We’ve all heard the story of her “breakdown” and it’s linger effects which may well have led to her victory in New Hampshire.
Now she’s running ads about how she found her voice by listening to New Hampshire voters… and acting like a very different woman than she was before.
I almost like this version of her, except for a few bad policy ideas in the last few day (we’ll chalk that up to pandering)… if I vote for her, if she were POTUS… which Hillary would we get? Which one is the default state?
The one we’ve seen for years, or the one I’ve seen this past week?
Is that similar to the breakdown Bush had at the wailing wall. ?
Wheres the big story on his crying. ?
My Hillary problem stems from her Goldwater Republican beliefs when she was young. She has strong conservative roots .
I agree, there does seem to be a double standard at work.
I wonder if her past reticence to show any emotion didn’t help amp up the story… But I KNOW her gender was part of it. I also think the media’s over-response HELPED her - it made watching it seem… tame. And it WAS tame, imo.
I’d prefer no Hillary, in all honesty. Some of her recent pandering proposals have annoyed me to no end… a 3 month moratorium on all foreclosures?? That’s stoopid beyond words…
But I’m sure it will play well with some of the voters…
The real Hilary is the one who will say or do almost literally anything to get elected.
If there were enough polls telling her that she could gain some points by flashing her tits on national TV, at least the debates would get more interesting.
I don’t think the implication here is that it is hard to handle a female contender with some emotional range and depth of feeling. Personally I found her small show of feeling to make me dislike her less and am on record saying that. That at a point that I hadn’t considered that it was less than a real display of emotion. Actions since have made me doubt that initial assessment. I think the implication is that the display, such as it was, was a bit contrived, and part of a re-packaging to show a “more human” HRC product. Is there a real HRC in there? And if elected is that who will show up or will it be a President Zelig?
I don’t think it’s a double standard so much as it is that there’s simply a difference between someone tearing up at having looked upon the site of so much human suffering and the tearing up of someone in despair at having to soldier on despite the apparent frustration of her decades-long presidential aspirations.
I think proponents would say that the emotional response was more of her revealing her emotional core that is attached to her values - even if, at a minimum, it took losing to get her to even do that.
I don’t get the OP. What’s the argument for multiple, mutually inconsistent Hillarys? One time, she showed some emotion, other times, she kept control of her feelings?
Why, I do that all the time. Rarely involving tears, but still.
I don’t think there’s more than one person in there, it’s just someone showing emotion. If a man were to show emotion he wouldn’t get shit about it, but when a woman breaks down a little, she’s being “bipolar” or “overly emotional.”
No, its even sillier – the OP apparently complains not that Hillary herself is inconsistent, but that hyped, dishonest media portrayals of her behavior are inconsistent.
It’s some kind of weird meta-dishonesty, that Hillary can’t keep the lies being told about her from conflicting. Gosh, how awful and dishonest she is!
I’m convinced that the unexpected result in the New Hampshire primary is attributable to the media hype over her supposed emotional breakdown. Instead of it being a true expression of support for Hillary, I think it was an expression of disgust with the portrayal of her that a relatively minor display of emotion prompted. Essentially, the media overreacted, and the electorate overreacted in response to that negative coverage, and blew all of the previous opinion polls out of the water.
They’re both the “real Hillary”, or at least as good a view as you’ll get through the lens you have.
