Clinton gets choked up — the sequel

We all remember, far too well, the relatively irrelevant moment, the day before the New Hampshire primary, when Hillary Clinton got a little choked up on the campaign trail. For reasons that I’ve never fully understood, this sparked something of a media frenzy, and pundits credit the “emotional moment” with propelling Clinton to a surprise victory. (It seems more likely to me that the media’s reaction to the story did more to help her campaign than the emotion itself, but that’s another story.)

Nevertheless, that was nearly a month ago. Fortunately, the pundits stopped talking about it, the video of the moment was taken out of heavy rotation, and the political world moved on. Phew.

Alas, the story is about to make a comeback.

Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

Penn Rhodeen, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton’s eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, Rhodeen was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

“Well, I said I would not tear up; already we’re not exactly on the path,” Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.

The papers are picking up on this; I’ve heard that it’s on CNN; and apparently Drudge is already all over the story.

This is not at all an encouraging development.

Now, I know what the cynics are going to say. Clinton teared-up the day before the New Hampshire primary, and now she’s teared-up the day before Super Tuesday. Clinton’s critics will surely argue that this shows signs of a pattern — using emotion as some kind of calculated political tool.

I don’t think so. For one thing, I doubt Clinton is a good enough actor. For another, Clinton has gotten emotional at moments that weren’t the day before a major contest. Remember this one from mid-December?

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.

Look, these candidates, all of the ones who are really giving it their all, are enduring a grueling, painful process, with very little sleep, poor nutrition, and intense, constant pressure. Given how exhausting this is, no one should be surprised if a candidates attends a personal event and gets a little choked up. These are not in any way “Muskie moments.”

But if recent history is any guide, this is going to be the biggest political story of the day anyway. Ugh.

Shame on the media and their stupid obsession with tabloid stories! They’ll do anything to sell more papers or drive up ratings, even at the expense of covering . . . hmmm, what was that again . . . oh, yeah, REAL ISSUES!!!!!

  • Sweet Jesus, don’t these reporters have something more important to write about? So Hillary was moved by an old friend and mentor expressing pride about her. What is the big deal? I refuse to believe that Hillary is incapable of honest emotion, and I do not think this is “news.”

  • Just shows that wing-bots like Drudge have nothing else to talk about. Their precious evil empire is starting to come apart at the seams and all they can do is watch it happen like a slow motion trainwreck, and all they can talk about is Hillary’s tears.

    Sad, pathetic, empty souls.

  • As a story I think this plays badly for Clinton. Three reasons:

    1. There doesn’t seem to be any video. If you can’t see the emotion it makes it seem less real.

    2. Because it seems less real, it also seems more likely to be crass and calculated.

    3. As a quite terrible philosopher once said, “There’s an old saying … that says, fool me once, shame on … shame on you. Fool me … you can’t get fooled again.”

  • i believe her emotion is genuine — she’s a canary in a coal mine. her internal polls must be terrible.

  • When I saw this, I rolled my eyes, and said, “So?”

    The situation where she cried is such an understandable one, it neither makes her more “human” or gives credence to the idea it was staged. It is merely a triviality which people with vested interests can use to projetct their own biases onto her under the guise of objective analysis.

  • No video. Aha! I remember seeing the last “cry” after the overblown pundity analysis, and went, “That’s it?” Hardly a cry. Makes one wonder if she did cry — this reporter is smarter than Tapper. No evidence, all analysis.

  • Is it wrong that I choked up over hearing how she choked up? There I go again, getting choked up over my getting choked up over hearing how she choked up. Sigh. Reading stories about presidential campaigns is really hard.

  • They’ll do anything to sell more papers or drive up ratings, even at the expense of covering . . . hmmm, what was that again . . . oh, yeah, REAL ISSUES!!!!!

    Um, yeah?

    Newspapers and tv media are for profit ventures. They’ll do what they can to increase the money they get. If they get more eyeballs by peddling ludicrous tabloid stories, that’s what they’ll peddle. It’s been true of US media pretty much forever, though there used to be “acceptable standards of decency” that would cause certain stories to never see print (which is both good and bad because prior to Vietnam some of those stories would be “atrocities committed during wartime”). It’s never stopped the media from trumpeting a war to get sales/ratings up though (see “War, Spanish-American”). That’s one of the system flaws of a for-profit media – but it’s ESPECIALLY pernicious in an environment of publicly traded for profit media. (Government controlled media has it’s own set of system flaws, of course. It would be nice to see something in-between where the government uses the tax laws to lower barriers to entry in the media world, but that would pretty much run counter to the last 100 years of American policy. I don’t expect to see any movement on this front no matter who is the nominee.)

    Despite my agreement with you, Steve, that Clinton isn’t a good enough actor to fake something like this, it will just be more ammo for the folks who want to believe that she’s a robot and every thing she does – including emotion she has – is calculated to win elections. I predict more of Chris Matthews projecting his woman-fear onto Clinton, and I’m not sure if this changes the dynamic of anything much (other than the lousy coverage we’re going to get over the next few days).

  • Someone remarked on this on a previous post, and this was my response:

    So, let me get this straight. A man who is introducing Clinton, chokes up, and seeing the emotion in him, her eyes fill, and this is “a joke?”

    Because of course, this has never happened to anyone, has it? And Clinton isn’t actually human, so her emotion could only have been completely fake and entirely political, right?

    What’s a complete joke is the way people deride her for being too much like a man, they mock her laugh, and demonize here when her eyes fill up or her voice cracks – you complain that she isn’t human and castigate her when she shows very human emotions that we have all experienced.

    Give me a fucking break. There is nothing this woman could do that would please you except to get out of the race and out of the way so that you can experience the joys of Barack Orgasma, whose next mailer will probably have him wreathed in heavenly light, lest we miss the I-am-the-Messiah-and-only-I-can-save-America message.

    Grow the fuck up. The absolute irony of people claiming to support the candidate of inspiration and unity, while simultaneously acting like middle-school Mean Girls determined to lift themselves up by tearing others down in the cheapest way possible is just too rich.

    Those who so lack the grace and compassion to allow someone a human moment without making a headline out of it do a disservice to Obama’s message of hope and unity – this kind of support for Obama increasingly makes the case that it is about “uniting” in hatred of Hillary Clinton and “hoping” she drops out or loses in the most humiliating way possible.

    Yeah, I know this comment is wholly lacking in grace and compassion in tone and message, but I am sick of the pettiness of people who claim to be responding to a loftier and transcendant message, who are doing no such thing.

  • where have jessie jackson and al sharpton been?did obama tell them to stay away untill primarys are over?……..just wondreing.

  • Anne, you’re right; Hillary doesn’t always just shed a tear. Look how clear-eyed she was when she voted to send our sons and daughters to war.

  • Maybe she’s crying because she has lost her lead in CT, which is indicative of what’s going on in other states. It is interesting to note that CT is a state that she should be doing quite well given the fact she gets a lot of TV play from neighboring NY market.

  • “Those who so lack the grace and compassion to allow someone a human moment without making a headline out of it do a disservice to Obama’s message of hope and unity”

    I don’t see any of that on this thread..

    I don’t really care if someone cries, I don’t think it’s a positive or a negative thing. Unless they really have no control of their emotions, but both of Clinton’s emotional moments were with friends and supporters.. when you’re supposed to cry if you feel like it.

    What pisses me off about the crying thing is how the media utterly flipped over it, which caused a backlash that won NH for Hillary. And the media is poised to do this AGAIN.

  • I’m sorry to be less than PC, but this emotional outpouring thing is going to be an issue if Hillary is the nominee. Mark my words, it will hurt more than it helps unless the Republicans got supremely sloppy going after it. I respect emotional people, but if Clinton gets away with this not becoming an issue then IMO it’s just the gender card again, even if it’s being played for them.

    The Clinton campaign alleges that Hillary is the toughest candidate, that she’s the best we have to fend off Republican attacks. She’s a hardass who can poke eyes out when they need to be poked. (OK, I exagerate) She’s OK with torture. She’s hawkish. She’s tough. So WTF do they say about the “toughest candidate” tearing up several times on the campaign trail? By their own metric she fails their own test. What’s she going to do when Republicans go after her for being “soft”?

    Think about it. If Obama was the one who teared up several times, and if Clinton didn’t, would team Clinton ignore that issue, or would they be talking about how the Republicans like to beat up people who show softness and emotion?

    The cheesy way team Clinton has conducted their campaign makes her emotional issues fair game, and their metric (which is not wrong) about who’s the best Dem to take on the thugs makes it fair game. We know if a candidate has an issue that the Republicans can easily exploit, that candidate has a weakness that should be considered in the Dem primary, regardless of the fairness of the attack.

    I’m thinking that she’s got yet another weakness there, and it’s a good thing that her team opened the door to this issue.

  • When the going gets tough for the Clinton’s either whine about their opposition getting more air time, lose their temper and say slanderous things about the oppositions and then aplogise on yet another opportunity of free airtime or cry to keep themselves in the media. Clintons hear this …It doesn’t work when repeated several times over. My vote is against machine Hillary.

  • I told my Husband to Expect something like this on Monday if their internal polls looked bad. Now he’s really going to think I am psychic! 🙂

  • keep it up. the right wing has fed these stupid stories for so long that they have become obvious. they are ploys to stop hillary clinton. at this point, stupid crap like this just helps her.

    she destroys all other candidates on the issues.

    her husband gave us the best economy in our history.

    but this is all they’ve got so they go with it.

    a cheaper version of the arkansas project or the clinton chronicles, but still the same old tired stupid b.s. just trying to stop the person best suited to run the country and take care of business.

    only stupid morons buy it.

  • I should add that I don’t expect Obama to go after her for this, but those of us who see this as an issue have every right to ask why this allegedly tough person keeps letting her emotions get away from her.

    And I overstated her position on torture, she’s got some issues there but she’s not OK with it. My apologies.

  • I don’t see any of that on this thread.

    Really? I guess you didn’t see that I originally posted the comment on the national polls thread in response to someone named “sue,” who seemed to think this was just another calculated Clinton move – “a joke” is how she termed it.

    You’re right that the media need to get a grip, but they aren’t going to. They are in love with the story arc of the Obama candidacy, but I would be willing to bet something meaningful that if he is the nominee, it will be McCain who gets the free ride, and all this microscopic examination and petty ridicule that Clinton has been getting will shift over to Obama and the media will go after him in a big way.

    There always has to be a good guy and a bad guy for the media, and I just don’t see them making McCain the bad guy.

  • Could we all ignore this? Please?
    That said, I will be royally peeved if Hillary wins again thanks to an emotional moment and/or sympathy aroused by the media’s feeding frenzy.

  • “The president [Bush] donned a yarmulke and teared up during the tour…”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103545.html?hpid=moreheadlines

    Both Bushes are self-confessed weepers. Indeed, at George W. Bush’s Inauguration in January 2001, it was fascinating to watch as the president-elect made his way down to his seat on the reviewing stand. He had a smile, a nod, a greeting for everyone–except, notably, for his father. It was obvious that 41 did not want to catch the eye of 43, and 43 was just as wary. Both men knew they might blubber, which would have seemed mawkish and off-putting just as the president was about to take the oath of office. Bush the younger tries to pick his moments to tear up–he is not reluctant to weep when he meets the families of the dead and wounded in Iraq, though these occasions are almost always private.
    Bill Clinton, a master of the stump and a world-class actor, comes equipped with a full range of emotions. His soulful, misty-eyed eulogy for those killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 helped turn around his political fortunes after Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution surprised the Clintonites in the 1994 elections. Clinton can be a little too soulful at times. His lip-biting can look petulant and self-pitying. He can also seem inauthentic, dangerous territory for a politician. His wife is not the only one who has gotten emotional in the 2008 campaign; Republican Mitt Romney has welled up on several occasions, to less fanfare than Hillary’s much-covered moment.
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/88458

    Pat Schroeder has seen politicians cry before. “We had one, Ronald Reagan, who teared up at the sight of an American flag,” remembers the twelve-term congresswoman from Colorado.
    {snip}
    when Mitt Romney teared up on Meet the Press last month, it inspired discussions of how far men had come since the days when Edmund Muskie wept after a newspaper criticized his wife. No one suggested that Romney was faking.
    http://www.westword.com/2008-01-10/news/tears-and-loathing-in-new-hampshire

    Mitt Romney:
    Mitt Romney’s eyes filled with tears Monday 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. [AP, 12/17/07]
    But the fact that he teared up, people said, “Whoa, we thought he was so wooden and robotic, and there he is actually tearing up.” So actually, I think it does have an impact. It’s a genuine moment. It seems genuine. [Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe, MSNBC, 12/17/07]
    President Bush:
    The pictures were just what the White House wanted: A teary-eyed President Bush presenting the Medal of Honor posthumously to a slain war hero in the East Room. [Washington Post, 1/12/07]
    A tear rolled down Bush’s cheek during the event, an extraordinary display of emotion by the commander-in-chief. Bush has been known to tear up and reportedly once cried in a private meeting with war widows. [Chicago Sun-Times, 1/12/07]
    The president is tremendously sentimental. Forget about putting his parents anywhere near him. At his inauguration he purposely kept them out of his line of sight so he could stay as dry-eyed as possible. He has learned not to brush the tears away. [Newsweek, 4/02]
    Defense Secretary Robert Gates
    Robert Gates almost broke down as he gave a speech at a Marine Corps dinner. … Mr Gates’s show of feeling suggests that he brings a more human side to the role of defence secretary. [BBC, 7/19/07]
    What is less often visible is the toll this war takes on the people who run the operation. Tonight we have a rare glimpse of emotion from a man who normally carefully chooses his words, the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. … a rare public display of emotion from the civilian in charge of this war effort. [NBC News, 7/19/07]
    George H.W. Bush
    Wiping away tears as he recalled praying at Camp David before ordering the start of the Persian Gulf war, President Bush today offered a testimony of emotion, politics and faith to a cheering crowd of thousands of Southern Baptists. [New York Times, 7/7/91]
    UPDATE: Matt Stoller at OpenLeft observes, “When Edwards almost gets choked up and talks about how personal XYZ person is on the trail, he’s just passionate. When Clinton does it, she suddenly becomes a hysterical weak woman.”
    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/07/clinton-tears/

    “THE LOWDOWN: Hillary Rodham Clinton chokes up slightly Monday at a campaign stop, leading first to predictions of her political demise, then to a surprise victory in the New Hampshire primary.
    At the other end of the week, President Bush tears up Friday while visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem.
    It’s quite a change – at least for men – from the stoic days of the past, when politicians and other public figures had to keep a stiff upper lip.
    “Politics now has the distinction of being the central area of public life in which men cry more often than women,” says Tom Lutz, who has written a book on crying.”

    http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/630084.html

    “Romney’s Eyes Fill with Tears as he Envisions a Son Dying in Iraq”
    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1695606,00.html

  • Come on – some of you make it sound like Clinton bursts into tears when she gets a hangnail – and that’s simply not the case. If men can tear up and choke up, why is it so alarming and so out-of-character for a woman to do it?

    I’m sure she works very hard to have her most emotional moments out of the public eye, but in the two – 2! – instances where it has gotten the better of her, she has either been in a small group, or with close friends, family and long-time supporters. In this compressed primary schedule, there will be no time when emotion, when it comes, is not on the eve of some primary.

    She’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.

  • Is she tearing up all the time? How come we hear about one errant day in December and then two right when it would do the most good?
    Why just on convenient Mondays?
    I mean… I cry every Monday too, but…

    Not that good an actress?
    Okay, I agree it’s real. An old boss looks fondly upon your early days together. Good stuff.

    But could she be tamping it down Wednesday through Sunday because she needs to save it up?
    If she cries often, it doesn’t get the news bump when she needs it.
    Maybe the acting job is in play when she DOESN’T tear up?

  • racerx

    maybe you have a right to ask her that.

    but maybe i have a right to ask you why you keep buying the ridiculous double standard that puts this kind of behavior under a microscope when it comes to hillary clinton, but not for any other candidate?

    why do you keep buying this ridiculous personality story line tabloid crap about the clintons?

    why can’t you just acknowledge that the media has spent hundreds of millions of dollars doing everything they can to stop the clintons?

    don’t you remember “the clinton chronicles”?

    have you ever heard of “the arkansas project”?

    they have accused her of murder, they called her daughter a “dog”.

    they humiliated her when her husband was caught cheating.

    why do you keep letting this stupid stories distract you?

    why can’t you find the guts to stand up to these stupid lies and support somebody that is good for america because they are good at governing?

    somebody that doesn’t lead a movement, but can lead the government.

    balance the budget, fix the economy?

    why can’t you focus on the real issues?

  • Funny how this happens on the eve of an election in which the polls are trending steadily away from her…

    Guess it is just must be one of those super-duper coincidences.

    But then again as a thought experiment:
    Do you suppose the tears would flow if the polls were trending the other way?

    Somehow… I think not.

    Ergo: Bah humbug! Who cares! Get a backbone!
    You can sob and slobber all you want…
    Just don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

  • why can’t you focus on the real issues?

    Why can’t an English Teacher begin a sentence with a capital letter?

  • “Yeah, I know this comment is wholly lacking in grace and compassion in tone and message, but I am sick of the pettiness of people who claim to be responding to a loftier and transcendant message, who are doing no such thing.”

    I think you have hit the nail on the head here Anne; as the lack of grace and compassion in defending someone who shows vulnerability illustrates why people make such a big deal out of it. Its not the act of showing the vulnerability, or show of emotion that the media focuses on, its the chain of reactions, such as yours, that tend to fuel the controversy.

    It also illustrates why a lot of people are responding to the loftier ambitions and ideals. They are sick of getting yelled at by reactionaries, they don’t wish to become victims of of reactionary rage and would prefer to remain apart from it. They want to separate themselves from what they see as the problems of division and be part of a unified solution. Simply put they don’t feed off of the rage and victimization, and don’t want to go where you would like them to.

    The media tends to poke things with a stick to see if it gets a reaction. It loves it when what ever its poking snaps back and tries to bite its head off.

  • english teacher wrote:

    “her husband gave us the best economy in our history.”

    My wife is a pastry chef and makes fantastic cupcakes. So by your reasoning mine should be just as good, if not better, because of marriage alone…

  • Who gives a flyin’ F what the media thinks. I believe that Americans have had enough of the punditocracy and their feeding frenzies on who has the stinkiest farts. That’s what this boils down to, the MSM is simply the digital version of Weekly World News and most Americans see right through this bullshit.

    By the way, I think bat boy was sighted again, with Elvis at an all you can eat buffet.

  • Hillary Clinton is so much more evil than Dick Cheney. She is evil incarnate. She will destroy the country.

    Did I leave anything out?

    Except reality?

  • My grandfather used to shake his head and remark that if you took warm, steaming dog crap, and wrapped it up in red cellophane, with a nice bow, the American public would buy it.

    Sadly, he was right.

  • Speaking as an Obama supporter (now that I don’t have Edwards) I see nothing wrong with showing some sentimentality; some emotion. This response has only been solicited in Clinton when she was shown a kindness. When shown opposition she just toughens right up.

    And since Bush has done the teary welling up a number of times, and other men have done the choking voice a number of times without all the brouhaha, I don’t see why we are even talking about it.

    Back to the issues Jeesh

  • Okay, I really really do not like Clinton for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is her usurping of her husband’s presidency as part of her “governing experience.”

    But as a woman who gets set off by the sight of someone else crying, I have to defend her here. If I were as exhausted and stressed as I presume she is, and I walked into a situation like that (shades of the past, personal relationships, etc.), I’d probably reflexively tear up too.

    What bothers me more about her, frankly, if you want to get into the small bore stuff, is the way she modulates her voice (or doesn’t). When she puts on her “soft” voice it just makes me feel like an attempted manipulation is underway.

  • I like Obama. I just worry about his followers. While I lean toward Clinton, I know she has flaws. Obama followers, though, don’t acknowledge any flaws. I would feel so much more comfortable about supporting him if he wasn’t portrayed as perfect. The whole movement reminds me of the Pied Piper. Or lemmings. Maybe I just don’t expect or need a politician to make me feel good about myself.

  • I can’t wait til this primary is over and we don’t get this kind of crap around here from very good people:

    …Barack Orgasma, whose next mailer will probably have him wreathed in heavenly light, lest we miss the I-am-the-Messiah-and-only-I-can-save-America message.

    Grow the fuck up…

  • When this happened last month, I thought, “Who cares?” Still feel that way today.

    This is only interesting to me in that the media is so committed to stories “about” the Clintons. I don’t want to read about their marriage or their emotions or their scandals real and alleged any more. What I realized last week was that my problem isn’t so much with Hillary Clinton–though I deplore her war vote, triangulation and frequent political cowardice, I revere her command of policy detail and understanding of the “grind” aspects of wielding power–as it is with “the Clintons.” I have no faith that we as a country can get past it, or that she by force of ideals or personality can get us past it.

    Meanwhile on Obama, you get comments like this

    Obama followers, though, don’t acknowledge any flaws. I would feel so much more comfortable about supporting him if he wasn’t portrayed as perfect.

    which are lazy and stupid, but sort of serve as the cynical Democrat’s version of “HE’Z A SECRET MUSLIMIAC ZOMG!!”

    Believe it or not, we know he’s not perfect. We know he won’t be this shining ideal–as does he. He says so all the time.

    Another thing Obama says–which the idiot press and those invested in his defeat both ignore–is that this campaign, and our government in an ostensible democratic republic, isn’t about him; it’s about us. And that, in addition to his intellect, discernment and experience as an effective community organizer, law professor and state and federal legislator, is why many of us are willing to take a chance with him.

    It’s a leap of faith, but not blind faith. And I’m starting to get pissed off at everyone who just smugly assumes that millions of us are credulous naifs.

  • Well. This is two times in under a month.

    And I am always giving up things I want to women because they are crying… But usually they are not another other dudes wife. So, its hard to know if I’m getting played or not. I always get played.

    Fuck it. I love you baby! I’ll take care of you. Its ok. I know Obama is a bastard. Its fine. I’ll vote for you Honey… Honey… Honey…

    Fack. She’s locked in the toilet…

    God damn in. I’m in the outhouse again.

    Ok. Fack this.

    OBAMA
    OBAMA
    OBAMA

  • Anne, the problem is there was a booming prediction market saying this would happen today. I don’t have a problem with people showing emotion and I’m not tarring her for tearing up. But I don’t like to be manipulated and I think that’s what’s going on here.

  • RacerX –

    1) As much as you are around here surely you understand where Anne is coming from on this one? She is absolutely right that those who claim most loudly to be swayed by Obama’s transcendent goodness are the ones who are most vitriolic toward Clinton supporters, who treat this the most like a tribalist game, like football players gloating after a big play (Cleaver, ROTF, Ron Chusid, etc)

    2) Toward the beginning of this thread, you set up Clinton crying as contra to her position of being the “tough” candidate — I understand this dichotomy is a common one, but surely you aren’t suggesting that crying and toughness are mutually exclusive?

  • Dennis – SGMM,

    Why can’t an English Teacher begin a sentence with a capital letter?

    For that, I cannot guess. Why can’t English Teacher grow up, or start acting like an adult is a more interesting question.

  • One last point:

    Don’t for an instant believe Hils isn’t an actor.
    Consider the last debate in CA…
    Everytime Barack edged an opinion in…
    She sat there with a frozen half-smile, nodding her head like a broken bobble-head.
    It was constant.
    It was surreal.
    And it was an entirely different demeanor then she presented in other debates.
    Obviously it was planned.
    Obviously it was an act.
    Her team had polled and brain-stormed and decided she needed to play “motherly nice.”

    Oh yes she is an actress.
    Don’t be naive and think otherwise.
    If she is tearing up again…
    I’d say there is planned purpose behind it.

  • Obama followers, though, don’t acknowledge any flaws.

    This isn’t true (for example, see yesterday’s post and comments under the story about Obama’s ad about mandates). It’s just that Hillary’s flaws outnumber Obama by about 99-to-1. In fact, if I made a list of all the lies that Senator Clinton has told and offensive comments and actions coming out of her campaign since the Iowa caucuses, I’d have to seek treatment for Carpel Tunnel.

    In fact, as has been eluded to before, Hillary Clinton is getting her ducks in a row to “win” the nomination with delegates from Michigan and Florida. If so, then she will have successfully STOLEN the nomination.

    Get ready for it!

    (P.S. I wasn’t an Obama supporter before. But I am now.)

  • who treat this the most like a tribalist game, like football players gloating after a big play (Cleaver, ROTF, Ron Chusid, etc)

    Good one Z….
    You punched that one into the end zone.
    And two point conversion for your spot on observation:
    Politics is the ultimate tribal game.
    Are you just waking to that fact?
    Have you not studied the politics of primates?

  • Stolen the nomination?

    Right.

    Because Michigan and Florida aren’t part of the US anymore, so therefore our votes don’t count.

    I’m just waiting for some Federal judge to smack down this whole load on top of the geniuses at the DNC.

  • I feel for her, really i do. But she set herself up for this kind of scrutiny by trumpeting how she’s tough and “battle hardened”. And she should know better than anyone how the press scoops stuff like this up and runs with it until they drop. (Unless of course she is acting…but with the Clintons it is rather hard to know what they really mean.)

    By the way, there was the possibility of an interesting thread the other day at C&L. I got all excited because i stopped by and there were 93 comments. Unfortunately, “English Teacher” had posted roughly 70 of them; they were all off topic and all but about 4 had been deleted by the site monitor. Those that remained were all in caps and all reposts.

  • I’m with you, In-Fl. Only i’m in Michigan. Around these parts, people are pissed. And while i understand the DNC argument to a point, it wasn’t like we voters held some referendum to move the primary up. Other people made decisions and we got punished for it…ain’t democracy swell?

  • Oh, I wouldn’t be surprised if she let herself get a bit more emotional, remembering how well that turned out before the last primary. I mean — everything is calculated right now, isn’t it? If a candidate calculates their speech and calculates what ads to release, is there something inherently wrong with their pulling their guard down a bit and opening themselves up to feeling the emotion of a moment, when the public expressed their approval the last time they did that?

    So I disagree, Steve, I think that she did do it on purpose, though not so much on cue as by picking a venue that could elicit emotion and allowing herself to experience it. And I don’t have any problem with that.

  • Other people made decisions and we got punished for it….

    Exactly. The Florida and Michigan state legislatures/parties (as the case may be) made their decisions fully aware of the consequences, and the voters should take their anger out on them.

    Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton took a pledge to appeal to voters in the early states, and broke it to appeal to voters in other states. I don’t care where you live, such manipulative behavior should piss you off.

  • I’m an Obama supporter so this is most definitely a discouraging sign but not because of Hillary, because of the reaction. The response by female voters in NH to Clinton’s tears was in large part a response to the misogynistic undertone of the reporting by the media, women sympathized with her as a ‘victim’ of the boys who were ganging up on her. I don’t think the chemistry is right this time for this to cause a huge upset, Obama’s astonishing victory in Iowa followed by the press’ gleeful pronouncements of the demise of her campaign, combined with her teary moment created a perfect storm for Clinton there.

    That said, I reiterate it is the misogynistic reaction to these ’emotional’ moments that turns women toward Hillary, so Obama supporters would do well to tamp down their response unless we want a repeat of NH.

  • In-FL and Jackpine have a legitimate grievance. The DNC was stupid beyond belief on that issue and if they’d done that to Ohio I’d probably be setting flaming bags of dog poo on their front steps right now. But if Hillary cared a gumdrop about it, she should have stepped up when she could have made a diffference for the states rather than when the states could have made a difference for her. She only started to care when it started to affect her chances at the nomination.

  • jackpine savage said: “I feel for her, really i do. But she set herself up for this kind of scrutiny by trumpeting how she’s tough and ‘battle hardened’.”

    Ah, but she’s not crying because someone is being mean to her. She’s tearing up because someone was being nice. That has an amazing ability to break one’s resolve. You can see how steely she gets when under direct attack.

    Elena wrote: “Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton took a pledge to appeal to voters in the early states, and broke it to appeal to voters in other states.”

    Actually, she just thanked them afterward. Admittedly, telling them in Florida she was going to have a victory party was a little wrong. But then so was allowing all the candidates to go to Florida and Michigan to raise money but not to canves for votes. The DNC is just as much as guilty there.

    And before Iowa and New Hampshire this site was awash in comments decrying the system that put those two states up first where they could ‘decide’ the nomination. Turns out that they didn’t, but it wasn’t just Michigan and Florida who thought it was a bad idea to let them go first and so far ahead of the rest that other states wouldn’t get a say.

    ROTFLMLiberalAO said: “Have you not studied the politics of primates?”

    Is that how you explain your Hillary Hatred? The fact that you haven’t evolved much from an ape?

  • Did anyone see Plexico Burress tear up after the Super Bowl? I mean if that wasn’t the most calculating, self-uh…. oh, sorry.

    Many of us humans cry, or fight an urge to, at emotional moments. I’m sure Hillary would be too smart to think– even if she believed that the previous show of emotion was the turning point for New Hampshire– that a similar show of emotion would “magically” bring more voters to her now.

  • The DNC is just as much as guilty there.

    No sir.

    Consistent with their pledges, Edwards and Obama removed their names from the Michigan ballot. Contrary to her pledge, Clinton left her name on the ballot. Then, after getting spanked in the SC primary, she went on Face the Nation and trumpeted her “victory” in Michigan.

    She then, contrary to her pledge and as the Florida primary approached, announced to the world that she would fight to seat Florida delegates (regardless of where she was when she said it, that IS campaigning in Florida).

    It’s true. She’s planning on stealing the nomination if she has to.

  • Is that how you explain your Hillary Hatred? The fact that you haven’t evolved much from an ape?

    Actually I explained that in two preceding posts.
    But since we are having fun now being flip:

    Yes. Even apes have a natural aversion to snakes.

  • Obama’s speech (October, 2002):

    Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

    The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

    My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

    I don’t oppose all wars.

    After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

    I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

    That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

    Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

    He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

    So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

    You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

    You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

    You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

    Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

    The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

    Please VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

  • Lance @ 55, this is very true…and that’s why i really do feel bad for her. But in a media driven world where almost everything is taken completely out of context, the end result is the same.

    td @ 54, i’ve thought about that…and much, much worse. Granted, the letters i’ve written could aptly be described as flaming bags of dog poo. Maybe its time to press and dry some treats from the litter box for the next envelope…now that you mention it. (Is it illegal to mail feces?)

  • This isn’t a coincidence or a manipulation. The day before the vote is the most stressful time and people tend to be more emotional under stress and when tired. I see nothing calculated about this. If the press weren’t making a fuss about it, no one would know it had happened.

    I have always been impressed by Bill Clinton’s ability to avoid bitterness about the attacks he was subjected to by conservatives. I hope that Hillary will find the same strength to deal with the elevation of a less qualified opponent. I thought progressives might be able to see through this campaigns swiftboating (Bill is a racist, Hillary is too mechanical) but they seem to have reduced this campaign to Oprah and empty promises (e.g., a health care plan that won’t work because he gutlessly promises it won’t be mandatory; he promises to work together with Republicans who will demand endless compromises without any reciprocal bipartisanship; no progress in civil rights for gays because he might lose his African American and religious base before his re-election campaign, etc.).

    I am sick of this campaign and very disappointed by my party. I hope Obama is nominated because then I can vote for Ralph Nader with a clear conscience.

  • On Monday, February 4, Hillary will answer Americans’ questions in an unprecedented national town hall giving voters in Super Tuesday states the chance to make their voices heard.

    The town hall, hosted by former ABC News anchor Carole Simpson, will air on Hallmark Channel and be streamed online at HillaryClinton.com. Hillary will anchor the town hall in New York, while President Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, and national and local surrogates will serve as hosts at events in the other states.

  • Prediction: Look for Hillary to drop out THIS MONTH

    Why? See below.

    If Obama does really well tomorrow, Hillary may have to pull out soon for financial reasons; she only raised $10 million in Jan, but spent $17 million – she’s running out of money. Obama doesn’t have to win the whole thing tomorrow, just be viewed as performing really well and having the momentum going into Feb 9th.

    On Feb. 9th, there are two caucuses (where he’s already set up), and primaries in KS and LA. He’s got the endorsement of the Gov of KS (where his mom was born), and Louisiana has a large AA population, so I don’t think the 9th is going to be a good day for HRC.

    Next up – on the 10th to the 19th, there are primaries in MD, DC, and VA (large AA populations), and caucuses in HI (Obama’s home town), and ME. If HRC gets wiped out on the 9th of Feb, that will be a significant blow to her because the following few weeks are set up for Obama.

    If Obama does well tomorrow (again he doesn’t have to score a TKO), look for HRC to drop out THIS MONTH. After a string of defeats from the 9th to the 19th, her cash flow will dwindle to a trickle – right before the big state contests in OH, TX, and PA. HRC can’t afford to go toe to toe with Obama in those states (financially anyway).

    She says OH is her next firewall, but the TX primary is on the same day (more delegates), and Obama is surging there big time.

    Basically, HRC is TOAST if Obama does well on Super Tuesday.

  • Jon Boehner anyone????

    Stanley Fish has a post in the NYT today about irrational Hillary hatred. From some of the posts above, even liberal democrats are infected.

  • Can anyone imagine that Clinton woman with that laugh in a room full of diplomats. We do not want a carpetbagger as president.

    God Bless America and bless the American people to chose the one HE would have lead the USA, regardless of who it is.

  • …irrational Hillary hatred…even liberal democrats are infected

    When you have no arguments, or you’re too lazy to make them…simply label those you disagree with as “irrational”.

    Nicely done.

  • bedstefar #65

    I’ll take that “Clinton woman’s’ laugh over that smirky, ill mannered, shoulder grabbing, chewing with his mouth open, asswipe who has been in charge, any day

    Aren’t you missing Matlock?

  • bedstefar said: “Can anyone imagine that Clinton woman with that laugh in a room full of diplomats. We do not want a carpetbagger as president.”

    Last time I looked Clinton was still an AMERICAN citizen. How can she constitute a carpetbagger (which is a Yankee living in the Reconstruction South) when she’s always lived here?

    No John McCain, who was born in Panama…

  • Hillary Clinton is like a teabag; she only softens when she’s in hot water. She’s likely not faking the tears, and is probably just tired as you suggest, but that doesn’t detract from the truth that she only tries warmth when she’s tried everything else without success. She’s used to people jumping to her command, and she doesn’t seem to care for a situation where she actually has to fight for the presidency.

    Moreover, she’s not very good at it.

  • At the time, Rhodeen was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

    Hey, everyone was fashion-impaired in those days. No point crying about it.

  • Comments are closed.