Skip to main content

View Diary: Open Thread for Night Owls & Early Birds (216 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Passion vs Emotion. Is anger okay for men? (4+ / 0-)

    How odd that we allow men to scream and cry over a football team but give a US Senator grief when she gets misty eyed (she didn't cry) over how passionate she is about wanting to change the system.

    Why is anger an acceptable emotion and tenderness something to be derided? Think back. do you believe we went to war because we had a President who was angry or one with a tender passionate belief in something?

    I will vote for compassion and empathy over anger any day (referring to R's not to Obama). Apparently sexism is alive and well still.

    Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the enemy, but to win his friendship and understanding." -- 1958 MLK

    by Cascadia on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:10:59 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Remember Michael Dukakis ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, GreyHawk

      ...when he coolly answered the question about whether his death penalty opposition would change if his wife were raped and murdered. No emotion, everybody said. What would be the appropriate emotion? I would say tears. They might be tears or sadness mixed with rage, but the commentators all wanted a flash of anger over this hypothetical.

      "Just remember, boys, this is America. Just because you get more votes doesn't mean you win." - Special Agent Fox Mulder

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:19:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Missing the point. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority, GreyHawk

      We most certainly do not allow men running for president to "scream and cry" over a football team.  To quote Bruce Lee, it's important to have "emotional content, not anger."  Obama, for instance, often gives speeches that can only be described as enthralling and passionate, yet unemotional in a way that bespeaks calm authority and clear-eyed vision rather than coldness.  

      Moreover, political leadership requires a certain joy in the process itself beyond whatever comes of it, and there are only two styles that I've ever seen which apply to that - "swimmers" and "fighters."  Swimmers are natural leaders, and nothing ever sticks to them.  They are unflappable, and simply move around any obstacle put in their path with the ease and grace of a dolphin - examples being FDR, JFK, and to a lesser extent Bill Clinton.  Fighters are people who demolish obstacles head-on, and can look good rolling around in the muck with their enemies like scrappy dogs - Truman and RFK were like this.  Hillary thinks she's a fighter, but she isn't - when she fights, she looks bitter and shrill; and when she dodges, she looks disingenuous.  Sorry the universe is so cruel to rich wives of former presidents, even when they "try so hard," and are driven to tears by the mean-spirited electorate.  But there's a little more at stake here.

      To answer your question about the Iraq war, it had nothing to do with emotion.  Cold-blooded psychopaths who wanted money or a 2002 election issue for their party are responsible for that.  And if you recall, Hillary enabled them - not her finest hour, selling this country's future for what she thought would be necessary for "electability."  Apparently Barack Obama knew something she didn't.  Even I knew it.  So is Hillary that dumb, or just a cynical machine who didn't count on things turning out the way they did?  Whenever she says "actions matter, not words," I keep hoping that someone will remind her about that vote.  She attacks Obama with that unmitigated hypocrisy for votes on arcane spending items while she consigned the nation to trillions in debt, thousands of dead, and eternal infamy in the hearts of billions as a fucking triangulation on what she believed the environment would be in 2008 - highly conservative, and basking in the triumph of Fearless Leader Bush's glorious conquest.  This person does not deserve our nomination, period, and would just throw it away even if she got it.

      Freedom is in the fight.

      by Troubadour on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:12:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ed Muskie's tears (0+ / 0-)

      Hillary had better hope that the voters think the teary-eyed moment was on cue.  if was because of fatigue and stress she is disqualified to be president, because the presidency in a time of war is way more stressful than the New Hampshire primary.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 05:52:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What grief? (0+ / 0-)

      The question was simply... was this a political play or a genuine moment.

      There is nothing wrong with being passionate or emotional to a certain extent. If it was a genuine moment, then it certainly is a change of pace for a Senator who has failed to show that same public tenderness in the past. If it was a genuine moment, then I am glad to see such overwhelming passion in a democratic candidate.

      However, if this was a political stunt, then it certainly worked (for you at least). A voter who leans toward compassion and empathy might be persuaded by such public acts.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site