I didn’t get to see Hillary “choking up… or choking?” until tonight’s postgame coverage. I’m calling for instant replay, since it’s a close one:

That’s it? Forget these “newspapers,” I’m watching TV from now on. This is being described as Hillary’s “Muskie Moment,” in reference to the “crying” “incident” that doomed Ed Muskie in 1972. And it’s a great comparison: this is also a crying-related, silly-ass pseudostory that’s at best way overplayed and at worst inaccurate.

David Broder, one of the prime movers behind the Muskie story, describes it as “the story that still nags me.” Why? Here’s how he described Muskie’s moment in 1972: “With tears streaming down his face and his voice choked with emotion. . . .” 15 years later, Broder wasn’t so sure: “In retrospect, though, there were a few problems with the Muskie story. First, it is unclear whether Muskie did cry.” Whoops! Broder says it could have been snow that was “streaming” down Muskie’s face. It’s like Rashomon, except stupid.

Today the headlines aren’t any different, but New Hampshire voters seem to have viewed this event as a reason to like her, a nonstory that doesn’t matter, and/or a nonstory that matters in the sense that it’s worth it to vote for her just to spite the media (more here, here , here and here). Hillary and her competitors are promising change, but I’m happy to see it coming from voters.

Update: “But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran.”


“At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph.”

I’m not yet prepared to turn my vote into a protest against Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, and all the rest. But: I understand.

Update II: Michael Sneed’s column today is actually pretty moving.