Several of my commenters think that the Hillary sob was a setup: an attempt to humanize her into a last minute win of the New Hampshire primaries. That sentiment is echoed by an anonymous blogger over at The Economist's Democracy in America blog, the best-kept secret in American political blogging.
CALL me a terrible, terrible cynic—perhaps one of those who "think elections are a game"—but it seems awfully convenient that a rare emotional crack should appear in Hillary Clinton's steely wonkish façade just as she is fighting to dispel the notion that she is cold, aloof, or unlikable, and to gain ground against an opponent whose personability and charisma may be his greatest assets. . . . John Edwards is reported to have "pounced" on Mrs Clinton's choked-up moment, telling reporters that "what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business". Perhaps this illustrates the catch-22 faced by women in politics: They are portrayed as bossy and unfeminine if they behave like their male counterparts, but tarred as weak or hysterical at the first display of emotion. (Reason's Kerry Howley notes that Y-chromosomed politicians can apparently get misty without prompting a media feeding frenzy.) But given that many of the reactions to Mr Edwards' remarks have been hostile, perhaps it also illustrates Mrs Clinton's canniness. Her next tear may be shed over the fact that it was Mr Edwards, rather than frontrunner Barack Obama, who took the bait.
All right, I'm as sympathetic as the next working woman to the problems that women face in trying to make it to the top . . . but if New Hampshire votes for Hillary Clinton because the Poor Widdle Girl Feels so Bad About Losing, I'll vomit, I really will.
this montage:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hillary+cackle
should aid the right-thinking with their suspicions of 'setup'
I don't happen to think the breakdown was calculated, but if you do, do you also buy Rush Limbaugh's and others' contention that Hillary's reference to "spade work" was a subtle attempt to play the race card against Obama? I'm not convinced, but like Fox says, I'll report and let you decide.
Fred, I also heard Dick Morris, who knows Hillary well, predict that if pressed Hillary would try subtly to tell voters that Obama's race would be a handicap in the general election. That someone who was their confidante would say that about the Clintons just shows how power-mad they are. They live for political power. Nothing else matters.
Hillary is sometimes compared to Margaret Thatcher, but the comparison is preposterous. Margaret Thatcher had ideas, not just ambition. And she was willing to do unpopular things, even to risk defeat, to do what she thought was in her country's interest.
Mrs. Clinton, like her husband, is driven largely by polls. She's a free trader when free trade is popular and a protectionist when it's not. She was for the Iraq war, before she was against it. And so on...
Mrs. Clinton is no Margaret Thatcher. It's difficult to imagine the latter weeping (whether faking it or not) just because she was having some electoral trouble. And Thatcher got to her position because of her own accomplishments, not her husband's.
And do we really want a President who cries? How much is *that* going to be respected by Islamic leaders? Zip, zilch, nada. As a woman, I am highly insulted by this "buy me something!" behavior.
Let's assume she faked it in the most cynical manner possible.
So what? Politicians fake emotions (or amplify their real emotions to a ludicrous degree) all the time.
If anyone really thinks that Obama really is feeling all the emotions he signals in every one of his speeches, then all I can say is please, please, pllleeeeeeaaaaasse, let's play some poker (I'll warn you (sniff) I'm not very good at it).
Hazel,
We already have a sitting president who cries (check the URL at my name below). And House Minority Leader John Boehner starts blubbering at the drop of a hat. I assume that bothers you, too ... right?
(But hey, maybe you do make a point -- Islamic leaders certainly don't respect the sitting president.)
I'd forgotten how completely irrational some people get at the very notion of Hillary Clinton. To the point that someone would actually give credence to something professional sleazeball Dick Morris says about the Clintons. (Here's a tip: the Clintons cut Morris loose after he was caught sucking a prostitute's toes. He's been bitter ever since. And when was the last time he was right about something, anyway?)
And to think, most of the same people who darkly accuse HRC of fake-crying, racism and God-knows-what-else (And she has lesbian affairs! And she killed Vince Foster!) have the dim-witted nerve to shriek "Bush Derangement Syndrome!" at anyone who opposes the current administration. The obtuseness, obliviousness and ignorance is breathtaking.
To paraphrase our Greatest Living American, it's a wonder some folks still know how to breathe.
"I'd forgotten how completely irrational some people get at the very notion of Hillary Clinton. To the point that someone would actually give credence to something professional sleazeball Dick Morris says about the Clintons."-WB
And I'd forgotten how far Clinton apologists will go to defend the indefensible. I don't care whether she cries. I care that she is corrupt. Dick Morris might be a "sleazeball," but what then does it say about the Clintons that he was their top adviser for a long time? Even Carville compared them to the mafia.
She might like to pretend that it is the fabled "vast right-wing conspiracy" that is brigning her down--but actually it's Democrats who are voting against her. They're the ones calling her "untrustworthy" and "calculating."
I can see that you're a Clinton flunky, Woody. but she's going down. Her past misdeeds are coming back to haunt her. Even Democrats have turned against her. It's no wonder she weeps.
Three cheers for Obama. He's gonna win.
the whole thing is completely narcissistic and consistent with why she's not likable. she's either crying or fake crying for her own loss, or for the nations loss of her great mind. either way, lame.
Actually, rwe, I rank HRC third among the top three Dem candidates, and in fact below others like Dodd, Biden and even Richardson. And I heartily endorse that last sentence of yours. But your powers of perception are pretty wan; to say I'm a "Clinton flunky" simply because I dare argue against idiotic, unfair, small-minded attacks on her? You know what happens when you assume - you make an ass out of you.
Now, if HRC does somehow win the nomination, I will swiftly and confidently vote for her over whoever emerges from the GOP Primary freak show. But I hope it doesn't come to that.
(Oh, and what Clinton employing Dick Morris says is that he knew he was going to have to work closely with the Republicans in Washington, so he wanted to get a scumbag's-eye view of what he was in for.)
One professional woman to another....
Hillary, cut it out. Really. If you must cry, make it for someone's baby who died of lack of health care, not because you're really, really tired. We're ALL really, really tired, but if I cry at work my credibility goes to zero. As yours has with me.
Woody, you're claiming that I'm worng about the Clintons. What did I say that was incorrect?
1)I argued that they were people who shifted in accordance with polls rather than inner conviction. That's pretty obvious now. Does anyone really doubt it? So Bill Clinton claimed really that he had been against the war from the start. Everyone knows it's a lie, except you apparently.
2)I also argued that the Clintons are corrupt. From Whitewater, to Travelgate, to selling the Lincoln Bedroom, to the Buddhist Temple, the shady pardons, and Norman Hsu, the Clintons reek of corruption. Vince Foster was apparently so ashamed of what he did for Mrs. Clinton in the travel office that he committed suicide.
Even Democrats gradually became disgusted with their tawdriness. As Senator Byrd put it, Clinton was
And as Time reported on the infamous Marc Rich pardon:
Care to defend the Marc Rich pardon, Woody? I didn't think so. Everyone knows that was corruption. You've lost the argument pal. Defending the indefensible is a losing proposition.
Thank you, Sunshine, the exact point I was trying to make.
I've lost the argument? The only argument I've made is that for a lot of people, the Clinton-hating virus has been dormant for a little while and it's now active again, working overtime in many cases. The rehash of the '90s is one of the reasons I won't vote for HRC until I have to. (The "eight years of peace and prosperity" part always gets forgotten, of course.) Just thinking about it has you quoting Robert Byrd, for crying out loud! Let's do this quick:
1. 'Whitewater' - this was a scandal only in the fevered minds of pinheads. Ken Starr spent millions and millions of tax dollars and found not a single shred of evidence of misdoing.
2. 'Travelgate' - They fired the WH travel crew and hired another. The horror! They get a point deducted for gracelessness.
3. 'Selling of the Lincoln Bedroom' - If this is what you're calling it, then every single president in recent memory, including GWB, has 'sold' the Lincoln Bedroom.
4. Buddhist temple - I thought we were talking about the Clintons. Save this one for your "Al Gore did NOT invent the Internet!" rant.
5. The shady pardons - Marc Rich's pardon was a terrible mistake! I disagreed completely with that move. I would be even more upset about it if he was the first president to issue "shady pardons" but he wasn't.
6. Norman Hsu - again, bad. I disapprove. He was a Democratic Party problem, though, not just one for the Clintons.
7. I'll give you another one - I thought Clinton manipulated Arkansas' death penalty for political purposes (Ricky Ray Rector).
Look at that - I can actually separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the Clintons. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and yet I don't agree with everything he said or did.
You should figure out why you're still so consumed with hatred for these two people when the current administration's unique blend of corruption and incompetence has completely eclipsed the bad things that happened during that eight years of peace and prosperity. The Clinton Administration looks like Camelot compared to the current lot. You should buy a set of encyclopedias that doesn't end in January 2001.
Your trackback URL doesn't work ...
I can come up with two reasons why Obama loses to/ties Clinton in NH:
1. Hillary cried.
2. In the privacy of the voting booth, many Americans will not vote for a black man.
Neither explanation reflects well on us as a nation. A less plausible reason, but what I would rather believe, is that with the polls putting Obama comfortably ahead, many independents chose to cast their vote for McCain, and that effect snowballed.
"but tarred as weak or hysterical at the first display of emotion."
Bizarre. Where does the idea that only women are expected not to display uncontrolled bursts of emotion come from? How did the electorate respond to Musky's tears? To Dean's scream?
Presidential candidates (or at least the male ones) are expected to demonstrate that they can remain calm and in control of themselves -- and for very good reason.
If Hillary Clinton actually did *gain* ground by showing weakness, then *that* really might be a sign of sexism.
Woody,
Do us a favor, explain Mena, AR to us..