Well, I’m no sadist but someone has to bring it up. Hillary finally broke down today at a roundtable event where a woman in the back asked her how she get’s up and does it everyday. [meaning campaigning]
I’ll not link to it now but if you go to any news agency they are reporting it and I must say, even though my vote will not be for Clinton, I do feel for her. I can only imagine how this will affect her campaign. Already people are calling her unfit for the presidency and that showing a little humaness is fine but this type of emotion shouldn’t be entered into this type of political race.
Looking at people responding to the blogs and reports of Clinton’s choking up people are already all over it. It looks to me like the beginning of the end.
“Broke down”? “Broke down”? Her voice got a little high pitched and she finally spoke from her actual heart, instead of her Ms. Perky perky mannequin soldier persona.
Tears? Maybe, I couldn’t see any. Certainly not a single one slid down or even marred her makeup in the slightest. She didn’t wipe an eye, or bring her hand to her face or even pause in her speech.
“Break down”. Yeah.
This is going to be her “unhinged roar”. The media is going to crucify her and dispose of her. There you go. Maybe she and Howard Dean can get together over lattes and practice having emotions together.
And see, I find this totally unfair. Being passionate and showing emotion are considered good things in male candidates, but it’s a catch-22 situation for any female candidate. Any show of emotion is considered proof of her being a “typical weak female” who can’t handle the stress, but not showing emotion renders her a cold, feelingless bitch.
I’m not supporting Hillary in this run (she’d be too divisive, and we’ve already had 8 years of divisive), but it seems that for a female to be a viable candidate, she has yet another ruler by which male candidates aren’t really measured.
Yes, it does seem to be a planted Narrative these last couple of days.
First we have Hillary “losing it” or even “melting down” in the debate two days ago.
Now we have another, different event, with the same Narrative – Hillary is “cracking”.
So apparently we’ll be treated to Hillary being nuts, out of control, apeshit, blah blahblah blahblah as the plan for the next couple of days. Hillary == Howard Dean == Craazy Cindy Sheehan == one of those dirty hippy fugnutz.
This is one of my pet peeves. A woman in any sphere can be super intelligent, totally competent and a born leader, but if she isn’t perceived as “nice” and “womanly” she is rejected on all levels.
Agreed. Hillary is not a viable candidate. For so many reasons, the US needs a STRONG leader now and the country is not ready for a woman, who would of course be perceived (and perception counts for so much) as weak. There is also the perceived liability of the man she’s married to in so many people’s minds.
If a male candidate is slightly emotional it’s a plus, because he’s “in touch with his feminine side.” If a female candidate is emotional she’s verging on hysteria. If a male candidate is strong and serious it’s a plus. If a female candidate exhibits exactly the same characteristics she’s a scary bitch.
You can’t blame Philosphr for this, he’s reacting to something that’s going to get talked about no matter what. But whoever said “narrative” first is right. This morning, the New York Post was saying she was nuts because apparently she showed some anger, or at least energy, in her speech. Tonight or tomorrow, somebody will be calling her nuts because she showed a minor hint of some other emotion. (The Post says “Hillary Lets Her Guard Down” It fits with the idea of Hillary as surprised and failing around after Iowa, so everybody’s going to run with it.
I really hope this doesn’t happen, because that would be real cheap and nasty. I haven’t even seen the clip (can’t view from my work computer), but this has molehill made into a mountain written all over it.
But for reason, I could see this working in Hillary’s favor, though. If the media jump on Hillary and attempt to tear out her throat like a pack of hyenas over this, it’ll galvanize support from women who are sensitive to the anti-female scrutiny that she is under. If she handles it well, she’ll come out looking like a sympathetic figure.
I can’t view the link from work either but did read the article this morning when it first came out. Actually, this makes me think a little better of her despite the fact I’ve never cared for her at all before. She’s seemed cold and calculating, so this side if anything touches me a bit to see, even wrt her as a candidate.
There are any number of reasons I won’t vote for Hillary but this isn’t one of them.
Uh, “showing emotion” didn’t help Ed Muskie a whole lot in 1968.
Rather than speculating about Hillary’s “outburst” as a weakness, I’d be more inclined to view it as a cold and calculated response by a candidate who has not hesitated previously to play (or have her husband play) the “I’m-just-a-poor-woman-and-you-men-are-picking-on-me” card.
Maybe she and her campaign gurus decided it was time to drop the machine-like efficient image and show us what a warm and passionate person she really is. :rolleyes:
The video makes her look a lot more appealing, IMO. She’s commonly criticized for her lack of sincerity, but this proves she has some. I hope people actually watch the video instead of merely reading the “Hilary Cracks” headlines.
I think this demonstrates Maureen’s catch-22 comment, as well. If she had made these comments without showing any emotion, it too would reinforce the preconceived notion that she is “cold and calculating”.
I support Obama but I’m saying “way overblown” on the Clinton story. I just watched the video without speakers and, even looking for it, couldn’t see her eyes well up or anything similar. If I didn’t know what the video was, I’d never watch it muted and say “Oh, that’s her starting to cry.”