[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
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]
[/QUOTE]
The way she recovered, it looked fake to me. And even if it wasn’t fake, it was a sign of weakness. A poor show.
What, no comments about the Senator’s cleavage? Speculation on her menstrual cycle being the cause of her vapors?
Shall we wonder if McCain’s circumcision affects his judgement? Or how Giuliani is unhinged because of he can’t keep his fly closed, which must be compensation for, well, you know, some men are in denial of their manly crushes.
What an utterly asinine, obnoxious, stupid, and insulting thread this is.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
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.
[/QUOTE]
But remember the Clinton-Wallace interview? When Bill was accused of “losing it” when fighting back? I think this is 90% the media being assholes, but they pick up on sexist stereotypes to do it.
I’ve seen losing it. Many times. Done it myself, too. I know what losing it is, and so do the rest of you.
She wasn’t even on the same planet as losing it. She is on the same planet as partisan media hacks looking for code words for sexism.
[QUOTE=squeegee]
What, no comments about the Senator’s cleavage? Speculation on her menstrual cycle being the cause of her vapors?..
[/QUOTE]
What mentrual cycle? :rolleyes: This coverage of Clinton getting “emotional” is beyond absurd.
[QUOTE=Commonsense]
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.
[/QUOTE]
We just had a Pit thread about the whole “if happened, [y]'s would do [z]” argument. A lot of argument there if making that kind of hypothetical comparison was valid.
Anyway, as for the subject of this thread, I agree it’s overblown, but I don’t think the two instances of emotion people are talking about are necessarily as disconnected as they say. They both stem from the same impetus: the loss in Iowa and the polls in general.
ETA: So far, the mentions I’ve seen of this that are negative have focused on perceived insincerity; like Hillary’s some kind of cold, ambition-fueled robot whose every move and public display is pre-planned and calculated. Could that be a function of sexism? Quite possibly - her husband was certainly accused of pandering a lot, but this is somewhat different.
[QUOTE=Commonsense]
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.
[/quote]
No.
I haven’t decided who to vote for, but if I was listening to anybody speak and, in the same context, their voice “cracked” or “broke” (or whatever adjective is acceptable to folks posting in this thread) I would have a serious “WTF was that?” moment.
And yes policies are important, but so is persona. One of the reasons I’ve disliked Bush is that his public speaking style sucks. Our country’s leader has to be, in many ways, a symbol. They have to be able to rally the nation with ‘fireside chats’, they have to be able to project our image and our values to nations they interact with. Character is important to me, if not as important as politics.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
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.”
[/quote]
I can’t tell if this is a woosh or not. Are you seriously saying that any woman, at all, if insulted long enough, will crack? Personally I can’t picture Golda Meir or Thatcher acting in such a way, at least in public.
And quite frankly, man or woman, I want a candidate who can not only weather the comparatively minor bullshit of the stump, but also the major pressure of having their each and every decision scrutinized by an entire global audience. I expect whoever leads the country, man or woman, to be human and have their moments of doubt and frailty, but I also expect them to have the strength of character to have those moments in private and to be able to project strength and confidence when dealing with the public.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
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.
[/QUOTE]
In character or not, Dean’s scream sunk him because it made him sound like he was going out of his mind on stage. Passion and emotion work just fine, and if Clinton had said with strength and conviction that she saw things wrong with this country and was going to fix them, that’d have been good (in my view at least). But any candidate, man or woman, who looks like they’re on the edge of tears while talking about how troubled the country is?
I thought she was post-menopausal.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah - if.
But think about it this way - if she wasn’t being genuine, then surprise, surprise, the ice bitch is trying to manipulate the voters by pretending to be human.
Or maybe she is being genuine.
Her husband gets caught cheating on her. She doesn’t cry.
Her business partners go to prison. No choking up.
Her law partner blows his own brains out. Not a tear.
But she loses a primary, and she gets all misty-eyed.
Gosh, how touching. I’m getting the all-over shivers here.
Regards,
Shodan
I thought this show of emotion would help her. After all, one of the complaints about her has been that she’s cold and calculating. I watched and was convinced even more that she really cares about the country and is tired and frustrated but determined. Have I always been a Hilllary supporter? Well, yes and no. I like Obama. I’m sure he’s sincere and wants to help the poor and middle class, but then I watch the debates, and again I’m convinced that Hillary knows her shit, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. She’s specific; she has experience dealing with other countries. Obama, for all his compassion and desire to do good, will need loyal, honest, knowledgeable advisers and cabinet members, but acquiring those people and assimilating the knowledge and determining policies and plans takes time. Hillary can hit the ground running. I hate it that Iowa and N. H. have so much influence.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
But think about it this way - if she wasn’t being genuine, then surprise, surprise, the ice bitch is trying to manipulate the voters by pretending to be human.
Or maybe she is being genuine.
Her husband gets caught cheating on her. She doesn’t cry.
Her business partners go to prison. No choking up.
Her law partner blows his own brains out. Not a tear.
But she loses a primary, and she gets all misty-eyed.
Gosh, how touching. I’m getting the all-over shivers here.
[/QUOTE]
Well, damn. She may have lost Shodan’s vote over this.
I think the point of this thread is to show that a small, almost imperceptible gesture of appearing to choke up is having a huge impact. And the media hacks who jumped on it made it spread like wild fire. I posted one thread on one message board and it’s got 1400 views in a few hours. Gloablly the world sees that she f*cked up…would it be just as bad if she were a man, absolutely, we know what happened to others in the same position as her.
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Well, damn. She may have lost Shodan’s vote over this.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I know lots of people with impeccable liberal and feminist records that do not like and trust Hillary Clinton. Moreover, several people fitting this description post here.
I’m inclined to think they have good reasons for feeling the way that they do.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
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.”
[/QUOTE]
The election process gives voters the opportunity to see how candidates deal with pressure and stress. Not only did her voice crack multiple times she made it worse with her own words: **If you see me every day and if you look on some of the websites and listen to some of the commentators they always find me on the day I didn’t have help. ** Her wavering voice is a self-narrated show of weakness to criticism that requires help.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
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?
[/QUOTE]
No, she should take it like a world leader.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Well, I know lots of people with impeccable liberal and feminist records that do not like and trust Hillary Clinton. Moreover, several people fitting this description post here.
I’m inclined to think they have good reasons for feeling the way that they do.
[/QUOTE]
So I take it that this incident has also turned you against her? This must indeed be a major campaign crisis, when her most vocal supporters are abandoning her in droves!
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Her husband gets caught cheating on her. She doesn’t cry.
Her business partners go to prison. No choking up.
Her law partner blows his own brains out. Not a tear.
[/QUOTE]
Who knew Shodan had the secret Clinton White House tapes? :eek:
[QUOTE=Shodan]
But think about it this way - if she wasn’t being genuine, then surprise, surprise, the ice bitch is trying to manipulate the voters by pretending to be human.
Or maybe she is being genuine.
Her husband gets caught cheating on her. She doesn’t cry.
Her business partners go to prison. No choking up.
Her law partner blows his own brains out. Not a tear.
But she loses a primary, and she gets all misty-eyed.
[/QUOTE]
I say “if” because the rest of this is beyond the bounds of my interest. I assume you’re getting the rest of this from books?
Does what she did really qualify as crying or losing it? Maybe. I don’t care, I can’t be sure, and even if I could it’s unlikely to affect my opinion of her.
Is it genuine or calculated? Maybe. I don’t care and can’t know for sure about that either.
Even if it’s true that she’s bawling about this and not those other things… what’s it really say about her character? Nothing concrete, but more than enough to confirm whatever people already think about her.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Gloablly the world sees that she f*cked up
[/QUOTE]
Really?
Consider: Before this uncharacteristic display of emotion, the story line in N.H. was Obama’s surge to a big lead in the polls, his chance at establishing firm frontrunner status after the first two big tests of the campaign, with Clinton and Edwards slugging it out for second place and the chance to stay viable.
Now, the headline story is Hillary Caring Enough To Show Her Human Side, and whether this will hurt her at the ballot box.
Is she really worse off than she was when the day began?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I can’t tell if this is a woosh or not.
[/quote]
Was, yes. I was going for sarcasm. I missed. Sorry about that.
No. Again, was being sarcastic about the whole idea that any politician would react a certain way to being piled upon based solely on their gender.
Sure. Pretty much my point. My question is why does Hillary’s strength of character and confidence translate to “cold, manipulative bitch,” while at the same time is seen as “breaking down” when showing appreciation and warmth to someone who asks how she does it every day?
As I said upthread, Hillary is divisive. It’s the only reason she isn’t getting my vote. People either love or hate her. But regardless of whether we are talking about Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Condi Rice, or Eleanor Roosevelt, the plain fact is there is a yardstick for female politicians that is used more frequently than for male politicians. There is a narrow band of emotions that is allowed in politics. And it’s even narrower for women. One cannot show “strength of character” without being viewed as cold and shrill. One cannot show warmth and compassion without being viewed as weak. It’s a fine line to walk.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Her husband gets caught cheating on her. She doesn’t cry.
Her business partners go to prison. No choking up.
Her law partner blows his own brains out. Not a tear.
But she loses a primary, and she gets all misty-eyed.
[/QUOTE]
The difference, of course, is that she didn’t give public statements immediately after these three events in which she was asked a direct question about her feelings about them.
Daniel
I think the point is getting a bit lost, at times.
I think people want EVERY politician to show emotion, at least generally. We just want it to occupy a certain band.
Dean’s scream was overplayed. But you kinda have to admit that a rebel yell doesn’t go well with independents and undecideds… it makes you look… kinda extreme - even IN context.
Flip side: Dukakis got taken to task for not showing ENOUGH emotion at the prospect of his wife being raped (capital punishment question).
We want emotion. Just… not TOO much. We want humans in office.
If Hillary had run, from the start, as a compassionate but firm centrist… and if she established a sympathetic role while in better standing in the polls… this might play VERY differently.
She didn’t.
I think we want a narrow band of emotional feeling from every candidate. I think that band is narrower for women. Is that right? No. Is it fair? No. Is it how things work right now…?
Apparently, yes. But I don’t like admitting it.
The press is already trying to correct their hyper-response… but it may be too little, too late.