Crying has come a long way in politics. In 1972, Ed Muskie wept outside the offices of the New Hampshire Union Leader, and it was, at the time, a political disaster. Americans just weren’t ready to tolerate grown men in leadership positions emoting like this in public.
But that was decades ago. Now, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) feels so strongly about his support for Bush’s Iraq policy that he cried on the House floor in November. And in May. And in February. OK, so the guy cries a lot.
The point is that tears are no longer particuarly controversial. Indeed, to hear some tell it, they’ve become a political tool, used by candidates who need to convince voters that they’re warm and fallible. Take Mitt Romney, for example, who went a year on the cmapaign trail developing a reputation for a robotic delivery, and who is suddenly opening the tear ducts.
Mitt Romney’s eyes filled with tears today as the Republican presidential contender recalled watching the casket of a soldier killed in Iraq return to the United States and imagined if it were one of his five sons.
Adding a poignant twist to a story he often tells on the campaign, Romney recalled the scene at Boston’s Logan International Airport while he was Massachusetts governor to make the point that the country remains united despite its differences over the war or other national challenges.
It was a counterbalance to a moment earlier this year, when Romney told a woman in Iowa that his grown sons — none of whom has served in the military — were serving the country by helping with his campaign. Romney later apologized for the remark, saying it was wrong to equate military service with campaign involvement.
“The soldiers that I was with stood at attention and saluted,” Romney told employees at Insight Technology Inc., a company that makes infrared optical equipment for U.S. troops. “And I put my hand on my heart, and tears begin to well in your eyes, as you can imagine in a circumstance like that. I have five boys of my own. I imagined what it would be like to lose a son in a situation like that.”
For those keeping score at home, the first signs of tears came during his church-state speech, the second came on Meet the Press, and the third came in response to a question about U.S. troops killed in Iraq.
But Romney’s not the only one shedding tears on the campaign trail.
There was also this report from CNN on Hillary Clinton.
Democrat Hillary Clinton got visibly emotional at an Iowa campaign event Monday morning designed to showcase a softer side of the New York senator.
Flanked by childhood friends and constituents who each offered testimonials on the Democratic presidential candidate, a glassy-eyed Clinton spoke noticeably softer than most past appearances on the stump.
“It is very exciting for me to have so many of my friends from my entire life who have come out here, to talk with Iowans, to answer questions, to give you some insight and information about our relationships, about what I’ve been trying to do my entire life, and particularly as an adult,” Clinton said at a campaign event in Johnston, Iowa Monday.
Now, it’s worth noting that there are some cynical interpretations to Romney’s and Clinton’s emotional displays. Both, I think it’s fair to say, are not perceived as “warm” candidates, and both have probably seen internal polls showing they have room for improvement on “likeability” questions. And sure enough, some might say, both suddenly start chocking up on the campaign trail, in the 11th hour. (For one particularly derisive take, consider Dayo Olopade’s item from earlier today.)
And while I can understand people being suspicious of conveniently-timed tears, here’s why I suspect the emotion is genuine: because neither Romney nor Clinton are great actors. I just have a hard time believing that these two have such dramatic thespian skills that they can pretend to tear-up, on cue, just for the sake of political audiences.
They’re talented politicians, but can either really get misty-eyed on demand? I doubt it.