Clinton finally tears up and almost cracks: What will it do for her campaign?

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Maureen]
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.
[/quote]

But I think part of the point is that, man or woman, reacting in such a manner to the pile-on is a sign of weakness. Now, maybe I’m missing something, and I’d be happy to admit if I’m wrong… but I don’t believe that Churchill was close to tears at any point when talking about how hard it was to endure the Blitz. Or that Lincoln was choked up at the Gettysburg address. Or that Golda Meir was close to tears when contemplating what to do about women being raped.

I am sure that some people hold Clinton to a double standard. But you don’t seem to be allowing the possibility that some of us hold her to a completely consistent standard. am I wrong?

[QUOTE=Maureen]

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?
[/quote]

I think you need to look at her as an individual rather than an exemplar of ‘womanhood’, or what have you. Her behavior may be seen by some as her being a cold manipulative bitch because of her history. She is seen, rightly or wrongly, often viewed as sticking with a son of a bitch of a husband in order to further her political career. Personally I see her as a cynically political beast primarily because of her decision to become elected representative of my home state, a state that she had pretty much no connection to and only represented in order to get a shot at the title, so to speak. Also some of her actions in NY, like helping to exclude third party candidates from debating, really raise my hackles.

I also didn’t see her showing “appreciation and warmth”. I saw a person (doesn’t matter if they have a Y chromosome or not) on the edge of tears when asked a fairly simple question. One of two possibilities exists. She really was that emotionally chocked up, which is a strong negative in my eyes, man or woman. Or she was conniving, which is worse.

[QUOTE=Maureen]

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]

I’m not sure that this is true at all. Particularly as I would find Clinton’s behavior here to be a negative in any candidate, no matter what their gender, I am immediately and powerfully skeptical of the degree to which your claims are accurate. Do you claim that the ‘narrow band’ of allowable emotions, that you say is thinner for women, is a belief held by 99% of Americans? 51%? 25% All of the MSM? Most of the MSM?

That there are some sexists who will view Clinton’s actions as validating their sexism is, of course, true. I’m just not sure that such a sexist double standard actually informs national politics. Or am I reading you wrong, is that not your claim?

82

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I’m not sure that this is true at all. Particularly as I would find Clinton’s behavior here to be a negative in any candidate, no matter what their gender, I am immediately and powerfully skeptical of the degree to which your claims are accurate. Do you claim that the ‘narrow band’ of allowable emotions, that you say is thinner for women, is a belief held by 99% of Americans? 51%? 25% All of the MSM? Most of the MSM?
[/QUOTE]

And see, I don’t think I’d find it unacceptable in any candidate. If I did, I have to confess it would weird me out a lot more if, for example, Rudy Giuliani got choked up when talking about the strains of the campaign trail. And can you imagine the hooting laughter that would have occurred if John Edwards had had the same emotion-laden intonation?

It wouldn’t be fair, but if there’s a double standard here, I’d argue that it’s working in Clinton’s favor.

Daniel

83

Good point Daniel, to an extent. I’m always wary of ascribing motives/thoughts/feelings to a large group of people without hard data to back me up.

It’s also hard for me to get away from context here… if Giuliani got all chocked up while being asked about his campaigning? To be honest it would weird me out more, but not because he’s a man. It’s because of how I still think of him after his term as ball-busting mayor from hell (and one of the few calm voices I remember right after 9/11) while I was living in Manhattan. Seeing someone like that on the verge of tears from campaigning?

But it’d still be a negative for me were any candidate to engage in such behavior.
Still, there might actually be a double standard that is causing some folks to be judging Clinton less harshly than they would a man who also appeared to be close to tears. And a double standard that is causing some people to view her more negatively than a man who would be allowed such emotional latitude. Personally I suspect that you’re more on the ball than Maureen, as there seem to be a stronger cultural bias against men crying than against female politicians showing a softer side… but I confess that I have no data to back that up and it’s just a hunch.

Personally I’d love to see an in depth statistical study of 1000+ randomly selected individuals. I’m not comfortable making any sweeping generalizations about the American public/media without more data, however. Arguments from anecdote are notoriously unreliable.

84

Okay, I finally watch the clip. I’m even more convinced that this is being overhyped and overanalyzed because of sexism.

People have been waiting for bated breath for any sign of feminine weakness in Hillary. And this is it? I mean, let us suppose that no male candidate could have it in them to show the kind of emotion that she had in that one little poignant moment. Are we really supposed to take this as proof of weakness unbefitting of the Presidency?

If I had to choose between the bull-headed, small-dick-compensating machismo that has governed this country for the last century and Hillary’s kind of “weakness”, give me crybaby HRC anyday.

85

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Okay, I finally watch the clip. I’m even more convinced that this is being overhyped and overanalyzed because of sexism.

People have been waiting for bated breath for any sign of feminine weakness in Hillary. And this is it? I mean, let us suppose that no male candidate could have it in them to show the kind of emotion that she had in that one little poignant moment. Are we really supposed to take this as proof of weakness unbefitting of the Presidency?

If I had to choose between the bull-headed, small-dick-compensating machismo that has governed this country for the last century and Hillary’s kind of “weakness”, give me crybaby HRC anyday.
[/QUOTE]

I agree that it’s overhyped and overanalyzed, and I could even see sexism as playing a part (inasmuch as crying is all girly-like and we don’t want our president to be a girlyman). I’m not convinced that it’s a double standard, though: as I said, if X did Y, you would say Z. Er, I mean, if a male politician choked up, I suspect a lot of people would freak out a lot more than they currently are. When Clinton acts all girly, it’ll confirm folks’ prejudices that she’s just the sort of girlygirl that we don’t want as a president. I suspect that if Edwards acted all girly, those same folks would call him a total girlyman, which is way worse than being a girlygirl.

If you follow. The whole thing, I think, is pretty stupid, and what sexism there is is the sexism that leads us to consider traditionally feminine behavior (e.g., reacting to stress by displaying non-angry emotion) as weakness.

Daniel

86

I had been hearing for most of the day about “Hillary’s Breakdown[sup]TM[/sup]”, and then I heard the actual tape on the way home from work. I kept waiting for the sobbing, the cracking voice, the sniffling of tears…

Didn’t happen.

Nothing happened.

I tell ya, the left-wing media (also [sup]TM[/sup]) had better start getting its target straight. What’s a guy to think when Huckabee is getting treated better than the former front-runner?

87

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]

If you follow. The whole thing, I think, is pretty stupid, and what sexism there is is the sexism that leads us to consider traditionally feminine behavior (e.g., reacting to stress by displaying non-angry emotion) as weakness.

[/QUOTE]

And here I thought that the sexism was in considering displays of weakness (e.g. reacting to stress by almost crying in public) as a feminine sort of behavior. :smiley:

88

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Er, I mean, if a male politician choked up, I suspect a lot of people would freak out a lot more than they currently are.
[/quote]

Well, I don’t agree, if only for the fact that this wouldn’t have been amplified to the same extent and broadcast in headline news. I just can’t imagine the media rapidly descending on the scene like a pack of carrion birds if it was a man, because they haven’t been waiting for it to happen like they have been with Hillary. Maybe something like this would earn John Edwards a scoffing from the peanut gallery, but his teariness wouldn’t be characterized in the same way. I’m talking about the “finally cracking up” meme. Emphasis on the finally.

89

[QUOTE=spoke-]
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.)
[/QUOTE]

Surely you didn’t catch – without missing a beat – how right after the much-publicized affair she launched into an implicit (well, she didn’t say his name if that can be called “implicit”) personal attack on Obama…without missing a beat. From teary to bitch without the need to come up for air.

Never mind that later on in the day she used fear-mongering tactics right out of Rove’s playbook: ‘I am the only that can really protect you from OBL. Remember what happened when Tony Blair left office.’ Which I might add, only reflect the sheer panic her campaign is in. Up shit-creek w/out a paddle is what.

Sympathy my butt.

Where’s the puke smilie when one is needed?

90

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I am sure that some people hold Clinton to a double standard. But you don’t seem to be allowing the possibility that some of us hold her to a completely consistent standard. am I wrong?
[/quote]

I think so, yes. It just isn’t the standard currently under discussion. As I said, she’s divisive. I’m not naive enough to think that the sole basis of that divisiveness is her gender.

Again; this is my entire point. I don’t believe she’s being judged as an individual by a lot of people, and I do think her gender is in play. Whether we want to admit it or not, it’s going to be an issue. She’s the first serious female contender for POTUS. Gender is going to be brought up, and it’s going to be scrutinized.

It is my claim, yes. And I’m sure there are some, like you, who use different yard sticks. But when the media has made no secret that her gender IS an issue, I think the question is largely academic.

91

[QUOTE=Maureen]
I think so, yes. It just isn’t the standard currently under discussion. As I said, she’s divisive. I’m not naive enough to think that the sole basis of that divisiveness is her gender.
[/quote]

Cool.

[QUOTE=Maureen]

Again; this is my entire point. I don’t believe she’s being judged as an individual by a lot of people, and I do think her gender is in play. Whether we want to admit it or not, it’s going to be an issue. She’s the first serious female contender for POTUS. Gender is going to be brought up, and it’s going to be scrutinized.
[/quote]

This is my problem with what you’re saying, I guess. Is it possible, even highly probable that there are some sexists who are making their judgments based on sexism? Absolutely.
Are they a significant percentage, a majority, a minority, a lunatic fringe? Honestly I haven’t seen any data that would let me conclude anything in specific. Do you have any cites on this issue?

[QUOTE=Maureen]

It is my claim, yes. And I’m sure there are some, like you, who use different yard sticks. But when the media has made no secret that her gender IS an issue, I think the question is largely academic.
[/QUOTE]

Has it? I’ve not been following the buzz surrounding the campaigns so much as various candidates’ platforms. And I haven’t even been doing that all that much, as I’m not registered in any important primary states. Can you elaborate or provide a few cites of media bias? I have heard, for instance, that some reporters have focused on Clinton’s physique… but they’ve also made Huckabee’s weight loss into a national story, unless I miss my guess. Can you flesh out what you’re talking about WRT the media?

92

[QUOTE=Jolly Roger]
Cold and calculating people have emotions, too. Doesn’t mean they ain’t cold and calculating.
[/QUOTE]

Ya know, there are times when I want the “Leader of the ‘Free’ World” to actually be cold and calculating. In fact, many times. I don’t want a President who will be touchy-feely with terrorists, or leaders of other countries, or congress, or even with opponents in this campaign. And I also want a President to be openly emotional when it’s appropriate. I’ve never been a fan of HRC, but this criticism is totally bogus.

93

[QUOTE=you with the face]
I just can’t imagine the media rapidly descending on the scene like a pack of carrion birds if it was a man, because they haven’t been waiting for it to happen like they have been with Hillary.
[/QUOTE]

It would be much worse if it were a man, because “men aren’t supposed to cry.” Edmund Muskie was drummed out of the 1972 primaries after a similar episode.

94

Hillary makes me think of an old cartoon by Jules Pfeiffer. It depicts a man morphing to conform to each friend or acquaintance he meets. If it’s a conservative, well-dressed businessman, he adopts the appearance and manner of a conservative, well-dressed businessman; if he meets a beatnik, he adopts the look and manner of a beatnik; if he meets a loudly-dressed, vulgar party animal, he adopts that guise. Then one day he’s walking down the street and encounters all his friends in one group. He frantically flashes from one guise to the other, and then to another and then another, over and over again until finally the encounter is over and his friends move on, leaving him panting and exhausted and more than a little panic-stricken, wondering what the hell everyone thinks of him now. This is what Hillary is having to contend with now, and it’s one of the reasons why a lot of people don’t like her.

Additionally, she has such an abhorrent record of pandering to different groups that, in order to keep from having her previous statements come back to haunt her, she’s adopted the strategy of not giving a straight answer on anything if she can possibly help it, and she’s cut out virtually all opportunity for questions from both the press and the groups she’s speaking to. Thus, she’s cut the press off from anything to report on other than her movements from place to place, and the press doesn’t like that…thus we have a press that sees shameless and obvious pandering which changes from day to day based on what the polls suggest her problem du jour is, and/or whatever group she is speaking to at the time.

So, you take a fundamentally devious and dishonest candidate who also antagonizes the press by arrogantly cutting them off from doing their job, and you get a press that is going to try to sabotage her should the opportunity present itself.

In my opinion, the treatment she’s getting now from the media has nothing whatever to do with the fact that she’s a woman.

95

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
This is my problem with what you’re saying, I guess. Is it possible, even highly probable that there are some sexists who are making their judgments based on sexism? Absolutely.
Are they a significant percentage, a majority, a minority, a lunatic fringe? Honestly I haven’t seen any data that would let me conclude anything in specific. Do you have any cites on this issue?
[/quote]

Here’s one from the Pew research center, which states:

It goes on to say that the gender gap is not as wide for female Dems facing Male Dems.

Sure. The Washington Post has a really good article on it here.

96

[QUOTE=spoke-]
It would be much worse if it were a man, because “men aren’t supposed to cry.” Edmund Muskie was drummed out of the 1972 primaries after a similar episode.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know. When Elizabeth Edwards introduced her husband following the Iowa primary, he came to the podium, looked at her, and he looked very much as if he was blinking back tears when he high-fived her. I thought “how sweet; they’re really partners. He has what others want in a politician’s wife, but for them it’s not a show.” It was endearing, not off-putting.

And yet, they didn’t try that with our current commander in chief on his first run for POTUS.

97

In this day and age of ubiquitous video clips on demand - it seems most sheeple still want to be told what to think by the media. Christ on a pogo stick, look at the “losing it scene.” If this was hollywood, it wouldn’t even make the cut for losing it in an after school special or on Elmo.

Not sure if I believe in any grand conspiracy theory or not so latent sexism, having worked in the media in the past this could easily just be a well played story of the front runner on shaky ground and losing it ala “you won’t have dick nixon to kick around any more”

98

[QUOTE=Maureen]
Here’s one from the Pew research center, which states:
[/quote]

Unfortunately I’m not sure your quote addressed the issue. From the start of the survey, we are told that 88% of respondents would vote for a qualified female candidate.

Then we are told that more women would vote for Hillary in a hypothetical run vs Rudy than men would. We’re also told that there is a sustained gender gap in terms of how people have looked at Hillary or various other female candidates. But that gender gap doesn’t hold true when we look at Republican voters, in which case female Republicans voted for women about as often as they voted for men.

In fact, the study finishes up by identifying sexism… among almost 1/5 of the women polled.

The statistics you’ve chosen would suggest a comparatively small sexist group of Americans, with much of the sexist pressure coming from women for female candidates. If anything, they show that a significant percentage of women are sexists who will be more likely to vote for a woman than for a man. If that holds true for the other elections, it actually standard to reason that the gender gap is because women are being sexists and voting for women because they are women.

The study you’ve chosen shows that, overall, sexist bias against women is unacceptably prevalent, but still comparatively small, being evinced in only about 11-12% of the general electorate, with a percentage of those beliefs being held by women, oddly enough. 19% of women polled, however, were unabashed sexist pigs and said that they’d be more likely to vote for a woman than a man.
That’s actually pretty disturbing.

I’d like to dig up more on this topic via Pew, but I’m rather beat right now.

[QUOTE=Maureen]

Sure. The Washington Post has a really good article on it here.
[/QUOTE]

The Post article, unfortunately, is also rather lite on statistical data and largely goes by anecdotes. In fact, it relies, to an unfortunate degree, on vague hypotheticals, subjective anecdotes, and a lack of hard data. They make some good points, but it’s almost classic infotainment instead of an actual hard nosed look a the facts.

Some of what is printed in that article is rubbish. A polisci prof playing mind reader, and saying that Clinton supported war with Iraq not because of any of the varied reasons she’s given, but because she had to “out-masculine all her male counterparts?” Claiming that Romney’s counter attack on his opponent by saying she was being “unbecoming” was sexist because it is the “antonym of ladylike?” If that’s all their evidence (and they carry that charge on insinuation), that’s a pretty weak claim. For all that politicians snipe at each other for ‘lowering the tone’, Romney saying it to a woman was sexist? What word could he have used? Improper? Rude? Shrill? All antonyms of ‘ladylike’. Interesting bind, that.

They actually offer Clinton’s anecdotal claims as evidence of how women have to be a ‘symbol’. Who cares what her friend told her? Is there any data to back up what that friend said, or is it just a nice story?

Perhaps all that was part of the point, as the article actually finishes by arguing that perceptions of sexism are often totally subjective.

All in all nothing convincing. Some uncited, data-free claims by academicians. Some subjective assessments and the personal views of campaign strategists. It really doesn’t tell us much. Even the beginning, about Ferarro being questioned about being “tough”, only tells us about the single person who asked her the question, not society or the media in general.

The only hard data that you’ve put forth here seems to suggest that sexism is a relatively minor factor in a debate, and that female chauvinist pigs probably offset the national average and make it more likely that Democratic women will be elected than equally qualified men. I can possibly do some more research over the next few days, but I don’t see any evidence of systemic media bias let alone a trend of sexism in politics that would harm women.

99

I’d love to hear some perspectives from Brit Dopers about how HRC comes across to them. (And Dopers in other nations where women have been in charge would be interesting to hear from as well.) The reason why I ask is that I was a kid/teenager living in the UK when Margaret Thatcher was PM. Nobody seemed to like her. She was characterized as cold, calculating, and unfeeling. Yet she was an incredibly successful political figure. (Granted, from what I understand about her policies, I certainly don’t agree with much of what she did, and the Labour Party under Kinnock was pretty hapless, but that’s grist for another thread.) The point is that I hear people rail on about HRC and how they don’t like her.

Seemingly based on:
[ul]
[li]Her decision to remain married to Bill Clinton[/li][li]Her “cold and calculating” demeanor[/li][li]The fact that she’s politically ambitious[/li][/ul]
What the hell does her choice to stay married to Bill have to do with anything? From what I can tell, GWB and Laura are wonderful together. That has what effect, exactly, on his presidency? If the two of them opt to stay together, what business is it of ours that they do so? Sometimes I think we need an American royal family, or “Moral Leader” that occupies this role so the POTUS can go about the job of… running the executive branch of the government, like they’re supposed to. If the Moral Leader does something naughty, then we’d be within our rights to go on about how horrible they are.

Cold and calculating? Please be cold and calculating. I don’t think you go into diplomatic meetings without having this trait. The POTUS is not block captain. I would suspect the president to be a real SOB. I want the POTUS to constantly be thinking two steps ahead of everyone else. That might make him or her a shitty person to be around, but it’s a nasty job, and I somehow doubt the great politicians of our age necessarily are the most fun people to be around. Technocrats and policy wonks tend to have that trait, and Oprah and game show hosts work on being likable and fluffy. I see these as two very different jobs.

Politically ambitious? I’m unaware of anyone who falls into a presidential race by accident. Dwight Eisenhower, maybe? Every one of these individuals that have sacrificed their privacy, family life, finances, mental health, and reputations to be POTUS are insanely ambitious. You have to be. Apparently some people are better at hiding it than others… doesn’t mean they don’t have that exact same drive.

I guess what I’m saying is that I have a lot of respect for HRC. I don’t even know if I like her… I think I do. But that isn’t remotely an intelligent criterion for selecting a president, IMO. I really don’t get it, and even if I did, I fail to see how HRC is any more unlikable than any of these other characters who have been running. Except for the ones who are so new on the scene that people haven’t found reasons to dislike them yet.

I’m really scanning my own history to understand why I’m not repulsed as so many people seem to be by HRC, and I can only surmise that it has something to do with being exposed to a female leader at an early age, and working in a field (education) where women are probably better represented in leadership than many others. I’ve had female mentors, bosses, advisors, and so forth, and it’s never struck me as being unusual. I’m not bothered if someone has a really blunt and direct approach if they know what the hell they’re doing. HRC strikes me as that kind of leader.

I’m probably railing a bit here, because it’s late, and I’m really frustrated. HRC’s campaign is also letting me down… the MLK/LBJ thing and the al-Qaeda scare were real low points and a sign that they’re in real disarray.

100

Hillary Clinton looks empty to me. I think her soul is on vacation and its temp is reading cue cards.