More Tears (Or Three Tears In A Bucket, Part Deux)
So, she's at it again.
I'm sure I'm going to catch all manner of heat for this post, but you know what? I don't care.
This crying bit has got to stop.
Senator Hillary Clinton welled up again in New Haven, CT yesterday, in a display of softness not seen since...since...New Hampshire about three weeks ago.
You might recall that I wrote a little missive about the Senator's teary display then, detailing the (completely understandable) results among a certain segment of the electorate. Many pundits (including myself) are convinced that the margin of victory in the NH was secured by a few salty secretions from the eyes of the former First Lady.
And many of us think that she's at it again, trying to curry favor to stem what has to be a worrying tide rising in Democratic circles -- and Republican ones too.
Look, I'm not going to get into some 'she's-damned-if-she-does-damned-if-she-doesn't' debate regarding her crying and her authenticity because as far as I'm concerned it clouds the real issue, as I see it. That would be: where are all the feminist on this situation? Do they or anyone else for that matter, feel as I do, that cheap emotional displays actually diminish Senator Clinton's appeal ultimately, that appeal being her formidable mind, and obvious capability?
Why, if she was as qualified as some would have you believe, should she have to resort to such tactics to secure the public's support? Or does she feel that threatened by the insurgent campaign of Mr. Obama that the "nuclear" option -- tears in public -- is on the table, and called for.
I submit that for a woman running on her independent apability to handle the pressure of the most important job in the entire Free World, she's not making herself look up to the task, weeping at a warm introduction by an old friend at a campaign event. It's not like it's Mother Teresa or somenone sainting her or whatever.
Look, Hillary's issues with her authenticity doesn't stem from the fact that people thinks she's not feminine enough -- necessarily. They come from the fact that she's not been as consistent in her viewpoints as she might have needed to be, and people believe she goes with the wind and the polls -- not her inate opinion -- on an issue, any issue, to judge where she's going to end up.
And people see her as a political robot, but they wonder who holds the remote control.
Other politicians have been inconsistent -- blatantly and unrepentant, like Mitt Romney -- and most will continue to do so. However, Mrs. Clinton has had the blessing -- and curse -- of having been in the public eye as a very visible First Lady first in Arkansas and then in Washington DC. She opened herself up for that. She chose the role she's played. So her inconsistencies have been widely chronicled, with the results that she fights today.
After New Hampshire, Hillary had reportedly "found her voice."
Question is, is that the voice of the strong, intelligent capable woman who can lead the Free World, articulating HER vision for a better America?
Or is it the quivering, emotionally-opportunist voice she seems to be using to great effect during the campaign season?
I really hope it's the first one.
I'm sure I'm going to catch all manner of heat for this post, but you know what? I don't care.
This crying bit has got to stop.
Senator Hillary Clinton welled up again in New Haven, CT yesterday, in a display of softness not seen since...since...New Hampshire about three weeks ago.
You might recall that I wrote a little missive about the Senator's teary display then, detailing the (completely understandable) results among a certain segment of the electorate. Many pundits (including myself) are convinced that the margin of victory in the NH was secured by a few salty secretions from the eyes of the former First Lady.
And many of us think that she's at it again, trying to curry favor to stem what has to be a worrying tide rising in Democratic circles -- and Republican ones too.
Look, I'm not going to get into some 'she's-damned-if-she-does-damned-if-she-doesn't' debate regarding her crying and her authenticity because as far as I'm concerned it clouds the real issue, as I see it. That would be: where are all the feminist on this situation? Do they or anyone else for that matter, feel as I do, that cheap emotional displays actually diminish Senator Clinton's appeal ultimately, that appeal being her formidable mind, and obvious capability?
Why, if she was as qualified as some would have you believe, should she have to resort to such tactics to secure the public's support? Or does she feel that threatened by the insurgent campaign of Mr. Obama that the "nuclear" option -- tears in public -- is on the table, and called for.
I submit that for a woman running on her independent apability to handle the pressure of the most important job in the entire Free World, she's not making herself look up to the task, weeping at a warm introduction by an old friend at a campaign event. It's not like it's Mother Teresa or somenone sainting her or whatever.
Look, Hillary's issues with her authenticity doesn't stem from the fact that people thinks she's not feminine enough -- necessarily. They come from the fact that she's not been as consistent in her viewpoints as she might have needed to be, and people believe she goes with the wind and the polls -- not her inate opinion -- on an issue, any issue, to judge where she's going to end up.
And people see her as a political robot, but they wonder who holds the remote control.
Other politicians have been inconsistent -- blatantly and unrepentant, like Mitt Romney -- and most will continue to do so. However, Mrs. Clinton has had the blessing -- and curse -- of having been in the public eye as a very visible First Lady first in Arkansas and then in Washington DC. She opened herself up for that. She chose the role she's played. So her inconsistencies have been widely chronicled, with the results that she fights today.
After New Hampshire, Hillary had reportedly "found her voice."
Question is, is that the voice of the strong, intelligent capable woman who can lead the Free World, articulating HER vision for a better America?
Or is it the quivering, emotionally-opportunist voice she seems to be using to great effect during the campaign season?
I really hope it's the first one.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: More Tears (Or Three Tears In A Bucket, Part Deux).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.obsidianhustle.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/142
always something....
Hi Lynn...could you expand on your response to Tony's post?
nah... i already talked with tony about this... i'm a little tired of the pouncing hillary gets 24/7. if she cries it can't possibly be because she's human and has real emotions, it's always that it's calculated or something along those lines...
but i'm done posting my opinion on here... this whole campaign has worked my nerves and i feel like it's a losing battle to even try to defend hillary clinton.
may the best person win and i'll be behind them all the way in november.
I got no problem with Hilary's tears. I do think the coverage of her emotion as some super-emapthy is a bit over-blown. Just like coverage, though less of, of this crying as a show of weakness, is overblown. Tears are just another element of emotion. If our president had shed a tear over Katrina, over the dead (both ours and theirs) in Iraq, over all of the students left to flounder in pitiful public schools... maybe we wouldn't be so bad off. She cares. Never doubted that about her. Doesn't make her better or worse than her competitor. Just makes her human. But I think the democrats got that much nailed down...
Hillary's qualified to run this nation and unquestionably intelligent, I don't think anyone, even her Republican detractors doubt that. The issue of her tears is that during her many many years in the spotlight we have seen her cry twice and both times have been on the campaign trail. Is it opportunist? I don't know. Is it a little suspect? I say yes it is a little suspect. Could I be wrong in thinking a hopeful nominee that is often perceived as an ice cold automaton is using tears to sway voters? I could and I hope I am, but if I'm not, I don't know that I care. People who are swayed by tears rather than the issues are a little sad to me. So sad that they should pull up a chair and take a seat next to all those people who said they couldn't vote for John Kerry because he didn't seem the type of man with whom you could have a beer, so George was their man. Honestly, this isn't about emotions and it shouldn't be a high school popularity contest it should be about a course correction for this nation, we all need to vote the issues the rest of it is fodder.