I thought the Dean Scream brouhaha was beyond idiotic. If this affects her campaign similarly, it will be similarly beyond idiotic. And therefore completely unsurprising in a political campaign.
Daniel
The Dean Scream was nothing of the sort. It was a guy expressing emotion at a campaign rally and getting lambasted for it by the media. My point was that the media is equally ready to take distort displays of emotion for men and women (and a I reference Muskie).
Thanks for the cite.
I never doubted the existence of this perception. In fact, I think that’s what leads things into the catch-22.
Only if Hillary had let out a “YAAAAAAAAAAAACK” in the middle of her response. 
LilShieste
None of this changes the fact that the OP is a tool.
Nope: whenever a woman is in trouble, someone’s bound to pin the blame on sexism.
If it were in keeping with the person that people perceived him to be, then the media would never have made such a huge deal out of it. The fact is, it looked stupid because Howard Dean is not an overly demonstrative person. It looked contrived, and the media weren’t the only ones who thought so. Was it made a way bigger deal of than it should have been? Of course! But trying to say that two extreme responses by male politicians shows that it isn’t a gender issue when there are many, many others showing positive reactions by the media and the voting populace to a male candidate showing emotion is dismissing out of hand a very real issue.
Just like those women to play the gender card, ain’t it? They aren’t happy with anything.
I don’t think the Dean incident should be taken as evidence that this alleged “crack up” is par the course in politics. Dean’s scream was indeed a scream. A stupid mountain was made out it, but it wasn’t like he wasn’t screaming. He was…albeit in a setting that was more than appropriate for screaming.
But can we really we say Hillary cracked up here? That characterization smacks of sensationalized distortion to me. Again, I have to confess to not seeing the clip, but from what yall are saying, it doesn’t seem like she really even cried. “Cracking up” has certain connations. It makes me think of someone hysterically bawling their eyes out and turning into a blubbering, sobbing mess. Her voice cracking != her cracking up.
I doubt if Hillary was a man, the media would have been so eager to blow this out of proportion. Call me paranoid, but I get the sense that a lot of people who are uncomfortable with a woman as president have been sitting back, just waiting for Hillary to give them an excuse to dismiss her as too weak and emotional. Today they got their wish. None of the other candidates are under that kind of scrutiny.
I’m not dismissing anything out of hand. I’m using historical evidence to back up my point. Under your own reasoning there are two possibilities: this display of emotion fits some media narrative or they’re being sexist. Why not the former?
Why not both?
LilShieste
Could be. Just doesn’t strike me as obviously sexist given the history.
I thought I’d answered that. As I said; it was completely out of character for Dean. And once again; showing passion or an emotional response does not have to equate to wild bursts of emotion. Kennedy’s “Ich Bein Ein Berliner!” Churchill’s famous “We will fight them on the beaches” speech. Reagan’s insistence that Mr. Gorbechev “Tear down this wall!”
Passion and emotion works, if it’s in keeping with the politician showing the emotion. But for someone who is seen as laid back, unflappable and yes, emotionless, letting out a scream is going to get more than passing scrutiny.
Well, let me try the question from a different angle, then. Why is it perceived to be a bad thing for Hillary and Nancy Pelosi to be calculating, driven politicians?
You don’t need to convince me that there are double standards for female politicians. It’s no different from any other workplace where openly ambitious women are perceived negatively. I just don’t think this one media incident is an example of such a double standard. I think your best argument would be that Hillary’s steely persona is crafted to deal with gender stereotypes and this is only a story because of that persona. In that way there is a gender connection. But it’s pretty remote. Again, all IMHO. I see where you’re coming from and above all agree that this is a non-incident.
[Moderator Hat ON]
treis, squeegee, you know that calling someone a “tool” is not allowed in this forum. Drop it or take it to the pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
This puzzles me. One would assume that Sen. Clinton wants to win the nomination and the presidency. One assumes further that she has worked and is presently working to those ends.
Then she is dealt a sharp blow. She sees years of ambition and desire, years of toil and trouble, slipping away. I’d be emotional too, if I were her. Perhaps that’s all it was: a genuine moment of despair.
Is she cold and calculating? That, I don’t know. Is she assumed to be cold and calculating because she wants this so badly? I’m not a “fan” of hers, but on the other hand, I haven’t paid a lot of attention to her, either.
I remember once long ago hearing someone express shock that a politician had voted for himself. My word, if a person wants an office and is nominated for that office and stands for election, and then doesn’t vote for himself, what is he saying?
It’s going to be an interesting year, at any rate.
I think the whole “likeability” issue is unfortunate. I’d prefer a person who is strong and tough, and who will get things done, and of course who wants the same things done that I do.
Some of our less successful presidents have been decent, caring, honest, wonderful people, and also completely ineffective. See: Jimmy Carter.
Margaret Thatcher was most definitely female, and she was one tough gal. The only thing I do like about Hillary is that she is probably devious and scheming enough to do the necessary arm-twisting to accomplish something. I dislike her for other reasons.
Totally agree with that.
I don’t think it’s this “one media incident” which brings it out as a stereotype; it’s just yet another example of the catch 22 I mentioned earlier.
I’ve got to give the media credit for the blazing speed with which they’ve gotten around to trying to torpedo Clinton’s candidacy using irrelevant shit. You’d think she’d bitten the head off a chicken.
I think I’m more apt to support her after this. I was getting tired of the steely bitch act. Obama’s a nice guy, clearly as sharp as Clinton, and probably a bit more principled, but he looks to me like another Jimmy Carter waiting to happen.
All those years of pretending to be a Yankee fan… all those wasted nights pretending she wanted to be Senator from New York and wasn’t planning on running for President… sniffle.
There’s nothing wrong with your point, vison, if she’s being genuinely emotional I can totally understand that. Even John Kerry got a little misty during his concession speech, you could tell he was giving up on a lifelong dream.
What?!
Whatever his real character is, it was exactly in the narrative of Dean. THAT’S partly why it played so hard on him. People were afraid that he was a wild man who would be unpresidential.
As to HRC … agreed, that was no breakdown. That was showing that she really is a real person who really does care. Not enough to make me like her but it helps me dislike her less!