Eh. I don’t have a problem with her getting a little emotional. I see it as a strength rather than a weakness. I want my candidates to have some humanity, after all. Hillary has good reason to be frustrated and upset, as she is dealing with a lot of rejection and a lot of fatigue right now. She’s still my third choice, but this episode actually improves her standing in my eyes.
(And showing emotion is a catch-22 for Hillary.)
Agreed. It’s really frustrating that this is the kind of bullshit the media chooses to seize on.
Unfortunately the “Hillary Cracks” Headline has already reached Global News Outlets and will only hurt her campaign. I say unfortunately because this type of “tearing up” is almost universally thought of as over emotional [not good or bad]. Gender aside, it takes a rational person to look past the tears to the woman behind them. Do you really think society at large is going to over look something so seemingly inoccuous?
I haven’t seen a video of her “tearing up”, but the thought doesn’t make me feel sympathetic towards her. It just makes me think of someone who is thinking “Crap! I’m not going to win!” and being upset about it.
Cold and calculating people have emotions, too. Doesn’t mean they ain’t cold and calculating.
Here’s the thing, though - if her campaign was riding high she’d be able to overcome this easily with just a shrug. Really.
But because it isn’t, it’s just one more thing for people who don’t like her to talk about, and that can be fatal with her slipping as she currently is.
Obama has so far survived numberless similar things - it is because he feels that whoever votes against him isn’t doing so because they dislike him. Hillary doesn’t have that luxury, and it is because she is, by and large, pretty unlikeable.
I was with you til this bit. It’s just my opinion, but I’ve always considered that explanation to be something of a copout. Many, many countries have had female leaders, including the ones we point to and say “They’ll think we’re weak!” I believe we (or at least, certain factions of “we”) would see ourselves as weak were we to have a female President.
I was pointing this out to the sweetie the other day. During an open forum in NH, a gentleman from Ireland stood and thanked her for “coming over with her husband to help with the peace talks in Ireland.” (yes, yes, Hillary haters, I’m sure he was planted) In her response, she was heartfelt and passionate, and I was reminded of why I was such a strong supporter when she was first lady. She wasn’t calculating or shrill, she simply spoke from the heart about watching the Irish people get past stereotypes. Was good, I think. We need to see more of that from her.
And of course, the press played NO part in that incident. And since that time, no male candidate has ever shown his emotion to his advantage in the polling booths. :rolleyes: yourself.
Well, you didn’t. 
I found your use of “finally” interesting. Makes it sound like you’d been scrutinizing her emotions in the last few days, waiting for a break the same way the cameras have been.
Well that’s what I said, or at least what I meant to say. Of course I don’t believe a woman is weaker than a man. I believe the perception would be that a female leader would be weaker, and we don’t need that perception.
If only there were someone in the running - either side - who was leadership material. I’m so disappointed with the entire system.
OK, I just watched it. Meh…people call that crying? Its not even worth the time it took me to look it up. She wasn’t crying or tearing up, she was probably just tired.
Yes, that’s exactly the point! You - and others - perceive her as “unlikeable,” but if she were a man using the same words, the same inflections, the same attitudes, etc., she would not be perceived that way.
Besides, why must a candidate be “likeable?” These people aren’t applying for the position of “New Best Friend.” Given that we are never, ever going to know any of them personally, what does it matter if we like them? Give me someone I can respect any day.
If you’re going to tear up on a question, “how do you do it every day” seems like a weird choice, fake no not. I could see one about a dead relative or something, but about how passionate you are about running the country? Odd.
I don’t know about all that. I’m a woman and I don’t find Hillary very “likeable” either, and I don’t think it’s because of self-hate. There’s something about her style that doesn’t invite me to trust her.
I agree with most people in this thread. This is a non-issue, and the OP is a tool.
This was the Clinton campaign’s response when she was criticized during a debate last fall:
*"The morning after last week’s debate, Sen. Clinton’s campaign issued a video called “Pile On” that featured each of her male rivals calling her name the night before. Then, at Wellesley College, she joked about presidential politics being an “all-boys club,” and campaign surrogates suggested that sexism was behind the criticism.
Only then did Clinton herself say it wasn’t her gender but her lead in the Democratic race that had led to the intensified criticism."*
Bill Clinton has jumped in to compare criticism of Hillary to the “Swift boating” of John Kerry and to suggest that her rivals’ comments represent a continuation of the “16 years” of the Republican “attack machine” against her.
Shameless.
Don’t think that Hillary’s handlers haven’t taken note of negative impressions of her among Iowa voters, including the perception that she is cold and calculating:
“A recent poll by the Des Moines Register rated voters’ impressions of the candidates. The survey showed that Hillary Clinton was seen as more “ego-driven” and “negative” than any of the contenders and less likable than her two main rivals, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.”
My take on this latest fluff is that her handlers have been urging her to show some emotion (but not too much) and humanize herself in the eyes of New Hampshire voters.
Thanx :rolleyes:
If people were just deciding she was “unlikeable” based on today’s events, maybe. I won’t say her gender is a non-issue, because for many people I think it’s at least some kind of a factor. But it’s not as if a male politician with her characteristics would automatically be likeable.
:rolleyes: What’s really unfortunate is that, if this does become a big deal, people will look at this the way they do at the Dean thing. “Oh, Hillary would have won if the sexist media hadn’t made a big deal about her crying!” Overlooking the fact that polls already say she’s going to lose by about 10 percent.
What, the pile-on? Yeah, it is. Because as everyone knows, all you have to do is insult a woman long enough and she’ll eventually crack. And then you can taunt her for being a, y’know, “woman.”
Oh, you mean “shameless” that the Clinton camp actually pointed it out? Yes, she should’ve just taken it like a man, I guess…Oh, wait! But then she’d be a cold, calculating bitch who isn’t even …hm. This seems to be going in circles, doesn’t it?
I just watched the video, and that’s supposed to be cracking up and breaking down and crying? She was very slightly emotional. She wasn’t even really emotional, just a bit. I’m not a Hillary fan at all, but that bit is in no way impressive or indicative of any sort of ‘crackup.’
This strikes me as an odd response to the comparison to Howard Dean. Doesn’t the Dean Scream (or the Muskie incident) show that this isn’t about gender?
No, the Dean Scream shows a remarkable lack of good judgment. It was completely out of character for him; that’s why it went over like a ton of irradiated lead.
Reagan played the “compassionate, heartfelt” card from day one; it worked for him. Bush was so “sympathetic,” people were lining up to say how they’d like to have a beer with him. It was his selling point, fercryinoutloud. Bill Clinton is very good at motivating people emotionally. Showing passion about an issue and being heartfelt =/= blubbering emotional mess. There are ways of showing emotion without being stupid about it or perceived as a wimp.