance on Fox s emotional reaction during his December 16 Meet the Press appearance raised similar questions about his fitness for the presidency. Romney also became emotional during his December 6, 2007, speech on faith and politics. A December 19 Boston Globe article -- headlined "Romney has another teary moment" -- further noted that during a December 17 campaign event, "his eyes filled with tears for the third time in as many weeks on the presidential campaign trail." From the article: On Monday at a Londonderry, N.H., military contractor, Romney told a stock campaign story about watching the casket of a US soldier killed in Iraq come off the conveyor belt of a plane at Logan International Airport in Boston. The soldiers he was with saluted and passengers in the terminal paused and put their hands on their hearts, he said. But then, as he added a new twist to the story, his eyes welled again. "I have five boys of my own," he said. "I imagined what it would be like to lose a son in a situation like that." That moment prompted reporters to ask him whether he was showing a different side - and Romney to respond that he was just acting like anyone else. Nor did the Fox News hosts ask Ingraham whether President Bush s emotional moments make him unfit for the presidency. As the blog Think Progress noted, news outlets have repeatedly reported Bush s tears: An April 2002 Newsweek article reported: "The president is tremendously sentimental. Forget about putting his parents anywhere near him. At his inauguration he purposely kept them out of his line of sight so he could stay as dry-eyed as possible. He has learned not to brush the tears away." A January 12, 2007, Washington Post article reported, "The pictures were just what the White House wanted: A teary-eyed President Bush presenting the Medal of Honor posthumously to a slain war hero in the East Room, then flying here to join the chow line with camouflage-clad soldiers as some of them prepare to return to Iraq. A January 12, 2007, Chicago Sun-Times article reported: "A tear rolled down Bush s cheek during the event, an extraordinary display of emotion by the commander-in-chief. Bush has been known to tear up and reportedly once cried in a private meeting with war widows." From the January 8 edition of Fox News Fox ve been on the campaign trail for so long, you still look good, how do you do it. And then she welled up, and people are making a lot of the tears or near tears, and in fact, I d say 30 or 40 percent of our emailers think she was faking it. What s been the reaction up there? SUSAN ESTRICH (columnist and Fox News contributor): Well, two things. First of all, I ve known Hillary Clinton for a long time. I watched the whole two minutes of tape. I don t think she was faking it. But it s pure campaign land. I mean, if she were way ahead, everyone would say, "What a genuine show of emotion, you know? She s doing the passion thing." Because you re behind, everybody says, "My God, she s losing it, she s lost it, it must be -- you know, some new strategy to try to get it back." I think it was genuine, but politically it didn t help. KILMEADE: Hey, Laura -- Laura, do you think that Hillary Clinton loses big, and it s over? INGRAHAM: Well, I think it could be. I mean, and it s absolutely stunning to many of us -- and certainly me, who thought the Clinton machine was unbeatable. But look: I think one thing about the weeping episode, just to -- I actually felt sorry for her for that moment. But remember, we have Islamic jihadists, bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and all these other freaks that want to come to the United States and wreak havoc upon our population. We can t have people who break down and start crying at the most, you know, difficult moments. I mean, come on. This is the big time. She s been in the big time. ESTRICH: I don t think anyone really doubts that Hillary is tough enough to be president. I think the question has always been is she nice enough to be president. CARLSON: Exactly. That was always the complaint. INGRAHAM: Oh, come on, this is the big leagues. You can t start crying because you re behind. I mean, welcome to politics. CARLSON: But I think it s good for both men and women to show emotion. We ve discussed that before here. From the January 7 edition of Fox News Hannity s too stiff; she s got no feelings; she s an automaton. Then she finally shows emotion -- it s either calculated, which you did not say, or it s having a breakdown or a meltdown. Let me show you when a man does it and we ll -- how the reaction is totally different. Here s President Bush 41. GEORGE H.W. BUSH (former president) [video clip]: They took note of his defeated opponent, who showed not merely with words but by his actions what a decent -- HANNITY: That s not the same. COLMES: He gets a hug. He s not called weak. Should we rescind his presidency because he cried? MORRIS: Where was that? COLMES: Where was it? MORRIS: Yes. Where was he physically? COLMES: Well, he was physically talking about Jeb Bush. HANNITY: About his son. MORRIS: About his son. COLMES: The point is he was probably crying about the guy who s president now. But that s OK. MORRIS: And he s 80 years old. COLMES: And he s a man. He s a man, so it s different, right? MORRIS: You asked a question, let me answer. He s 80 years old. I don t think he should be elected president now. I don t think he should be president. The most famous example of somebody crying on the campaign trail was [former Sen. Edmund] Muskie [D-ME]. COLMES: And Pat Schroeder. MORRIS: And everybody felt that after Muskie cried that he was not fit to be president. And I believe that there could well come a time when there is such a serious threat to the United States that she breaks down like that. COLMES: Mitt Romney cried on Meet the Press. MORRIS: I don t think she ought to be president. COLMES: Should he not be president because he cried with Tim Russert? Emotional about how civil rights was recognized by his church? And should Mitt Romney not be president for that reason? MORRIS: No, but I m not sure that -- HANNITY: In 1978 -- COLMES: It s a double standard. MORRIS: I m not sure he cried in sympathy for himself. COLMES: I see, but he cried. MORRIS: Hillary s crying and Muskie s crying is "I m being victimized" -- COLMES: Well, that s your interpretation. HANNITY: We ve got to run. But our hope is that Alan will be crying. From the December 16, 2007, edition of NBC s Meet the Press: RUSSERT: You -- you raise the issue of color of skin. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown vs. Board of Education, desegregated all our public schools. In 1964, civil rights laws giving full equality to black Americans. And yet it wasn t till 1978 that the Mormon Church decided to allow blacks to participate fully. Here was the headlines in the papers in June of 78. "Mormon Church Dissolves Black Bias. Citing new revelation from God, the president of the Mormon Church decreed for the first time black males could fully participate in church rites." You were 31 years old, and your church was excluding blacks from full participation. Didn t you think, "What am I doing part of an organization that is viewed by many as a racist organization?" ROMNEY: I m very proud of my faith, and it s the faith of my fathers, and I certainly believe that it is a faith -- well, it s true, and I love my faith, and I m not going to distance myself in any way from my faith. But you can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at -- at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights. You may recall that my dad walked out of the Republican convention in 1964 in San Francisco in part because Barry Goldwater, in his speech, gave my dad the impression that he was someone who was going to be weak on civil rights. So my dad s reputation, my mom s, and my own has always been one of reaching out to people and not discriminating based upon race or anything else. And so those are my fundamental core beliefs, and I was anxious to see a change in my church. I can remember when -- when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from -- I think it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and -- and literally wept. Even at this day it s emotional, and so it s very deep and fundamental in my -- in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that, in the eyes of God, every individual was, was merited the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter, and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and, and blacks generally, would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had, and that God is no respecter of persons.

During the January 7 edition of MSNBC s Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host Bill O Reilly the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for saying that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "has no clue," as Media Matters for America documented, regarding Edwards statement that "tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates." Olbermann stated: "But our winner -- well, it s Bill-O night. He blasted John Edwards for noting in Iowa that 200,000 vets sleep each night under bridges and on grates. Quoting Bill-O: The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy s brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. " Olbermann continued: "Seriously. First off, Lou Dobbs is going to kick your backside for working his side of the street. Secondly, it s 200,000 tonight. Over the course of the year, the Veterans Administration says, 336,000 vets will be homeless on and off." Olbermann concluded: "Why don t you try changing positions with one of them, Bill? See how long you last, then run your mouth about Edwards. The over/under on that, by the way, would be three minutes. Bill Orally, tonight s Worst Person in the World. " On the January 4 edition of Countdown, Olbermann named O Reilly "runner-up" in the "Worst Person" segment for not acknowledging that he falsely suggested in his book Kids Are Americans Too that the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is from the U.S. Constitution, as Media Matters also noted. From the January 7 edition MSNBC s Countdown with Keith Olbermann: OLBERMANN: But our winner -- well, it s Bill-O night. He blasted John Edwards for noting in Iowa that 200,000 vets sleep each night under bridges and on grates. Quoting Bill-O: "The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy s brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money." Seriously. First off, Lou Dobbs is going to kick your backside for working his side of the street. Secondly, it s 200,000 tonight. Over the course of the year, the Veterans Administration says, 336,000 vets will be homeless on and off. Why don t you try changing positions with one of them, Bill? See how long you last, then run your mouth about Edwards. The over/under on that, by the way, would be three minutes. Bill Orally, tonight s "Worst Person in the World."

While 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, several media figures described Clinton s actions as "calculated," reviving a characterization frequently made by the media that Clinton is "calculating." For instance, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin asserted that "this woman [Clinton] is all about calculation," while Weekly Standard editor and New York Times columnist William Kristol said, "I think no Clinton cries without calculating first" and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh described the occurrence as "[e]motional blackmail," adding: "This is calculated." The January 7 incident occurred during a question-and-answer exchange at a coffee shop, during which Clinton responded to a question asked by Marianne Pernold-Young, a local freelance photographer: "How do you do it? How do you keep up ... and who does your hair?" According to CNN, Clinton responded that "she had help with her hair on special days, and that she drew criticism on the days she did not." Clinton then provided the rest of her response: CLINTON: It s not easy, it s not easy. And I couldn t do it if I just didn t, you know, passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don t want to see us fall backwards, you know? So. [applause] You know, this is very personal for me. It s not just political, it s not just public. I see what s happening, and we have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game. They think it s like who s up or who s down. It s about our country, and it s about our kids futures. And it s really about all of us, together. You know, some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds. And we do it, each one of us, because we care about our country. But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven t really thought that through enough. And so, when we look at the array of problems we have, and the potential for it getting -- really spinning out of control, this is one of the most important elections America s ever faced. So, as tired as I am -- and I am -- and as difficult as it is to kind of keep up what I try to do on the road, like occasionally exercise and try to eat right -- it s tough when the easiest food is pizza -- I just believe so strongly in who we are as a nation. So I m going to do everything I can to make my case, and, you know, then the voters get to decide. Thank you all. During the January 7 edition of Fox News The Big Story, co-host Heather Nauert referred to the incident and asked Malkin, "Is that something that you think is sincere or you think was calculated to try to let voters know a little bit better who she is, show that softer side?" Malkin replied: MALKIN: I think the question answers itself. The Clintons don t have a spontaneous bone in their collective body. Hillary Clinton doesn t sneeze without it being planned, and I really think that this is going to backfire on the campaign. Look, you ve got Bill out there. Hillary dragged her mother out and Chelsea to remind everyone that she has a womb, that she s a woman, that she s a human being. And look, there are tears in her eyes. She s not the glacier that everybody thinks she is. But I think, you know, that practically speaking, it does remind people that this woman is all about calculation. Discussing the event on Fox News Special Report that same day, Kristol stated: KRISTOL: And I don t believe it was genuine. I think no Clinton cries without calculating first. This -- and I think this was -- if it was genuine, it was entirely solipsistic and narcissistic. It s all about her. Why is she crying for the country? Is Barack Obama not going to be liberal enough for her? Is Barack Obama not going to appoint the kinds of people she wants to the Supreme Court? Is Barack Obama not a stronger candidate in the general election than her? She s crying for herself, and I don t even believe it s genuine. I think it s entirely calculated. During the January 7 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh played the audio clip in which Clinton s voice broke and later said of it: "Emotional blackmail. This is calculated. Make no mistake about it, folks. This is not spontaneous. Because nothing with the Clintons is coincidence." While Malkin, Kristol, and Limbaugh asserted that Clinton s actions were "calculated," CNN political contributor Bill Bennett appeared on the January 7 edition of CNN s The Situation Room and told host Wolf Blitzer, "I m not going to criticize her. Donna [Brazile, CNN political analyst] says it was unscripted. OK." However, Bennett went on to add: "But it tells you about our politics, Wolf, and I guess something about the Clintons that so many people think it wasn t." MSNBC Live anchor Peter Alexander also revived the "Clinton as calculating" characterization by saying on January 7, "I think the presumption by a lot of people who have lost support for Clinton is that she seemed to be calculating. This for the first time, I think most will say, doesn t seem calculated at all. It seems very real." Reporting on the incident later on MSNBC Live that same day, anchor Norah O Donnell claimed that "Clinton choked up while talking about how much she wants to win." But as video footage of Clinton s remarks indicates, she "choked up" while saying she "passionately believe[d] it [running for president] was the right thing to do" and adding: "You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don t want to see us fall backwards, you know?" Contrary to O Donnell s claim, Clinton did not remark on "how much she wanted to win." From the January 7 edition of Fox News The Big Story with John Gibson and Heather Nauert: NAUERT: You just mentioned the word "calculation." And today, we had some news that developed -- Hillary Clinton became very misty-eyed out on the campaign trail. I imagine you saw that. What is your reaction to that? Is that something that you think is sincere or you think was calculated to try to let voters know a little bit better who she is, show that softer side? MALKIN: I think the question answers itself. The Clintons don t have a spontaneous bone in their collective body. Hillary Clinton doesn t sneeze without it being planned, and I really think that this is going to backfire on the campaign. Look, you ve got Bill out there. Hillary dragged her mother out and Chelsea to remind everyone that she has a womb, that she s a woman, that she s a human being. And look, there are tears in her eyes. She s not the glacier that everybody thinks she is. But I think, you know, that practically speaking, it does remind people that this woman is all about calculation. From the January 7 edition of CNN s The Situation Room: CLINTON [video clip]: You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don t want to see us fall backwards. BLITZER: All right, Donna, what do you think? This is a much softer side of Hillary Clinton than we saw Saturday night at that debate, where she really went on the offensive against Barack Obama. BRAZILE: Look, I know Hillary Clinton, and that was a very spontaneous moment. She was answering a question from a woman who talked about what it s like and how does she keep herself going. And I think Hillary, you know, really got inside herself, and it reminded her of why she s doing it. She s been a passionate fighter for children all her life. I think it was an unscripted moment for a candidate who is so-called scripted. And I don t believe voters will at all take offense at the fact that she really just spoke from the heart. And it was truly a touching moment. BLITZER: What do you think, Bill? BENNETT: Well, who knows? I m not going to criticize her. Donna says it was unscripted. OK. But it tells you about our politics, Wolf, and I guess something about the Clintons that so many people think it wasn t. I have to tell you, in terms of Clinton moments today, it was Bill s comments about Hillary, where he said, "I wish she were taller and younger and male," that I thought were truly bizarre. And he really should know better. Something s happening to the Clinton camp, obviously. The numbers are not looking good. We shall see what else happens. But these are not good days for the Clintons. I think, charitably, they re running -- she s running on no sleep. Adrenaline happens when you re winning. You know, you get more energy. And when you re hurting like she is in the numbers, at least the polls, it can take you down. BLITZER: Is that a fair point, Donna? BRAZILE: Oh, no question. This is an endurance test. The first test is about vision. And we saw in the debates leading up to this season that, you know, Hillary Clinton has a vision. The second test is about temperament. And I think, at this point, you know, during the primaries and the caucuses, Senator Clinton needs to recast the conversation, talk about the economy, talk about things where she can highlight her experience. From the January 7 edition of Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume: KRISTOL: I think you d have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by Mrs. Clinton s plight, but sometimes -- BRIT HUME (host): Why are you smiling, then? KRISTOL: Sometimes it s good -- well, sometimes, it s useful to have a heart of stone. And I don t believe it was genuine. I think no Clinton cries without calculating first. This -- and I think this was -- if it was genuine, it was entirely solipsistic and narcissistic. It s all about her. Why is she crying for the country? Is Barack Obama not going to be liberal enough for her? Is Barack Obama not going to appoint the kinds of people she wants to the Supreme Court? Is Barack Obama not a stronger candidate in the general election than her? She s crying for herself, and I don t even believe it s genuine. I think it s entirely calculated. From the January 7 edition of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: CLINTON [audio clip]: It s not easy, it s not easy. And I couldn t do it if I just didn t, you know, passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don t want to see us fall backwards, you know? So. LIMABUGH: Aw. Aw. CLINTON [audio clip]: You know, this is very personal for me. It s not just political, it s not just public. LIMBAUGH: Of course it s personal. It s called power! CLINTON [audio clip]: I see what s happening, and we have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game. They think it s like who s up -- LIMBAUGH: All right, that s enough. We ve heard enough of it. Here s the thing. This is the sympathy play. This is the gender card again. I m going to tell you exactly what this is. This is the latest version of "invading my space." This is a re-enactment with tears of the Rick Lazio moment, ladies and gentlemen. Should a man get away with bringing Mrs. Clinton to tears? Should a man -- be it me, be it Obama -- should a man get away with bringing Mrs. Clinton to tears, who has -- she says, "I have so many opportunities for this country." "I have so" -- how about "we have so many opportunities together," Mrs. Clinton? Rather than "I have so many" -- "I" this and "I" that. Emotional blackmail. This is calculated. Make no mistake about it, folks. This is not spontaneous. Because nothing with the Clintons is coincidence. From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the January 7 edition of MSNBC Live: ALEXANDER: Obviously, we haven t seen emotion from her -- certainly, not like this -- in the course of this campaign that s now really beginning its second year for the Clinton family, hoping to become the Comeback Couple, if you will, in 2008. And right now, as we know that she s speaking in Dover, New Hampshire, in the McConnell Center, did you have a chance to speak to her staff? I think the presumption by a lot of people who have lost support for Clinton is that she seemed to be calculating. This for the first time, I think most will say, doesn t seem calculated at all. It seems very real. ATHENA JONES (reporter for NBC News and National Journal): Well, I haven t spoken to her staff. We spent most of the time scrambling to try to talk to the woman who asked the question, talk to the people on the roundtable, find out what the reaction was because certainly -- I overheard two women there saying, "I wonder if the press is going to make this into an Ed Muskie moment." And at the same breath, one of them sort of put her hand to her chest and said, "It was a beautiful moment." We talked to one of the only men on the roundtable -- there were only two men on the roundtable -- and he said he didn t have a problem with Clinton showing this emotion. And we talked to the woman who asked the question who said that she had come in undecided but that Clinton sort of shook her up and that she was leaving decided. From the 3 p.m. ET hour of the January 7 edition of MSNBC Live: O DONNELL: With Hillary Clinton trailing Barack Obama by double digits in the polls, the question today, is her campaign panicking? Today, Clinton choked up while talking about how much she wants to win.

On the January 4 edition of MSNBC s Hardball, while previewing the upcoming January 5 presidential debates sponsored by ABC News, Facebook, and ABC New Hampshire affiliate WMUR, host Chris Matthews said: "[S]uppose [moderator and ABC World News host] Charlie Gibson asks her [Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] a good question like Tim [Russert] did, a decision where you really have to choose between constituencies: You choose between Latino voters who want more of an open border and the other voters, the Lou Dobbs types, who definitely don t want that kind of an open border, right?" Yet, while Matthews did not offer any examples of "Latino voters who want more of an open border," in fact, a number of national and regional Latino groups have specifically rejected the idea of "open borders" while advocating for comprehensive immigration reform, as have members of Congress representing states and districts with large Latino constituencies. Senators taking the lead in efforts to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 included: Ken Salazar (D-CO), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Mel Martinez (R-FL), and John McCain (R-AZ). The bill ultimately failed, but if passed, it would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, while including provisions to strengthen border security with increased surveillance, border personnel, checkpoints, border fencing, and barriers, among other measures. Moreover, numerous House members representing parts of Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas also sponsored a comprehensive immigration reform bill (the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 or "STRIVE Act") that included numerous provisions calling for increased border security. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus strongly endorsed comprehensive immigration reform, with many of its members taking leadership roles in efforts to secure its passage. On January 8, 2007, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) urging them "to make immigration reform one of your top priorities during the first 100 days of the new Congress." In the letter, the group rejected the notion that it supports "open borders," saying that "this is simply false": The 110th Congress can find an immigration solution that keeps America s border safe, while dealing fairly with undocumented workers. Of course, the radical anti-immigrant forces will say that our objective is to open borders -- this is simply false. As proud and patriotic Americans, we value national security and we stand for strong borders that protect our families, our homes and our way of life. We also believe that as part of their earned legalization process, undocumented immigrants should learn English to be successful and productive members of society; pay any back taxes they may have accrued while undocumented; and hold no criminal record in the U.S. Undocumented immigrants should be subject to these requirements just like any other American or pay the consequences if they fail to do so. We are not asking for special privileges or hand-outs, just fair and humane treatment for people who have contributed so much to America. Additionally, as part of its "OneMillionVoicesUnited" campaign, LULAC stated that proponents of comprehensive immigration reform "aren t for open borders or closed borders -- neither is realistic nor desirable" and that "reform would bring the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned immigrants through our legal system so that we can screen them and admit them if they would contribute to our nation, or bar them if they intend to harm us" (emphasis in original): Are proponents of comprehensive reform advocating open borders? No. The options aren t for open borders or closed borders -- neither is realistic nor desirable. Comprehensive reform would bring the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned immigrants through our legal system so that we can screen them and admit them if they would contribute to our nation, or bar them if they intend to harm us. The system we advocate has enforceable quotas and limits, in contrast to our current chaotic system in which unauthorized entry is a daily occurrence and enforcement resources do not distinguish between those who might try to harm us and those coming to work. By writing realistic immigration laws and enforcing them to the letter, we will finally achieve border control that is good for national security, our families, and our economy. We must replace random and ineffective enforcement with targeted and efficient enforcement. The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), an organization that claims to be "the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States" that "works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans," asserted on its website that it "does not and has never advocated open borders": NCLR does not and has never advocated open borders. We believe that the U.S. is a sovereign country with the right to control its borders. We care a great deal about how our borders are enforced; NCLR has long argued that enforcement at the border and in the interior must be conducted in a way that maximizes effectiveness without undercutting our values as a nation. We are especially troubled that more than a decade of increased enforcement measures along the U.S.-Mexico border have resulted in a steep increase in the number of border deaths without much impact in deterring migration. NCLR takes the position that any border enforcement policies must be both effective and humane. The Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR) -- whose board and strategy council includes several members of various Latino interest groups -- states in its "campaign principles" that Americans who advocate for immigration reform "want neither open borders, nor closed borders, they want smart borders": Immigration is a defining feature of America s history and of America s future. Unfortunately, America s current immigration system is broken. Instead of legal channels, legal immigration, and orderly, screened entry, the immigration system has fostered a black market characterized by a ballooning undocumented immigrant population, widespread use of fake documents, increasingly violent smuggling cartels, and widespread exploitation of undocumented workers. The American people are frustrated with their leaders on this issue and hunger for a solution that will work. They want neither open borders, nor closed borders, they want smart borders. The time has come for the President and Congress to work together to enact comprehensive legislation that rewards work, reunites families, restores the rule of law, reinforces our nation s security, respects the rights of U.S.-born and immigrant workers, and redeems the American Dream. As part of its comprehensive immigration reform platform, the National Immigration Forum, which describes itself as "the nation s premier immigrant rights organization" that is "dedicated to embracing and upholding America s tradition as a nation of immigrants," has said that comprehensive immigration reform "will make our immigration laws more realistic, permitting an intelligent enforcement regime that should include smart inspections and screening practices, fair proceedings, efficient processing, and strategies that focus on detecting and deterring terrorists and cracking down on criminal smugglers and lawbreaking employers." The Forum added that "[s]uch a system will better enable the nation to know who is already here and who is coming in the future, and will bring our system back into line with our tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws." From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the January 4 edition of MSNBC s Hardball with Chris Matthews: JENNIFER DONAHUE (senior adviser for political affairs at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics): I think [NBC Political Director] Chuck [Todd] just hit on something because here s when Democrats in New Hampshire will make their minds up and independents: tomorrow, the debate. How will Hillary perform? She does well in debates. She s disciplined. She learned a lesson last night. So -- MATTHEWS: Except in Philly. DONAHUE: Except in Philly. And she s been hemorrhaging ever since. MATTHEWS: Where Tim took her -- Tim [Russert] took her head off in Philly. DONAHUE: Well, you know she had Philly happen, and then she has been campaigning in a negative fashion ever since. Bad combination. MATTHEWS: Yeah, because something fell through that night. DONAHUE: Right. MATTHEWS: Inevitability fell through. DONAHUE: It did. And so she s been in a freefall. But I do think Iowa leveled her out. Despite the fact that she looked stunned last night, and she did -- MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you, suppose Charlie Gibson asks her a good question like Tim did, a decision where you really have to choose between constituencies: You choose between Latino voters who want more of an open border and the other voters, the Lou Dobbs types, who definitely don t want that kind of an open border, right? DONAHUE: Yep. MATTHEWS: And you have to choose on the spot. DONAHUE: Right. MATTHEWS: You ve got to make a big political call on the spot. Can she do it? DONAHUE: Go to the middle. Go to the middle. Go to the middle. She can do it. She doesn t need -- MATTHEWS: Does she need a lifeline? Does she need a lifeline, Joe [Scarborough]? Does she have to call up Mark Penn [Clinton s chief strategist] or somebody? DONAHUE: She s got to go centrist, not liberal because she already voted centrist and right on the war.

A January 7 New Hampshire Union Leader article reporting on the January 6 Republican presidential forum uncritically quoted Sen. John McCain (AZ) saying of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney s television advertisements: "Look, these are attack ads. ... I don t think they work." But the article did not note what moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News had noted less than an hour before McCain s assertion -- that McCain had "actually launch[ed] his own attack ad." Additionally, during the answer quoted by the Union Leader, McCain himself noted a "response[]" to Romney: "We ve run an -- basically -- we responded once, but look, the message we re trying to give and I will continue to give is why I m qualified to lead." Indeed, as Media Matters for America documented in response to two January 5 Union Leader articles that also quoted McCain attacking "negative campaigns" without noting McCain s own negative ads, McCain s campaign has run a negative TV ad and posted three negative Web ads against Romney in January. Similarly, on the January 4 edition of CNN s The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer uncritically aired a video clip of McCain saying: "Governor Romney is running these attack ads. He tried the same thing in Iowa against Governor Huckabee and just got beat. People of New Hampshire are not going to be fooled by these negative campaigns and the ads that they re running." The panel, consisting of CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger, and CNN anchor Jack Cafferty, did not note McCain s negative advertisements, nor did Blitzer. While a January 7 New York Times article did not note that McCain had criticized negative campaigning while running attack ads, the Times did report that "the tone of Mr. McCain s advertisements -- and his attacks on opponents, arrows sheathed in jokes -- have grown more acerbic" than those in McCain s 2000 presidential campaign. The Times article also stated: This time, to make the same point about Mr. Romney, also a governor with no foreign experience, Mr. McCain has run advertisements on the Internet that show jarring images of terrorists in masks holding guns. One of his main television ads spotlights Mr. Romney s changing positions on some issues, and highlights an editorial in The Concord Monitor calling him "a phony." By contrast, Associated Press reporter Holly Ramer did note in a January 4 article that McCain was criticizing negative ads while running them himself: In a jab at Romney, McCain told New Hampshire voters not to pay attention to money and negative ads. Romney s campaign released a new Web-based ad Friday arguing that McCain has been in Washington too long and is not as conservative as Romney. "I know you are examining these candidates, and you can t buy an election in the state of New Hampshire you have to earn it," McCain said. "Tell the candidates you want positive ads. You want to know what their vision is." But McCain released another negative ad of his own Friday calling into question Romney s leadership and foreign policy experience. A spokesman for Romney responded by pointing out Romney s successes in ensuring security at the Olympics and building up homeland security in Massachusetts. From the January 4 edition of CNN s The Situation Room: BLITZER: McCain came in fourth, just behind -- slightly behind Fred Thompson in Iowa. But he s going to do a lot better in New Hampshire. Listen to what he said today. McCAIN [video clip]: Governor Romney is running these attack ads. He tried the same thing in Iowa against Governor Huckabee and just got beat. People of New Hampshire are not going to be fooled by these negative campaigns and the ads that they re running. BLITZER: Gloria, what do you think? BORGER: That s what you call a pre-emptive strike. I mean, he knows that he s going to get bombarded with these ads, and he s just telling the voters, "You re going to hear those terrible things about me, but you can t pay attention to them," reminding people that Romney is a bad guy, right? BLITZER: Although they say that in New England, in New Hampshire, the attack ads aren t -- BORGER: Work. BLITZER: -- as negative. They work, actually, much more so than in Iowa -- TOOBIN: They do. BLITZER: -- where everybody s really a nice -- nice guy. BORGER: [unintelligible] nice in New Hampshire. TOOBIN: You know, everybody attacks -- everybody attacks negative campaigning, but negative campaigning works a great deal of the time. It didn t work for Romney in Iowa. It may well work for him in Massach -- in New Hampshire, including over issues like taxes. I mean, you know, in some respects, Romney is right. It s not an attack ad to say that John McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. That s a relevant factor. CAFFERTY: A fact, yeah. BORGER: Yeah, it s going to be interesting to see how Obama does this. I mean, if Hillary attacks -- Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama, what does Barack Obama do? Because he has run as the candidate of hope and all the rest. From the January 6 Republican presidential forum: WALLACE: And we are back now in the Fox Box in the campus of St. Anselm College outside of Manchester, New Hampshire, with the five leading Republican presidential candidates, and we resume our special candidates forum. Gentlemen, let s turn to national security. Governor Romney, you made a statement recently about foreign policy experience that raised some eyebrows and led John McCain, that mild-mannered man, to actually launch his own attack ad. Let s take a listen to what you actually said. [begin video clip] MALE ANNOUNCER: McCain opposes repeal of the death tax and voted against the Bush -- ROMNEY: -- State Department and pick out somebody who s been at the Pakistan desk, but if you want a leader and person who s led at critical times and in critical ways, I think I fit the bill. [end video clip] WALLACE: We had a little bit of a mix-up there, but you know what you said. [...] WALLACE: Let s turn to the campaign and the way it is being waged. Mitt Romney has run negative ads against Mike Huckabee in Iowa and now John McCain in New Hampshire. Let s see some of his greatest hits. MALE ANNOUCER [video clip]: McCain opposes repeal of the death tax and voted against the Bush tax cuts twice. McCain pushed to let every illegal immigrant stay here permanently, even voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security. FEMALE ANNOUNCER [video clip]: Mike Huckabee -- soft on government spending. He grew a $6 billion government into a $16 billion government, backed in-state tuition benefits for illegals, and granted 1,033 pardons and commutations, including 12 murderers. His foreign policy? "Ludicrous," says Condoleezza Rice. WALLACE: Senator McCain, back in 1988, [then-Senator] Bob Dole famously said to [then-Vice President] George Bush, "Stop lying about my record." McCAIN: Didn t do him a lot of good. WALLACE: No, it didn t, but I want to ask you: Is Mitt Romney lying about your record? McCAIN: Well, look, I -- these are attack ads. I don t think they work. But I m running a positive campaign. I wish you d have shown one of mine. It s worth -- it s -- ROMNEY: Please, please do. McCAIN: -- worth millions. ROMNEY: Please, would you put one of his on? Please do. McCAIN: But so -- look, I m running for president because I want to lead this country, and I believe I have the experience and knowledge and background. We ve run an -- basically -- we responded once, but look, the message that we re trying to give and I will continue to give is why I m qualified to lead. From the January 7 New Hampshire Union Leader article: [Former New York City Mayor Rudy] Giuliani said that as mayor, he barred Yassir Arafat and Fidel Castro from attending a United Nations celebration in New York, "and when a Saudi prince handed me a $10 million check and wanted me to use it as a criticism of American foreign policy, I handed that check back to him and told him what to do with it." Despite prodding by moderator Wallace, McCain and Huckabee refused to criticize Romney for his negative television ads against them in New Hampshire and Iowa, respectively. "Look, these are attack ads," McCain said. "I don t think they work," adding, "The people make the judgment. We respond. But, look, politics isn t beanbag, and we re moving on." Romney said overall, his message "has been very positive" and, "describing differences on issues like immigration or on commutations and pardons, I think it s important." Huckabee, who issued more than 1,000 pardons as governor, responded, "If you tell a half-truth as if it is a full truth, then it can become an untruth." From the January 7 New York Times article: Mr. McCain has nowhere near the resources he did in 2000. His once gold-plated campaign organization collapsed last summer, unable to raise the money needed to sustain it. Mark McKinnon, his media adviser, is putting together advertisements for Mr. McCain at cost -- allowing him to at least hold his own with his main opponent, Mitt Romney, on the air in the final hours of the campaign here. Eight years ago, Mr. McCain would send invitations to 20,000 voters to try to ensure a good turnout for an event; this time, his aides said, they could typically afford just 5,000 mailers. Some of his closest aides -- Mark Salter and Charles Black -- say they are forgoing paychecks for now. And the tone of Mr. McCain s advertisements -- and his attacks on opponents, arrows sheathed in jokes -- have grown more acerbic. That, his aides said, reflected the lessons he learned in 2000 after an embittering defeat by Mr. Bush in South Carolina; in that showdown, which pretty much ended his presidential hopes for that campaign, Mr. McCain refused to run attack advertisements responding to Mr. Bush. In New Hampshire in 2000, Mr. Bush took issue when Mr. McCain ran an advertisement saying, there is "only one man running for president who knows the military and understands the world." This time, to make the same point about Mr. Romney, also a governor with no foreign experience, Mr. McCain has run advertisements on the Internet that show jarring images of terrorists in masks holding guns. One of his main television ads spotlights Mr. Romney s changing positions on some issues, and highlights an editorial in The Concord Monitor calling him "a phony." And Mr. McCain s post-New Hampshire prospects, should he win on Tuesday, are if anything less certain than they were in 2000, when he left this state confident that he would beat Mr. Bush. He has barely any organization in Michigan, the next state to vote, said Saul Anuzis, the state Republican chairman there. Mr. McCain was forced to lay off all but one of his staff members because of his financial difficulties.

On the January 7 edition of Fox News The Live Desk, host Martha MacCallum asked Republican strategist Christine O Donnell, "Who do Republicans want to run against? [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] or [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY]?" O Donnell replied, "I would say Barack Obama, because he is so liberal that -- he s anti-American." In response, Democratic strategist Jane Fleming asked, "Anti-American?" O Donnell replied: "He s beating the change drum, but let s look at the change. He did not vote for English as the official language. What does that say?" O Donnell later added: "And then they sit there and say, Oh, but I m for English as the national language, because there s a legal difference. And the difference is English as the official language would, you know, not allow bilingual ballots." From the January 7 edition of Fox News The Live Desk: MacCALLUM: Now, I would point out you didn t see a whole lot of editorial pages -- conservative editorial pages -- really paying too much attention to Barack Obama until recently. So let me get Christine O Donnell s thoughts on this. Who do Republicans want to run against? Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? O DONNELL: I would prefer Barack Obama because he is so liberal, that -- he s anti-American. Let me tell you a couple of -- FLEMING: Anti-American? O DONNELL: Let me explain why. He s beating the change drum, but let s look at the change. He did not vote for English as the official language. What does that say? Then you hear them say, "I m for" -- FLEMING: What are you talking about? Are you talking about the immigration debate? Because -- O DONNELL: No, I m -- FLEMING: -- if you re talking about that, there was a lot in there. O DONNELL: His voting record. His voting record. And then they sit there and say, "Oh, but I m for English as the national language," because there s a legal difference. And the difference is English as the official language would, you know, not allow bilingual ballots and -- MacCALLUM: All right, well, back to my question. Just in terms of, you know, who they can beat, you think Obama is easier to beat. O DONNELL: Absolutely. MacCALLUM: Jane, who do you think? FLEMING: There s no way that they can beat Obama, and there s -- it s a rare chance that you guys are going to beat Clinton as well. All the national polls say we beat you guys. Democrats are fired up. We outperformed you guys 2-to-1 in Iowa, we re going to outperform you in New Hampshire. Democrats are going to win this. I don t care if it s Edwards, Obama, or Clinton.

During the January 5 ABC News-Facebook Democratic presidential debate, moderator Charlie Gibson referred to Sen. Barack Obama s (D-IL) August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech -- in which Obama said that, as president, he would take action against "high-value terrorist targets" in Pakistan -- and asked Obama, "You stand by that?" Obama answered: "I absolutely do stand by it" and went on to say, "[B]ack in August, I said we should ... press them [the Pakistani government] to do more to take on Al Qaeda in their territory. What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike." Gibson replied, "[W]hat you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis." But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, Bush and administration officials have taken contradictory positions on the question of whether the U.S. would act on actionable intelligence against Al Qaeda in Pakistan regardless of the sovereignty of Pakistan. Indeed, within a span of five days Bush said both that he would and would not go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistani government. Gibson s assertion of a "Bush doctrine" ignores these contradictions. On September 20, 2006, Bush said to CNN host Wolf Blitzer that he would "[a]bsolutely" order U.S. troops into sovereign Pakistani territory "to bring [bin Laden] to justice." Bush reaffirmed that position on November 28, 2007, during another interview with Bush. Blitzer asked: "[A] year ago September ... you told me that absolutely -- that was your word -- you would authorize U.S. troops to go into Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence on Osama bin Laden s whereabouts or other top-ranking Al Qaeda members. Is that still your position?" When Bush replied, "Yeah," Blitzer asked, "Hasn t changed?" Bush responded: "No, hasn t changed." On the other hand, during a September 15, 2006, press conference -- five days before his 2006 interview with Blitzer -- Bush ruled out "sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down [Osama] bin Laden" in part because "Pakistan is a sovereign nation." Additionally, on August 1, 2007, then-White House press secretary Tony Snow said: "[O]ur approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government, but is also designed to work in a way where we are working in cooperation with the local government," as Media Matters documented. In the August 1, 2007, speech, Obama said: "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won t act, we will." Obama also criticized Bush s policies toward Pakistan: "He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq -- which didn t exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan." Time magazine political columnist Joe Klein wrote in an August 1, 2007, post on the magazine s Swampland blog that Obama s approach is the "precise opposite" of Bush s policy: Finally, on Pakistan, what Obama is proposing is the precise opposite of what Bush has done. It is clear that not only is General Musharraf incapable of controlling his tribal areas, but also that there are elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence services that are actively Salafist and support the jihadis, quite possibly including the Al Qaeda leadership. Bush has chosen to do nothing about this. During the debate, after Gibson asserted, "[W]hat you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine," Obama replied: OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And so, you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander-in-chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that. From ABC News January 5 broadcast of the ABC News-Facebook Democratic presidential debate: GIBSON: Brian Ross there. Well, Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is: How aggressively would you go after Al Qaeda leadership there? And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said, in your foreign policy speech, that you would go into Western Pakistan, if you had actionable intelligence, to go after him, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. You stand by that? OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001. And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you ve got a legitimate government that we re working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaeda in their territory. What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Keaton, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it s indisputable that that should be our course. Let me just add one thing, though. On the broader issue of nuclear proliferation, this is something that I ve worked on since I ve been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar, so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job. GIBSON: I m going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis. OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And so, you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander-in-chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.

During the January 4 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor, discussing the January 3 Iowa caucuses, host Bill O Reilly stated: "As for John Edwards, good grief, this guy has no clue." He then aired a clip of Edwards speech following the caucuses, during which Edwards stated: "And tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We re better than this." O Reilly responded: "That was Edwards concession speech last night. I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy s brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe." While it is unclear what O Reilly found "hard to believe," Edwards claim about the number of homeless veterans is supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: About one-third of the adult homeless population have served their country in the Armed Services. Current population estimates suggest that about 195,000 veterans (male and female) are homeless on any given night and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing. The Washington Post confirmed the veracity of Edwards claim, reporting on January 7: Several readers have asked us to check this surprising statistic, often used by Edwards. The language may be overly dramatic, but the figure is an official one, from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The department believes that one-third of the adult homeless population of the United States "have served their country in the Armed Services." A posting on the department Web site says that about 195,000 veterans are "homeless on any given night" and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. From the January 4 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor: O REILLY: Hi, I m Bill O Reilly reporting tonight from Boston. Thank you for watching us. We re on our way to New Hampshire. We ll be there tomorrow. Anything could happen. And we hope you tune in on Monday to see how our journey up there works out. I can promise you this. It s going to be different. Now the "Talking Points Memo" this evening, where each presidential candidate stands right now. Congratulations to Senator Barack Obama. He ran an excellent campaign in Iowa and won big. He deserves much credit. And congratulations to Governor Mike Huckabee. He also ran an excellent campaign, deserves a lot of credit, and has made the Republican race very interesting. The reason Huckabee won is that 60 percent of the voters described themselves as evangelical Christians, and just about all of them voted for the governor. He will not have that luxury in New Hampshire. So that state is a key test for Huckabee s staying power. Mr. Obama won because of Iraq. He captured the Iowa anti-war vote, and that propelled him to victory. Iraq will be in play in New Hampshire, so Obama could also do very well there. As for Hillary Clinton, she just needs to hang on. Once the campaigns roll into the big states, the senator s powerful organization should kick in. However, she has been rocked and must improve her campaigning style. As for John Edwards, good grief, this guy has no clue. EDWARDS [video clip]: And tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We re better than this. O REILLY: That was Edwards concession speech last night. I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy s brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe.

During the January 5 ABC News-Facebook Democratic debate at St. Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, moderator and ABC s World News anchor Charlie Gibson suggested that the Democratic presidential candidates proposals to roll back or let some of President Bush s tax cuts expire would affect middle-class families. After Gibson noted that the Democratic candidates are "all talking about letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) replied that they would roll back "tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans, not the middle class." Gibson continued: "If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they re going to be in the $200,000 category that you re talking about lifting the taxes on." In fact, contrary to Gibson s suggestion that $200,000 is a typical, middle class household income in the United States, the U.S. Census Bureau s data for 2006 -- the most recent year available -- place the median household income at $48,451, and the mean household income at $65,527. According to the Census data, only 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more. Gibson did not cite a source for his assertion that a family of two St. Anselm professors would make more than $200,000 in taxable income, an assertion that was met with laughter from the audience and the remark from former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) that: "I don t think they agree with you." According to the American Association of University Professors, a full professor at St. Anselm in 2006-2007 had an average salary of $77,400 (not including other taxable benefits given to St. Anselm faculty). From ABC News January 5 broadcast of the ABC News-Facebook Democratic debate: GIBSON: Senator Edwards, I will take this question to you -- but you raised the issue of the economy right now. And we have a housing crisis in this country. CLINTON: Yes, we do. GIBSON: We have an energy problem in the cost of energy, and we now have a jobs problem. We have, when we are -- and you raised the R word, recession -- when we are approaching recession, it is consumers who have spent us out of recession in most cases. You re all talking about letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse. CLINTON: Yeah, but Charlie, the tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans, not the middle class tax cuts. One of the problems with George Bush s tax policy has been the way he has tilted it toward the wealthy and the well-connected. GIBSON: If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they re going to be in the $200,000 category that you re talking about lifting the taxes on. And -- [laughter] EDWARDS: Oh, I don t think they agree with you. SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): I m not sure that that -- CLINTON: That may be NYU, Charlie; I don t think that s St. Anselm. GIBSON: Two public schoolteachers in New York? EDWARDS: Charlie -- GIBSON: But that is -- you re in a situation where you re taking money out of the economy. CLINTON: Look, if we set the cap where I m saying, at 250,000 and above, that s a very small percentage. And what I want to do is fix the alternative minimum tax; create these new job opportunities, primarily through clean, renewable energy; but also, get back to where middle-class families get the kind of tax relief that they deserve, which they really haven t been getting under George Bush. EDWARDS: Can I say -- GIBSON: Go ahead, yeah. EDWARDS: Thank you. What you see happening in America today -- if you re president of the United States, and you re looking at this from altitude -- is you see very few Americans getting wealthier and wealthier. You see the biggest corporations in America, profits through the roof. Exxon-Mobil just made $40 billion -- record profits. All of that happening at the same time that we have 47 million people with no health care; 37 million who will wake up in this country tomorrow worried about feeding and clothing their children. Tonight, 200,000 men and women, who wore the uniform of the United States of America and served this country honorably, will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. It s time for us to say, and it s time for the president to say, "Enough is enough." This is a battle for the future of our children. This is a battle for the middle class. Let s take jobs, which we haven t talked about. We ve touched on a lot of other things, but we haven t talked about jobs. We ve had a trade and tax policy that is bleeding American jobs, and all it has done is pad the profits of the biggest multinational corporations in America. You talk about professors here at this college. Let me say -- GIBSON: Well, I shouldn t have done that, apparently.

During the January 5 ABC News-Facebook Republican presidential debate, Scott Spradling, a news anchor for Manchester, New Hampshire-based television station WMUR, asked each of the Republican presidential candidates, "[W]hy not vote for [Sen.] Barack Obama [IL]" if he were the Democratic presidential nominee. But while Spradling invited the Republican candidates to openly criticize a Democratic candidate, neither he nor debate moderator Charlie Gibson offered a similar opportunity to the Democratic candidates. Indeed, rather than ask such a question, during the Democratic debate later that evening, Spradling asked Obama to respond "to what the Republican candidates for president laid out in arguments for you not being elected president." Spradling added, "I revved up the Republican attack machine. Please respond." Further, in answering Spradling s question, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney falsely asserted that Obama "wants the government to take over health care." Spradling had asked Romney for "specifics" on why voters should not choose Obama over him: SPRADLING: Governor Romney, I m going to stay with you. In Charlie s health care dialogue in the first half, you mentioned "Hillarycare." This group has aimed a lot of partisan firepower at Hillary Clinton, but I d like, if you don t mind, to adjust the outcome for a minute and walk down this road with me. Let s say that Barack Obama is the nominee -- he won the Iowa caucus. We have a WMUR poll out just tonight that shows it s tied here in New Hampshire, 33 to 33 -- and I d like to know from you, why, against you as the nominee down the line, why not vote for Barack Obama? And not just because he s a Democrat -- you re not allowed to say that. I d like to hear some specifics on why not him. ROMNEY: Well, we have very different views on a whole series of issues, and I could take you through them one by one. One would be health care, for instance. He wants the government to take over health care, spend hundreds of billions of dollars of new money for health insurance for everyone. That ll be -- that ll break the bank. "If you think," as the comedian said -- P.J. O Rourke -- "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait til it s free." All right. So that s not the right direction. In fact, Obama s health care plan does not mandate that the government "take over health care" as Romney asserted. His plan allows individuals to keep their private health insurance if they so choose, while it also "addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 47 million Americans uninsured." From Sen. Obama s "Plan for a Healthy America": Under the Obama plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage if they choose to, and will see the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 47 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan ; (4) mandate all children have health care coverage; (5) expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allow flexibility for state health reform plans. While live-blogging the Republican debate on The New York Times political blog The Caucus, reporter Katharine Q. Seelye described Spradling s question to the Republican candidates regarding Obama as a "[g]reat question." She went on to briefly sum up each of the GOP candidates responses, including Romney s claim that "Obama wants the government to take over health care," without noting that Romney s claim was false. In her live blog of the Democratic debate, Seelye did not note that the Democratic candidates were not given a similar opportunity to criticize one of their Republican counterparts. From ABC News January 5 broadcast of the ABC News-Facebook Republican debate: SPRADLING: Governor Romney, I m going to stay with you. In Charlie s health care dialogue in the first half, you mentioned "Hillarycare." This group has aimed a lot of partisan firepower at Hillary Clinton, but I d like, if you don t mind, to adjust the outcome for a minute and walk down this road with me. Let s say that Barack Obama is the nominee -- he won the Iowa caucus. We have a WMUR poll out just tonight that shows it s tied here in New Hampshire, 33 to 33 -- and I d like to know from you, why, against you as the nominee down the line, why not vote for Barack Obama? And not just because he s a Democrat -- you re not allowed to say that. I d like to hear some specifics on why not him. ROMNEY: Well, we have very different views on a whole series of issues, and I could take you through them one by one. One would be health care, for instance. He wants the government to take over health care, spend hundreds of billions of dollars of new money for health insurance for everyone. That ll be -- that ll break the bank. "If you think," as the comedian said -- P.J. O Rourke -- "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait til it s free." All right. So that s not the right direction. But there -- so we could talk about issues, but the biggest difference, I think -- and it s going to be true for me and others who talk about it -- is that this is a time where America wants change. Washington is broken. That was the message coming out of Iowa. I ve heard it across the country. Washington is broken. Not just the White House, not just Congress -- Washington can t get the job done on immigration, on lowering taxes, on fixing schools, on getting health care, on overcoming radical jihad. They want change. Barack Obama looked at several senators steeped in long history in the Senate and completely blew them away in the Iowa caucus. It s a message of change. And when we sit down and talk about change -- Barack Obama and myself, in that final debate, as you re positing -- I can say, "Not only can I talk change with you, I ve lived it. In the private sector for 25 years, I brought change to company after company. In the Olympics -- it was in trouble -- I brought change. In Massachusetts, I brought change. I have done it." GIBSON: I m -- ROMNEY: "I have changed things, and that experience is what America is looking for." You look at that debate -- GIBSON: I m just going to try to keep us on time. ROMNEY: -- with Barack Obama; I m looking forward to head-to-head.

During ABC News coverage of the January 5 ABC News-Facebook debate, ABC News correspondent Bianna Golodryga cited a Facebook "debate group" question asking respondents, "Could a Democratic president keep America safe?" Golodryga continued: "66 percent of you said yes; 27 percent, no." Golodryga did not cite a question asking whether a Republican president could "keep America safe"; indeed, no such question (registration required) was asked on ABC News Facebook "debate group" page. Golodryga introduced her discussion of the responses to the questions ABC posed on Facebook by asserting, "Now let s go to what surprised us," but did not say why the results of the "keep America safe" question were "surpris[ing]." As Media Matters for America has documented, other media figures have asserted that Republicans have an advantage on issues of national security and terrorism, despite polls showing Democrats either tied or at a slight advantage against Republicans on that issue. For example, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted September 27-30, 2007, asking, "Which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?" found that 41 percent of respondents favored the Democrats, while 40 percent chose the Republicans. Following are the questions ABC posted (registration required) on its Facebook "debate group" page on January 5, the day of the Republican and Democratic debates: Did the ABC News/Facebook Debates give you a better sense of whom you will vote for? Based on the debate, do you think a Democratic President could keep America safe from foreign threats? Which issue do you wish the Democratic candidates spent more time on? (Environment, Economy, War in Iraq, Immigration, or Health Care) Which Democratic candidate appeared the most "presidential" during the debate? Which of the following surprised you most about the Republican debate? (Huckabee rarely discusses religion; McCain stays restrained during debate; Romney says drug companies aren t the "Bad Guy;" Thompson stays cool, calm, collected; or Giuliani joins attacks on Romney) Which issue do you wish the Republican candidates spent more time on? (War in Iraq, Environment, Immigration, Health Care, or Economy) Do you feel more informed about the Republican candidates positions on foreign policy after this debate? Which Republican candidate appeared the most "Presidential" during the debate? Do you agree with Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton is "likable enough"? Is a Presidential candidate s national "electability" a big factor in deciding your vote in the primaries? How much confidence do you have about the US economy in 2008? From ABC News January 5 broadcast of the ABC News-Facebook debate: SAWYER: But of course, the evening isn t just about what the candidates and their forces say. It s also about what you feel at this pivotal moment in history, and for some instant reaction from those watching and taking part on Facebook, we go back again to Bianna Golodryga. What are you hearing, Brianna? GOLODRYGA: We re hearing a lot, Diane, actually thousands of people are debating the debate, and we picked a few key issues right now we want to talk to you about. Charlie brought up foreign policy, and so we asked people: "Are they more informed about the candidates foreign policy?" Sixty-seven percent say yes; 33 percent say no. Another interesting issue: "Is tonight s debate giving you a better sense of who you will vote for?" Some people must be saying the right and the wrong answers, because 75 percent of the people answered yes; 25 percent answered no. And lastly, this could be the most interesting out of what we found thus far: "Which issue do you wish the Republican candidates spent more time on?" Overwhelmingly, the economy came up as first: Forty-five percent said the economy; 13 percent said health care; 10 percent said the war in Iraq. Now the economy is a big issue right now. Of course, we got a weaker than expected jobs report -- the worst unemployment level in two years. Recession was not even brought up during this debate. We ll have to see what the Democrats say, as far as the boards lighting up to their response on the economy. [...] SAWYER: We re going to turn now to the Facebook command center, co-sponsors, of course, of tonight s debate, and Bianna Golodryga is there. Now that both debates have concluded, what are you seeing from the audience participating on Facebook? GOLODRYGA: Well, a lot of people weighing in right now. I want to start with your question on what people s responses were to the surprises in the Republican debate. The one thing people were saying is that Romney -- they were surprised at how beaten up he was a lot throughout the debate. Another person said, "I was surprised at how much mud-slinging there was going on, stemming from this Romney." And another person said, "I m surprised at how out of touch these politicians are. They have no understanding of poverty." Lastly, a person said, "I m surprised there was no more talk about the environment." Now let s go to what surprised us. We re going to start with the Democrats response. On to the charts now, "What issue do you wish the Democratic candidates spent more time on?" This surprises because, still, just like the Republicans, the economy was a key issue here: Forty-four percent said the Democrats didn t spend enough time talking about the economy; health care followed that by 13 percent. Moving on -- "Could a Democratic president keep America safe?" -- 66 percent of you said yes; 27 percent, no. And lastly, "Is tonight s debate giving you a better sense of who you d vote for?" Eighty percent said yes; 20 percent said no. Diane, this is just beginning. And of course, people can weigh in on Facebook until the elections in November.

On the January 5 edition of Fox News Weekend Live, discussing an incident between Fox News host Bill O Reilly and Marvin Nicholson, a staffer for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), at an event in Nashua, New Hampshire, anchor Brian Wilson said that "Obama staffers now say the confrontation got physical," but that O Reilly "says it was heated but just verbal." Wilson then aired a clip from an interview he had conducted with O Reilly earlier in the program, in which O Reilly claimed: "I might have called him an SOB. That s possible ... but nothing more than that." In the clip Wilson aired, O Reilly was responding to Wilson s question, "Were there any profanities uttered?" In fact, while O Reilly denied there had been a "scuffle" during the same interview, he also repeatedly said that he had "removed" or "gently removed" Nicholson from in front of Fox News The O Reilly Factor s camera. Other media reports described O Reilly s confrontation with Nicholson as physical. Slate.com s John Dickerson reported in a January 5 article that O Reilly "shoved" Nicholson: At first, the railing where O Reilly stood wasn t very populated. Then, as the Obama team saw who was laying in wait, they started to huddle. Staffers started to arrive at the scene. Three policemen showed up, too. One of them stood in front of O Reilly until O Reilly asked him to move. One of Obama s staffers, Marvin Nicholson, took up the same post, standing in front of the Fox camera as Obama neared the door. "You re blocking our shot," yelled O Reilly. "Oh, am I?" asked the Obama staffer, not entirely sincerely, and not moving. This is not a new trick. When staffers block you because you re being too aggressive, the standard thing to do is give them a little business and then move to another spot. O Reilly didn t do this. He shoved the Obama aide. There was an exchange and a little more shoving. I didn t fully capture it because as I looked at O Reilly in his black leather Fox jacket, which resembled the kind we wore during football season in high school, I swore I could hear him challenge the staffer to a rumble out by the drive-in. Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief Lynn Sweet wrote in a January 5 post to her blog that, according to "several eyewitnesses," "O Reilly grabbed Nicholson s arm and shoved him," and that "Secret Service agents who were nearby flanked O Reilly after he pushed Nicholson." And in a January 5 post on The Boston Globe s Political Intelligence blog, staff writer Sasha Issenberg wrote that "Secret Service officials separated O Reilly and Obama aide Marvin Nicholson after the Fox News Channel personality grabbed Nicholson on a post-speech rope line in a high-school gym here. According to a witness, O Reilly reached with two hands for Nicholson -- who at 6-foot-8 had a slight height advantage over O Reilly -- because he stood between O Reilly s cameraman and Obama as the newsman called out for the candidate s attention." From the 3 p.m. ET hour of the January 5 edition of Fox News Weekend Live: WILSON: Now, I want to mention that, earlier today, there was some sort of incident between Fox s Bill O Reilly and a staffer for Barack Obama. We thought that we would go straight to the source on this and ask the host of the Factor himself what happened there. There are many, many reports about this; some of them are on the blogs. Bill O Reilly s on the phone now. Bill, you re at an Obama event, you re standing in a rope line -- a rope line where the candidate is coming by shaking hands with people in the rope line -- what happened? O REILLY: Well, let me set the scene a little bit more than that, Brian. First, we visited [Sen.] Hillary Clinton s [D-NY] campaign and -- trying to get a question in to the senator. Couldn t quite do that, but we did get an interesting back-and-forth from her on the stage to me standing there, and that was -- it went fine, it was no problem. Then we went over to the Nashua event that [Fox News congressional correspondent] Major Garrett just described, and it was a big zoo, thousands of people there, and we set up our camera to try to get a question to Senator Obama. So a big guy comes over, I guess he s about 6-foot-8, according to the press reports, and he stands right in front of the Factor camera. So I asked him, you know, fairly nicely, "You re blocking our shot, sir, you need to move a little bit" -- and the cameraman that I had actually moved away from him. He moved right in front of the cameraman again to block our shot. So I had to gently remove him from that position, Brian. WILSON: All right, let me ask you a quick couple more questions. I got about 90 seconds before I have to go to a break. There are reports that there was a scuffle. Was there a scuffle? O REILLY: No, no scuffle at all. I just removed him from in front of the camera. WILSON: We have heard reports that there may have been profanities uttered. Were there any profanities uttered? O REILLY: I might have called him an SOB. That s possible -- WILSON: All right. O REILL: -- but nothing, nothing more than that. WILSON: And there s also a report that the Secret Service had to restrain you. Did that happen? O REILLY: Oh, that is absolutely ridiculous, because about 10 seconds after I gently removed the man from in front of our camera, I actually spoke to Barack Obama. And the Secret Service guys let me right by, and we had a nice little chat, which you ll hear on the Factor Monday night. WILSON: Yeah, you re in fact going to show all of -- we have some limited tape of this coming in, in a while, so we ll be able to show some version of it -- O REILLY: Right. WILSON: -- but you ll show your version on the Factor Monday, correct? O REILLY: That s right. And we re sorry we had to have that little confrontation but no one on this earth is going to block a shot on The O Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen. WILSON: Bill O Reilly, thank you very much for being with us here on Weekend Live. O REILLY: OK, Brian. WILSON: We appreciate you taking the call. [...] WILSON: But I want to talk about this incident that occurred earlier today, an incident between Bill -- Fox s Bill O Reilly and a Barack Obama staffer at an Obama campaign stop. Obama staffers now say the confrontation got physical. We gave the Factor host a call in the last hour to find out what happened; O Reilly says it was heated but just verbal. Take a listen. [begin video clip] NICHOLSON: After he shoved me and after he was done yelling at me, I went -- I just went over and I asked -- I said, "Sir, I d just really appreciate it if you wouldn t shove me anymore." [...] O REILLY: I might have called him an SOB. That s possible -- WILSON: All right. O REILLY: -- but nothing more than that. [end video clip] WILSON: So, there you have Bill O Reilly, and the first gentleman you saw was a man by the name of Marvin Nicholson, who, by the way, is 6-foot-8 inches tall -- big guy. He s considered Barack Obama s body guy, the guy that is always beside Barack Obama. This happened on a rope line and as the cameras came close, Bill came closer -- as the candidate came closer, Bill O Reilly says he tried to get a shot, that Marvin Nicholson got in the way. There was some kind of confrontation that went on between the two. Bill O Reilly says he may have called the guy an SOB. At the end of it all, however, Barack Obama did come over for a moment and talk to Bill O Reilly. We are told that that conversation lasted less than a minute. Now, Bill O Reilly has his own tape of this incident, and they re going to show whatever happened in this kerfuffle on Monday on the Factor. So, we report, you decide. We ll look at Bill s tape -- we ll try to figure out what happened here -- but it is the topic of much discussion here in Manchester today, and, of course, on those ever-present blogs.

On the January 4 edition of MSNBC s Hardball, while discussing the Democratic presidential candidacies of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL), host Chris Matthews asked: "[W]hat does she do with the body? How does she get rid of a Barack Obama if she ever gets to beat him?" Matthews added: "How does she say, Now, step aside and go back to being junior senator from Illinois. Oh, you ll never be on the ticket because, hm, I have other plans. I m going to give it to -- oh, I ll give it to [Sen.] Evan [Bayh (D-IN)]. ... I ll give it to [Ohio Gov. Ted] Strickland. " This is not the first time Matthews has used violent imagery to portray Clinton and her aides. As Media Matters for America has documented, Matthews and other media figures have repeatedly used violent and ruthless imagery to portray Clinton and her advisers. For example, during the December 20 edition of Hardball, Matthews asked: "Is the Hillary Clinton campaign trying to obliterate Obama s candidacy? Not just beat it, but strangle it in the crib before there s any chance he catches on?" During the one-hour show, Matthews also invoked imagery of Clinton murdering an infant Obama on four occasions, including saying that there were "[m]ore efforts today by the Clinton people to smother the Barack Obama campaign in its crib" and that "[t]he picture is not pretty, but it could very well be deadly. The goal is to smother the young senator in his crib." He later said: "She needs Luca Brasi to do this stuff for her," referring to a Mafia enforcer in the Mario Puzo novel The Godfather. Additionally, on the April 24, 2005, edition of his NBC-syndicated television show, Matthews referred to Clinton as "sort of a Madame Defarge of the left," referring to a villainous character in Charles Dickens novel, A Tale of Two Cities. According to BookRags.com, a website that provides study guides for classic novels, Madame Defarge is "a cruel, vengeance-seeking agent of the [French] revolution ... [who] spends her days knitting a register of names of people she has marked for death." Media Matters has noted that other media figures have also portrayed Clinton and her aides as violent or ruthless. For instance, in her June 20, 2007, column, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote about an online video produced by Clinton s presidential campaign that features Sen. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton spoofing a scene from the series finale of HBO s The Sopranos. Dowd wrote that Sen. Clinton, like main character Tony Soprano, "is so power-hungry that she can justify any thuggish means to get the prize." Additionally, on the January 24, 2007, broadcast of National Public Radio s Morning Edition, discussing the potential 2008 presidential candidates who attended President Bush s State of the Union address, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank asserted: "Hillary Clinton was situated immediately behind Barack Obama, making it easier for her to actually place the knife into his back, if that s what she was trying to do." Further, Media Matters has documented numerous instances (here, here, and here) of nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh insinuating that the Clintons were involved in the death of then-deputy White House counsel Vince Foster, who committed suicide in Northern Virginia s Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. Limbaugh also once advised a caller to "go to Fort Marcy Park" when she visited Washington, D.C., and "[s]ee if you get out alive." From the January 4 edition of MSNBC s Hardball with Chris Matthews: JOE SCARBOROUGH (MSNBC s Morning Joe host): I would like to know, though, what is the last great American political speech that rivaled what we saw last night with Barack Obama? JENNIFER DONAHUE (New Hampshire Institute of Politics senior adviser): See, but he s been giving that speech -- SCARBOROUGH: Well, wait -- DONAHUE: No, you gotta listen -- SCARBOROUGH: Wait a second. MATTHEWS: [Ronald] Reagan s in 64. [Barry] Goldwater. SCARBOROUGH: Reagan s in 64, maybe Bobby Kennedy s the night Martin Luther King died. This was one of the great speeches, one of the great moments of modern American politics, and you can t buy that. If you have that, plus a hundred million dollars -- DONAHUE: Right. No, I agree with you. SCARBOROUGH: -- get out of the way. DONAHUE: I agree with you -- SCARBOROUGH: Duck. DONAHUE: -- on that. It was -- MATTHEWS: And by the way, what does she do with the body? How does she get rid of a Barack Obama if she ever gets to beat him? [laughter] DONAHUE: Oh, my God. MATTHEWS: How does she tell him -- SCARBOROUGH: Exactly. MATTHEWS: How does she say, "Now, step aside and go back to being junior senator from Illinois. Oh, you ll never be on the ticket because, hm, I have other plans. I m going to give it to -- oh, I ll give it to Evan." SCARBOROUGH: Evan, yeah. MATTHEWS: "I ll give it to Strickland." Also -- DONAHUE: OK, wait, wait, wait. MATTHEWS: -- how does she say no when that drum is beating at the convention. And then in Denver -- DONAHUE: She can t. She s in a box, guys. MATTHEWS: -- demanding this guy. DONAHUE: She s in a box.

On the January 5 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Alex Witt claimed that Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani "is spending very little time and even less money in Iowa and New Hampshire, opting instead to stake his claim on the later states." Later, Nicholas Wapshott, a senior writer for The New York Sun, agreed, saying, "Well, he really, as you say, he barely attempted to go" to Iowa. However, as Media Matters for America previously documented, in an August 8, 2007, article, the Associated Press reported that Giuliani said: "Our largest staff contingent is now in Iowa. ... We re going to make a big effort in Iowa. We re making a big effort and our strategy was to focus on the caucuses." And in a June 6, 2007, article, Reuters quoted Giuliani campaign manager Michael DuHaime saying: "We are 100 percent committed to winning Iowa and I believe we will do so." More recently, on the December 27 edition of the CBS Evening News, national correspondent Byron Pitts told Giuliani, "Here s something I ve heard from people who support you in Iowa and New Hampshire, and this is a quote, Why has Rudy Giuliani written off New Hampshire and Iowa? " Giuliani responded: "We haven t. We ve had a proportionate strategy in that we ve tried to spend time in all of the states. I see it as a nine-inning game." When Pitts asked: "But don t you have to play the first three?" Giuliani replied, "Sure, we have. We ve been in Iowa quite a bit. We ve been in New Hampshire even more than Iowa. We think this strategy fit our campaign." According to National Journal s The Hotline (subscription required), Giuliani maintained 12 paid staff members in two offices in Iowa, in contrast with caucus winner Mike Huckabee s 14 paid staff members in one office and second-place finisher Mitt Romney s 17 staff members in three offices. In addition, the New York Daily News reported that Giuliani made "20 stops" in Iowa. Giuliani visited Iowa on December 29, and DuHaime visited the state on January 3. From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the January 5 edition of MSNBC Live: WITT: Let s go back to politics now, because Rudy Giuliani is in New Hampshire today. He s trying to pick up some votes there, while downplaying his distant sixth-place finish in Iowa s caucuses. Giuliani, of course, is in the midst of a major political gamble. He is spending very little time and even less money in Iowa and New Hampshire, opting instead to stake his claim on the later states. But now, just three days from the New Hampshire primaries, he is trailing both [John] McCain and Romney by double digits in the polls. Nicholas Wapshott, a senior writer for The New York Sun joins me now to talk about this. I mean, he didn t expect to win in Iowa, certainly, but sixth-place blow. I mean, sixth place there, is that a blow to his campaign? WAPSHOTT: Well, he really, as you say, he barely attempted to go there, but his problem is, it s very difficult to say, "I really don t come onstream until Florida," which is January the 29th. What you re saying is that all your early states don t matter, and it s very difficult to say to Americans, "Your vote really doesn t matter. I m not interested in you; I m only interested in the big states." That s a very arrogant stance to hold, and I think a lot of people will expect that he may well be overtaken before then by somebody like Huckabee or McCain, who had such amazing wind behind them that he ll be stuck.