Men. 
A woman’s voice breaks and she gets accused of all sorts of weakness and emotionality and stuff. Guess what? You can be emotional and STILL make good decisions. Sheesh. Nothing says you can experience the emotion while still disregarding that emotion long enough to make a logical decision. And hey, at least she’s old enough not to have to deal with PMS. 
Amen, brother!
This election is already starting to wear me out. Between the sexism thrown at Hillary and the racial shit aimed at Obama, I’m probably going to do permanent damage to myself from excessive rolling of the eyes.
Fuck, I live in another country and I’m worn out from it. This seems like it’s been going on forever.
We need a YouTube video “Just leave Hillary alone!”
How much good did it do Nixon? And do you seriously want people to think, “She’s as caring as Richard Nixon”? A rather unfortunate comparison, don’t you think? Oh, and remember what happened to Ed Muskie?
This is a pattern. The other candidates get on her case because she’s the front-runner, and she complains about the “politics of pile-on”. Then Bill charges out to defend her, like some hubby defending his helpless little wifey, so very wrong on a number of levels. And getting slightly emotional not over difficulties of the actual job, but only the beginning of the campaign? Not a good start for the first woman candidate for President.
It speaks at the very least to her lack of campaign experience. Had she actually had to fight for and had lost a few of her own elections even before the Senate, she would’ve either worked all this out or realized she couldn’t hack it.
I can’t find the post now, but I predicted that criticisms of her would be answered with accusations of sexism.
She sucked it up until she didn’t have to.
Eh, I think it’s just this year’s version of how the Howard Dean scream was played up into something more than it really was. That’s just how the media tends to operate, by blowing things up into a Big Deal to get ratings and interest.
(I say that even though I didn’t and don’t support either candidate)
I don’t want to be strong for my commander in chief. I want my commander in chief to be strong for me. Maybe it’s unfair to cast the debate in those terms, but we are fighting two difficult wars at the moment and still will be when the next President takes office.
I’ve long held the tenet that those who seek power should never be allowed to wield it. For this reason I’m not a big fan of the US electoral process in general. I saw the video and all I could think was that she’s floating a trial balloon to see how an emotional response, which is also a dig at her main rival(c.f. her comments about being experienced and being the right person for the job) plays with the voters. Sometimes being a cynic is hard work.
Enjoy,
Steven
I think anybody who changed their vote because she misted up ought to be beaten to a pulp with a salty maul. Same goes for people who changed their vote at the polls when some concerned shitheads parked panel trucks with dudes making out painted on them within sight of polling places on election day 2004, or single issue voters. I want this day trading to stop and real issues to be debated honestly and for people to be informed and make voting decisions accordingly. Anything less is undeserving of democracy.
Yup. There were no tears. This is a trumped up story about a non-event. I am sick of the Hillary bashing-and I think of this as bashing. Any little thing and people are all over her. It’s ridiculous. Her non-tears say nothing about her ability to govern or lead.
That’s my thought as well, crying involves teardrops, that was “getting emotional”, perhaps “eyes welling up”. But in my book not crying.
Anyhow, what I also noticed is that this was a campaign event staged like a Ladies Society meeting down at the local coffee house. The questions she was answering was something like “How do you do it?” (ie, run for President and stay so coiffed?!?) It was a fluffy TV moment, I personally didn’t think her emotion was out of place, although others are of course free to disagree. And I also think it was “premeditated” in that she could have kept a steady voice but chose not to. And again, others are free to take issue with the way a Presidential candidate chooses to carry herself, but I’m surprised this became news.
Thatcher also cried when her son went missing in the Sahara (he was eventually rescued). It made the front pages in the UK–“Thatcher weeps for son” in The Times, IIRC–but I never heard that anyone thought less of her for it. Then again, who would?
You are a genius. Pleasepleaseplease someone get a bad bleach job and turn on the waterworks.
Criticisms of her policies, the quality of her speeches, her opinions, her integrity - all of these are not sexist criticisms.
Characterizing what she did here as some sort of massive emotional breakdown is. If a man, any man, had done precisely what she had done, there would have been no discussion of it - no criticism, no accolades, no story.
And predicting that others will call sexism sexist does not mean that the sexism in question is not, in fact, sexist.
P.S. Richard Nixon was elected to the presidency twice, and accomplished a fair bit of good stuff. He was also an insane paranoid lying ferret-eyed toad. But the fact that he demonstrated emotion in public has nothing whatsoever to do with either thing.
I think it was a staged incident designed to humanize her. Her husband was famous for being able to tear up a little when listening to ordinary people talk about their problems. It’s an actors trick and it probably helped Hillary in the primary.
The Checkers speech saved Nixon’s career. He was about to be dumped from the Eisenhower ticket.
Does that mean I can’t have the same thought?
I’m sure you just forgot to cite an actual case where the man thought he might lose the election, reacted as Hillary did, and what the public’s reaction was.
And your saying that does not mean the alleged sexism is, in fact, sexist.
I find it extremely odd that this is the first positive mention of Nixon outside of right-wing circles I’ve heard in years.
Anyone remember the “vast right-wing conspiracy”? Sounds paranoid to me. Hmm, maybe there IS a more substantial connection. Thanks for bringing it up.
I wouldn’t dig that hole any deeper. But maybe that’s just me.
You mean those who changed their votes for someone else to her as well as the other direction, I trust.
As noted- It was clearly a staged, “humanizing” moment to make her not appear to be a shrill bitch.