I was astounded to hear any number of pundits hold forth on Hillary's tears as a turning point in her NH votes. It "softened" her, made her more "accessible."
Hillary's teary moment may very well work in the opposite direction: helping a candidate who is seen as aloof and too tightly scripted appear more vulnerable, more human and more appealing. And those qualities could be big assets as the campaign careens out of New Hampshire, especially as a contrast to the angry scenes of Clinton rebutting Obama and John Edwards in Saturday night's debate.
On CNN, Bill Bennett solemnly nodded as Ralph Reedheld forth on the significance of Hill's tears:
"I think a lot of people will look back at that, where she wasn't choreographed, where she spoke from her heart, and it will be the kind of moment that [Ronald] Reagan had in 1980," Republican strategist Ralph Reed said on CNN.
It is instructive to remember just who Ralph Reed is, and consider the possibility that this is a masterful bit of misdirection... and keep remembering as the punditocracy wheezes about the transformative power of HRC's welling eyes.
The MSM and the pollsters were way off on NH, so to save face they've come up with a rather squishy "reason" for Clinton's win.
Let's lose the tear meme.
Media Mockingbird put it very nicely:
No, woman, no cry. And, if it does turn out that that's what swung the New Hampshire votes in your favor, hang your head in shame. I know a lot of women will.
Cross-posted at Michigan Liberal