Is 'The Moment' the new 'Dean Scream?'

Hillary cried yesterday. She got choked up. Her voice cracked. She teared up. She got -- ready, here it comes -- emotional.

That's what the media has treated us to since yesterday -- ABC even dubbed it The Moment.

Just like a woman. Can we really trust them not to get all blubbery when the terrorists attack us next time?

That's the undercurrent I get, even if no one has the stupidity to come out and say it that explicitly.

Our friends at Fox came close:

Clinton Dismisses Claims of Being Too Emotional

The first paragraph lets us know that Clinton denies she had an "Ed Muskie moment." Good thing. Because we all know that when Muskie cried he was immediately written off as weak. We all know that crying is for girls, which means they are too emotional to be commander in chief, right?

Columbia Journalism Review notes that The Moment is getting hyper coverage by the national media and was virtually ignored by New Hampshire media.

It’s worth asking why, precisely, their national-media counterparts pounced on the Clinton story with such speed, ferocity, and, occasionally, thinly veiled glee. (“Click here to watch the video of Clinton getting emotional,” announces Fox News’ Web site. Directly below that, “Click here to see photos of Clinton’s emotional moment.”) The pack mentality is part of it, perhaps, but there’s more to it. Guys may cry, after all, but tears, culturally, are a Female Thing. And the word ‘emotional’ is rarely used as flattery.

Whatever you may think of Clinton, watching what the national media is doing with this should make all of us lose our lunch. It's not unlike what was done to Howard Dean.

As The Moment lives on in the media, we’ve witnessed comparisons of Clinton to Howard “Dean-Scream” Dean or to prior candidate-crybabies (Ed Muskie in ‘72, Pat Schroeder in ‘87). But if we’re going to play the comparison, the most obvious and immediate foil for Clinton is Mitt Romney, who had a misty-eyed moment very similar to Clinton’s last month on Meet the Press. And how much coverage did his moment get?

•  Tip Jar

  by quaoar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM PDT

  •  Actually, it's irrelevant. Obama's Tsunami

    is the story. Hillary did get soem ridiculous treatment yesterday but the Obama wave had already hit the polls in New Hampshire.

    Hillary didn't lose this one. The COM didn't cheat her out of anything.

    Obama is winning fair and square.

    by FishOutofWater on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:39:16 AM PDT

    •  I disagree. If you've been

      watching the news lately it's been playing on an endless loop on all the stations. Even air america this morning played the clip over and over again.

      by dotdot on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:51:40 AM PDT

      •  Her campaign was already doomed before yesterday

        The Moment was a reaction to her predicament, not a cause of it.

        If people are looking for a historical parallel, Muskie tearing up outside the Manchester Union-Leader offices in '72 is the correct one.  He was the "can't miss" frontrunner then, and that incident was a symptom of his problems, not a cause of them.

        by RFK Lives on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM PDT

    •  Sad state of affairs

      When all our media can glean out of a campaign with scores of variables is the most obvious one. If it's irrelevant, we have worse problems than we care to admit.

      by averageyoungman on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:03:23 PM PDT

    •  Aren't Tsunamis bad things?

      And after doing all the damage, doesn't the water just wash back out into the ocean?

      Not exactly the metaphor I would choose...

      by Minerva on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM PDT

  •  Hillary Clinton isn't my first choice

    but I would much rather have a strong commander-in-chief with the capability of being "emotional" than an unfeeling little chickenshit like the one we have now. Bush was scared out of his wits on 9-11, not for his citizens or his country, for his own pathetic little self. I think you're right, the national media may be trying to turn it into a "Dean Scream" moment, but I think it may backfire on them.

    by cackyp on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:40:13 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, imagine that - someone looks

      at the smoking ruins that Bush is leaving in his wake and gets emotional about what's happening to the country.  Who'd want that in a leader? < /snark >

      With Hillary, I think it has to feel particularly bad, because so much of what the idiot has done has undone everything she and Bill worked for.  It would be hard not to take it personally.

      by lineatus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:50:07 AM PDT

    •  Trouble is, the "almost tears" weren't genuine.

      As someone with about 20 years training as a performer, I say Hillary's performance yesterday was unconvincing.  Many tell-tale physical and vocal giveaways.  What she expressed was not concern over the state of America but over the state of her campaign.

      Bill was a good actor, but Hillary is not.

      And Hillary is not a leader, she is a follower.

      by gooddog on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:37 AM PDT

      •  Not so sure I agree with you

        on this one. Not that I'm saying that I'm completely sure she wouldn't be willing to try it if she thought it would help her. Just that I consider myself a strong woman who doesn't cry easily, especially in public. I shed most of my tears behind closed doors. And that's what it looked like to me. Someone who didn't want to cry in front of the cameras, and was fighting for control.

        by cackyp on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:14:52 PM PDT

      •  I have to agree - it looked fake to me. n/t

        by cre8fire on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:35:08 PM PDT

      •  Shades of difference ,,,

        I wouldn't say the moment was "faked..."

        That doesn't mean it wasn't calculated.

        No one seems to pick up on this as a belated answer to Edwards and Obama talking about how "personally" they took the election in the Facebook debate. When Hillary took the ball ... she changed the subject. Someone told her that shift had hurt her and it was time to show her vulnerable side.

        'Course ... that's only a theory.  :)

        by soundacious on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM PDT

  •  And here I thought this diary

    was going to be about the empty rhetoric of Obama's "Moment" speech.

    by lizpolaris on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:45:02 AM PDT

  •  Not just COM

    WWL radio in NOLA was making fun all afternoon. It really is sick behavior, yet we want to sit down at the table with these ass holes.

    by chigh on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 04:58:36 PM PDT

•  Nope

  It worked in her favor.

  I'm relatively sure of it.

  - Albert Einstein

  by Walt starr on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:32:17 AM PDT

  •  I have no idea how voters will react

    I'm referring to how the media reacted:

    “Hillary Tears Up On The Campaign Trail” (Wall Street Journal)

    “Clinton Shows Emotion in Final Hours” (Boston Globe)

    “An Emotional Clinton vows to Fight On” (Reuters)

    “Emotional Clinton says, This is personal” (AP)

    “Clinton Finds Emotion on the Trail” (CBS News.com)

    “An Emotional Clinton Reflects on How She Does It” (The Trail)

    “Clinton chokes up with emotion, as her eyes mist” (The Swamp)

    “Clinton gets emotional, then tears into frontrunner” (Chicago Tribune)

    “Clinton is teary-eyed, emotional in speech” (Dallas Morning News)

    “Question draws out a usually guarded Clinton” (LA Times)

    “A Chink in the Steely Façade of Hillary Clinton” (Washington Post)

    “Clinton Emotional” (Huffington Post)

    by quaoar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:36:30 AM PDT

    •  She's either a hard-assed bitch...

      ... or a weepy lady.

      Christ.  This is disgusting.

      by Plutonium Page on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:38:43 AM PDT

      •  She's a very hard working politician who's losing

        to an history making candidate who is inspiring record turn out.

        by FishOutofWater on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM PDT

      •  Yep, Hillary Is Not My Candidate

        but the media and some of Hillary's critics has been disgusting in their gender related attacks. Attack her on the issues, fine, but these types of attacks stink to high heavens.

        by MO Blue on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:51:38 AM PDT

      •  Agreed. Absolutely disgusting.

        She isn't my candidate, but this reporting is wretched, utterly unhelpful, and as sexist as anything thrown at Hillary Clinton this century.  That's saying a lot.

        by Nuisance Industry on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:55:59 AM PDT

      •  Exactly. As I noted last night...

        ...women are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

        In a recently published study at Penn State, researchers sought to explore differing perceptions of crying in men and women, presenting their 284 subjects with a series of hypothetical vignettes.

        What they found is that reactions depended on the type of crying, and who was doing it. A moist eye was viewed much more positively than open crying, and males got the most positive responses.

        "Women are not making it up when they say they're damned if they do, damned if they don't," said Stephanie Shields, the psychology professor who conducted the study.

        "If you don't express any emotion, you're seen as not human, like Mr. Spock on 'Star Trek,"' she said. "But too much crying, or the wrong kind, and you're labeled as overemotional, out of control, and possibly irrational." ...

        For a little historical perspective, says Lutz, author of "Crying: The Natural and Cultural History of Tears," it's helpful to look back to the 19th century, when skillful politicians like Abraham Lincoln used tears as a natural part of their oratory.

        The tide later shifted against male crying, but in the last 30 to 40 years male crying has gained in acceptability. "Every president since Ronald Reagan has used tears at some point," says Shields, the Penn State psychologist.

        And nobody lambasted Ronzo for his tears. But Hillary, well, my gawd, how can we trust her not to bawl if the Chinese get nasty?

        Then there was the other side of "showing emotion." Michael Dukakis was skewered when he coolly answered a sandbagging 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? Tears. Tears of sadness mixed with rage? What all the commentators all wanted a flash of anger over this hypothetical.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:23:07 PM PDT

      •  Is that a criticism of her portrayal of herself?

        If one looks upon this with as much cynicism as I do, one can't help but conclude that she wanted to look tough in the beginning, but shifted tactics to try to look more human and less aloof when the strength she was trying to portray backfired. This looked like a political move to me, not a true emotional moment at all. It's entirely possible I'm biased now - but that's how it came across to me.

        by cre8fire on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM PDT

    •  I think it humanizes her

      which is good for smoebody who has been caricatured, and caricatured herself, for about twenty years.

      - Albert Einstein

      by Walt starr on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:39:57 AM PDT

      •  Let me know when she cries about the dead in Iraq

        Getting choked up over one's own diminishing political prospects does not elicit sympathy from me.  Let me know when Hillary cries about all the people who died in Iraq while she supported Bush.

        by rmwarnick on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:09:37 PM PDT

  •  Not so sure it will continue to

    With the media pummeling this as 'The Moment', it is obvious they are hungry for a meltdown, any meltdown, by anyone. If they don't get one, the horse-race coverage is wearing thin and they may have to (gasp!) talk about the candidates' stance on issues.

    The fact that Romney's misty eyes was totally ignored (I didn't even know about it until I read this diary), and that Hillary's is being touted, indicates where the media idiots are pushing this.

    I agree it worked for her over the past 24-48 hours; but if the media has their way, it will ultimately turned against her.

    Which says much more about the media and voter gullibility than it says about any candidate.

    by Foxwizard on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:41:39 AM PDT

    •  media will talk about the issue of hope

      lol

      by BBelle on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:45:07 AM PDT

      •  Their knives are out

        for her--they have been for awhile. I can't believe anyone is surprised by this. You had to know it was coming.

        Now, CMSM gets behind Obama, because they know that will still allow for a fixable close race. Why else would they be pumping him up, and playing down Edwards?

        by o the umanity on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:14:07 PM PDT

        •  Actually, I'm not sure an Obama run

          would be all that close. I would vote for him as the Dem nominee, and I am sure most at kos would; but the fact he's black might actually solidify Repug strength; which may be what the MSM is counting on to keep the GOP in the running.

          I base this on the utter surprise at his success being reflected in big media reports, like how can a black man do that? Jim Crow died forty years ago, but his cousins are still lurking.

          by Foxwizard on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:01:06 PM PDT

          •  I have to agree on this, America is still

            a very racist country.

            by ichibon on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:52:41 PM PDT

  •  I Agree

    It's not like she started bawling or anything like that.

    by GW Chimpzilla on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:42:26 AM PDT

  •  I think she saved her candidacy for the moment

    with it.  Before it, I think Obama was on his way to a double digit win, now I'm guessing 7-8% win for Obama, which keeps Clinton alive.

    by IhateBush on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:42:32 AM PDT

  •  I feel like it hasn't

    And feel like it has reinforced the "melt down" narrative.

    But someone else made a compelling case that this is the "moment of truth". If she does pretty good in NH, they can point to this as the moment she decided to "soldier on". Suddenly, the momentum shifts back in her favor.

    by danthrax on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:49:16 AM PDT

•  Maybe Hillary Clinton is the next Reagan

  Both are actors.

  by Subversive on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM PDT

  •  Boooooo!

    by coigue on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:36:38 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, I hate to say it, but when I watched that

    clip, I thought: oh, jeez, far from being "an emotional woman," she's FAKING.  Or, if not exactly faking, at least making a calculated decision to express emotion she could easily have held back.

    What seemed more real: "some of us are right, and some of us are wrong."  

    by renaissance grrrl on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:39:54 AM PDT

    •  that's the take

      from the rightist radio gasbags. They claim the emotion was faked. Further, they claim that all such emotion, from both Clintons, is faked.

      Pathological, the hatred for the Clintons, from these people.

      by blueness on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:47:17 AM PDT

      •  That "rightist" hatred has

        spilled over to this blog, bigtime.  And it's disgusting.

        by Lying eyes on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:50:24 AM PDT

        •  You confuse rightist hatred...

          ...with an actual logical conclusion. I simply can not accept that a politician as skilled and experienced as Hillary did not use emotion in this case in an attempt to look less aloof against a populist opponent.

          by cre8fire on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:46:50 PM PDT

          •  I'm not the least bit confused.

            And I don't buy your "logic".

            by Lying eyes on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:54:32 PM PDT

            •  As is your prerogative...

              ... however, I consider it an appeal to emotion to even label this conclusion as one that is coming from rightists. I'm as far to the left as they come - but I still can step back from my admiration of all that Hillary and Bill Clinton did to accept the reality that it's entirely possible this was a scripted moment. To label it with the rightist label comes across as an attempt to make the conclusion that it was scripted less palatable to those of us on the left. But I didn't decide that because of the rightists - I decided it because I watched it happen and decided for myself that it seemed fake.

              by cre8fire on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:06:59 PM PDT

      •  Well, I hate to share an opinion with such

        gasbags, and I don't hate Clinton at all.  In fact, I rather like her.

        But it just didn't look genuine to me.  There are moments for all our top 3 candidates that don't look genuine to me.  What can I say.  It's politics.

        by renaissance grrrl on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:52:30 AM PDT

      •  I' d have to agree with the grrrl.

        I don't listen to right wing radio and maybe you shouldn't either.  It has a distorting effect.
        I looked at the video after all the hullaballo and it was clearly evident that Clinton was straining an emotional response.  I found the whole act to be a saccharine exercise of presumptuous concern - her version of "feeling our pain".

        by wobbledon on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:58:26 AM PDT

        •  I should also say

          that I completely agree with everyone who argues the excessive media attention to this moment (regardless of its emotional sincerity) is a) silly and frivolous, and b) almost certainly gender-based.  Whatever Clinton was up to, there is no way it deserves to be such a big deal.

          by renaissance grrrl on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:06:45 PM PDT

        •  it is because

          we have become so cynical about politics that we question whether this was an honest display of emotion. And our cynicism about politics is due in no small part to the acts of the politicians themselves.

          Maybe it was contrived. I'm not going to condemn anyone here who asserts that this is so. I would just caution that partisanship not extend so far as to wholly deny "The Other" his or her humanity. This is what the right has done with the Clintons. As I said above, they deny that the Clintons ever evince such emotions honestly. Rush Limbaugh, more than 10 years on, cannot stop talking about Ron Brown's funeral, when, leaving the graveside, Clinton I, tears brimming in his eyes, leaned over to listen to something someone told him, then laughed briefly, before returning again to tears. Limbaugh insists that Clinton I returned to the tears because he saw the cameras on him; that, in truth, he was not emotionally effected at all, but put it all on for the cameras. When, as anybody who's ever been to a funeral knows, the emotions generated are often kaleidoscopic, and it is not uncommon, in remembering the dead, to move from tears to laughter and back again.

          Similarly, when George II shed a tear at a posthumous award ceremony for a soldier fallen in Iraq, people on this blog denied absolutely that he felt any genuine emotion. They refused to see that George II could genuinely feel loss over a man that, to him, had died in a noble cause.

          I would never vote for George II, and, because I live in California, I will never have to vote for Clinton II. But I am not going to deny that both are human beings, capable of feeling genuine, honest emotion.

          Now, Dick Cheney, on the other hand . . . . ; )

          (And, as to your assertion that I "shouldn't" listen to rightist radio, I, like several of the FPers on this blog, monitor righty media because I find it's useful to track the plans and opinions of the opposition.)

          by blueness on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:27:16 PM PDT

          •  Agreed. We shouldn't succumb to our cynicism

            And politicians shouldn't succumb to contrived moments.

            The genuineness of Clinton's reaction revolves around not just her emotions but the subject that supposedly elicited them.  The state of the country in this case:  Her identification with her ascendancy as president and the state of the nation.  She seemed to be welling up about the loss to our nation without her at the helm.  This is beyond the question of her being tired or "emotional" about attacks upon her character.

            That's a big difference between being cynical and being real about the question of proportionate emotional signals.

            by wobbledon on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM PDT

        •  Bingo

          It all looked very manufactured.  I'm not sure if she's just having a meltdown because of the Obama factor, or if it's part of a bigger image-makeover strategy; but considering the whole episode was sparked by the quesion "who does you hair?" I found the entire response really bizarre.  

          And she never did answer the question.

          by The Big Boss Man on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:48:23 PM PDT

    •  It could be sheer exhaustion as much

      as anything.  Much harder to suppress emotions when you're dead tired... seems more likely than outright fakery.  Knowing that she's going to have to battle stereotypes of being a "weak woman", I can't see that there would be any advantage to faking tears.

      by lineatus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM PDT

  •  Cry me a river - Hillary

    Nominate her for an Oscar as best actress in losing elections

    Her new campaign song will be:
    Tears of a Clown

    IN about 4 hours
    The Bush-Clinton era will be ended

    CELEBRATE

    by whitetiger on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:16:17 PM PDT

•  crying after terrorist attack

  better than starting a discretionary war.

  It's not what your first reaction is, it's what you do after you cry that counts

  by coigue on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:36:03 AM PDT

•  Generic Positive Comment assuming that

  Clinton is a human being with emotions . . . just because you've already had two claiming it was calculating and manipulative.

  I know where the manipulation is in this particular scenario . . . can you spell m-e-d-i-a?

  by prodigal on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:36:08 AM PDT

•  I love the gleeful sexism at dKos

  Not your diary, obviously - I mean, the general crap that's coming from a blog that freaked out over two women throwing pie at each other.

  For a bunch of self-proclaimed feminists, the "she's having a woman moment" stuff about Hillary is hypocrisy of the highest order.

  I'm glad some of the liberal blogs are pointing out the media bias.

  Someone should point out the blog hypocrisy (I'm going to, on my blog, not here, and no, I'm not linking to it).

  by Plutonium Page on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:37:36 AM PDT

  •  People are so gleeful

    about Hillary Clinton being on the ropes they want to ignore stuff like this.

    by quaoar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM PDT

    •  I Remember How it Felt

      After the so-called 'Dean Scream' pile-on.

      But these pile-ons give an opportunity to appear on TeeVee and talk about it -- maybe with a wee bit of humor. A very skilled politician can turn their moments into positive exposure if they have the right public personality.

      by GW Chimpzilla on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:02 AM PDT

  •  It should be front paged here

    The issue of sexist stereotypes needs to be addressed head on.

    by FishOutofWater on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:40:36 AM PDT

    •  I agree

      The issue should be brought up in some form.

      by quaoar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:42:16 AM PDT

    •  It's the day of an important primary

      Probably not the best day to start a flame war on the front page, plus it wouldn't be all that welcome by most of the other CEs, I don't think.

      Besides, I'm just a Hysterical Female™ ;-)

      by Plutonium Page on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:14:21 PM PDT

      •  Your call, but some things need to be discussed

        We can't move forward by shoving big problems under the rug.

        by FishOutofWater on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM PDT

  •  well,

    I'll link to it. It's a good blog, people.

    As for the rest: what page said.

    And no, I don't think it's a "Dean Scream" moment. The rightist radio gasbags, as an example, are already moving on. They've simply added this particular soundbite to a galaxy of other unflattering Clinton II audio bits.

    And they're starting to sharpen their knives for Obama . . . .  

    by blueness on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:44:04 AM PDT

    •  They are coming for Obama next

      Bet the farm on it.

      by quaoar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:45:17 AM PDT

      •  yesterday,

        on his radio show, Hannity was crowing that he's going to change his tag line from "The Stop Hillary Express" to "The Stop Hillary & Obama Express." And he proceeded to drag out the madrassas . . . .

        by blueness on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:50:54 AM PDT

        •  Sometime around July

          the swiftboating will commence.

          by quaoar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM PDT

    •  My post is not going to be kind

      But I did post a nice one about sperm whales yesterday :-)

      by Plutonium Page on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM PDT

      •  well,

        if I don't get blown off the tubes again by these nasty California storms, maybe I'll put up something directing Kossacks to your post, once it's up. I've been badly tardy over there on your blog, which has a lot of useful stuff. For example, if more people on this blog had read and learned from your post here, some of them might still have their ratings abilities, and the rest of us probably wouldn't so often feel, after visiting here, like we need a shower.

        by blueness on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:35:48 PM PDT

  •  A bunch of self--proclaimed feminists?

    Most of the feminists in the pie wars left this place, Page. There haven't been a huge population of self proclaimed feminists here for years now, though some stayed and some new ones have come along since then.

    I totally agree with your larger point, but I'm far from shocked that this blog is reacting the way it is.

    by Spit on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:26:09 PM PDT

•  I think it helped Clinton

  substantially among women.  I think Obama would have won by double digits before that moment, now I think that Clinton will come within 10, and Edwards is going to be hurt by his meanness.

  It is the first time that people have seen Hillary the human being, as opposed to Senator Clinton the crass politician.

  by IhateBush on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:40:59 AM PDT

  •  How about...

    ...the crass politician pretending to have a "human" moment?

    by SonicT on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:42:25 AM PDT

    •  Could be

      but I think at the end, Hillary is a decent person and would make a good Prez, not as good as Obama, but I would be proud to have her as Prez.  

      I think the moment was real, as the realization that her campaign is effectively going down to defeat, she is beginning to find herself again.  

      by IhateBush on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:46:19 AM PDT

      •  I don't think that any of them are decent people.

        not to say that they won't be decent presidents -- but I mean a far different sort of person than mensch when I want a decent president. I want the person who could order an assassination of another country's commander in chief -- and then extricate us from the entire mess gracefully.

        Emotions get in the way of logical thinking, but they lead to decency, imho.

        by RisingTide on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:06:59 PM PDT

    •  In addition

      I think the last couple days were the lowest point in Hillary's entire life, even worse than when she found out about Monica Lewinsky.

      by IhateBush on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM PDT

  •  Edwards was not mean

    that was media spin

    by BBelle on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:47:37 AM PDT

    •  It came off as really nasty

      and I think he's going to pay in his numbers today.  Obama will win by 6-8%, and Edwards will be around 15%.  Without this incident, I think Obama might have won by 15%.

      by IhateBush on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:49:02 AM PDT

      •  did you hear edwards say it

        or did you hear what you wanted to hear
        other articles didnt spin it as mean. obama suporters did

        by BBelle on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:57:19 AM PDT

  •  Yep, And Edwards meaness and desperation

    is on display again today with his guys screaming and waving signs in Hillary's face and refusing her offer of a handshake.  No class. None.

    by Lying eyes on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:54:35 AM PDT

  •  Agreed.. and I think it was a genuine thing

    And not just a calculated show.  That is the key to me.  She was indeed being genuine.  And the faux-hype is disgusting.

    by gilgaiiowa on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM PDT

•  Calculated

  This, like every single thing Hillary has done in this campaign, is a calculated (or "vetted," if you prefer) move. Count on it -- they had at least three meetings to plan this.

  by SonicT on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:41:08 AM PDT

•  not a Hillary fan at all..

  but I still feel nauseated at the gleeful reporting all over the place about this.

  'course I didn't like the pie thingy either.  Never thought of myself as a feminist at all though - go figure, lol...

  by American in Kathmandu on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:41:14 AM PDT

•  She couldn't even answer the question

  She "cracked" the voice, spoke softly and then looked right into the camera and launched into the same old crap about how she and only she is prepared to lead....several hours later in Dover, NH that softened voice was still there, so I am convinced that it was all staged, and I am lead to believe that there are several articles in the press about women, men, and crying that were not written after the event, but are part of a campaign...even if it was genuine, and I don't believe for a moment that woman does anything without a careful weighing, the Clintons have cried wolf too often for this old fellow...

  by Herron Maine on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:42:04 AM PDT

•  TV Coverage I Saw Was Quite Favorable

  and I don't recall seeing any mention on the nightly news that Obama had lept ahead hugely in SC.

  So no, it's not the Dean Scream moment.

  by Gooserock on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:45:04 AM PDT

•  No, it won't be

  the equivilant of the Dean scream.  The only reason I say that is that the media repeated over and over and over and over and over the dean scream.  Last night they discussed it, but quickly moved on to other news (mainly Obama's totall kick-assedness.)

  If it were a Dean scream they would have just shown clips of her gettin emotional all night.

  by nisleib on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM PDT

  •  I've been waching it all morning

    You can bet that after she loses tonight it'll be shown many more times.

    by quaoar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:46:19 AM PDT

    •  Maybe you're right

      but I don't see them dwelling on it like they did Dean and his scream.

      Do you remember what they did with that?  They just edited the scream to run back to back for like five minutes and then laughed.

      They can't do that with Hillary without looking like the sexist pigs they are.

      They might be able to do it with her debate performance.  When she got mad, that would feed into the pre-existing myth of Hillary the mean, but I think they have moved on and won't bother.

      by nisleib on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:50:25 AM PDT

      •  They won't come out and laugh

        That would be too obvious.

        Except for Rush, of course. I'm not going to listen to his show, but I 'd be willing to bet Rush is willing to go to full mocking mode.

        by quaoar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:57:40 AM PDT

        •  Well, yeah of course

          I actually turned on hate radio at lunch today (ever since Austin lost Air America my lunch hours suck) and it was freakin' amazing!  Even the knuckle draggers are praising Obama and beating up on their own candidates.

          They are really really afraid of Obama.  

          by nisleib on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:04:26 PM PDT

•  'Big Girls Don't Cry'

  the title of Fergie, for those who have forgotton, the former Duchess of York's, debut album.

  The fact is that it is only big girls who have the guts to cry. Jesus H Christ are we really falling for this media manipulation crap all over again, or still.  Just wait until the honeymoon's over and see what will get thrown all Obama's parade. Hope you are all ready for the shitstorm will surely come.

  by soccergrandmom on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:46:12 AM PDT

•  Didn't Reagan and Oliver North get teary-eyed

  when talking about America?

  Why can't Hillary do the same?

  Enough with this media trivia! It only distracts us from Edwards' haircuts.

  by DraftGephardt2008 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:46:49 AM PDT

•  If Clinton loses because of THAT...

  then we're just insane.

  I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I like to see evidence that these people are human...(Mitt Romney - man or robot?!)

  by Rayk on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:48:49 AM PDT

  •  As I said above it helped her

    I think Obama was on pace for a 12-15% victory which would have ended Clinton's campaign.  Now I'd say that it will be a 6-8% win for Obama.  

    by IhateBush on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:50:33 AM PDT

•  Nope

  Hilary's crying isn't the Dean scream of this election.

  I don't believe it helped or hurt her.

  Mark Penn is more deadly to Hilary Clinton than crying on camera and the spin over it one way or the other.

  by LeftHandedMan on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:48:58 AM PDT

•  Reminds me of the Family guy episode I

  saw last nite. Lois was running for mayor. The news media clip shows the male anchor and he says: "Can a woman really run this city? Or will she just bleed all over the place?"

  by dotdot on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:50:14 AM PDT

•  This is why people are pretty stupid.

  Seriously - if you need to watch your candidate to feel any empathy with them, then you are a failure. Do any of us really know that she faked the tears?  Or that the tears were real?  Does it matter?

  The tears probably helped her with the crowd that wants to see her as being more "human" -- which I imagine that most of those people were already predisposed to supporting her anyways if they have gone beyond policy issues and are looking at details of a persons emotional state.  And the tears probably hurt her among people who were looking for her to crack... and I imagine that many of them were already predisposed to not supporting her and just want reaffirmation that they are in the correct camp.

  So what do we have?  A non-story that fills the airwaves. Everyone knows that Clinton cries and Obama is "stinky" when he first wakes up.  Ridiculous fluff ....  everyone on this site loves to bash the MSM for whatever, but then this kind of crap comes up and there are 20 Diaries written on the topic.  Congrats, now go apply for MSM work.

  by Yoshi En Son on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:52:26 AM PDT

•  When I heard the clip, I thought of the

  number of times I've felt utter despair over the direction the country is headed, and could totally relate.  (think of how your heart sunk when Abu Ghraib first came to light, for example.)  Since som much of the coverage of Hillary has been of the "she's too cold and calculating" variety, it's ironic to see her get slammed for this.

  by lineatus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:54:15 AM PDT

•  I hope this comment

  won't be seen as a complete character attack because it's not. And this is the reason she is not my first, second or third choice. I just wished she had showed some emotion when she voted to send our military men and women to their deaths, along with thousands and thousands of innocent iraqis.

  by dotdot on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:55:39 AM PDT

•  her moment

  was to me anyway her most appealing. Being male or female brings different strengths/weaknesses to the game. Same thing with race, class, etc. You gotta play up what you got. I think it was a calculated moment, but an honest one too. I mean at this point, everthing is calculated. The only decision is, what do you reveal.

  The worst thing about her "moment" was the timing. The timing is such that anything she does now will only be viewed through the "implosion" lense. Everything is further proof that she's losing. A lot of things that are being called sexist aren't but i'm sure that won't stop people.

  by SeanF on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:56:48 AM PDT

•  I hope not

  I'm not even a Clinton supporter and I couldn't give a rat's patootie if she choked up.

  Hell, Dubya blubbers at the drop of a hat and he's supposed to be Mr. Tough Rancher-Decider Guy.

  I bet Mrs. Clinton wouldn't have sat reading "My Pet Goat" for seven minutes like he did.

  by Snud on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:58:35 AM PDT

•  It was an act

  I didn't see any tears, and Hillary getting choked up about the awful prospect of an Obama presidency was obviously an act.  I don't trust him either, but it's pure up-is-downism to say Obama would take America backwards.  Hillary's whole campaign is based on a return to Clintonism-- that's going backwards!

  by rmwarnick on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM PDT

•  Don't think she'd sit stupidly during attack n/t

  by Abra Crabcakeya on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM PDT

•  A non-story

  Hillary isn't and shouldn't be considered a victim. Whether contrived or not, the tears are a non-story, stress of the campaign. What she said with them was certainly not a slip but her angry response to the rejection and displacement she is experiencing. She was angry and as women often say with some frustration, when they get angry they cry. It's a non-event with  no meaning. Let's just move on.

  by cmpnwtr on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:23:44 PM PDT

•  a couple of thoughts

  it did sort of strike me that way - although there were differences too.  

  For one thing - WTF WAS that?  It crossed my mind that the moment was possibly staged.  This is HILLARY CLINTON for heaven's sake.  She's been through hell and back so often in her public life she's getting frequent traveller miles.  She is the consummate professional.  Whatever tears of sorrow, frustration or rage she cries - and everyone does, not just "girls" - she does it without the cameras rolling.  She's too familiar with the world of "gotcha politics" to get caught at anything.  If it was staged - whoever thought up this strategy should be shown the door.  What a stupid move.

  Staged or not the press, predictably, has jumped all over it.  And yes, it's disgusting.  But it's not so much like what was done to Howard Dean.  What Dean did was make an honest (albeit rookie) mistake with a microphone.  The press used it to make him out to be an unbalanced lunatic, never bothering to report the facts of the story.  But hey, that's politics, I guess.  

  This is uglier by far - as a woman who has spent a good percentage of my life in male-dominated fields, I recognize the stink.  It's the "women can't really do this job as well as men can" bullshit that comes up any time a competent female has a moment when she behaves more like a human being than an a force of nature.  Hillary has been pilloried for years in the press for being cold and calculating, yet a single moment of humanity is supposed to make her unfit to serve.  I'm beyond disgusted.  It's an insult to women everywhere.

  by lcork on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:25:17 PM PDT

•  I don't know...

  How many times have they run the clip in the last 24 hours.

  Apropos of very little, it seems to me Dems are always eagerly looking for a "moment."  

  Every time Dean tripped, whether it was his statement about us not being safe after Saddam's capture or about guys with Confederate flags on their pickups, many of his supporters would wail "This is it! The big gaffe! Oh god, he's finished!"  Then they seemed subdued, almost disappointed even, when it wasn't.

  I have concluded that "the big gaffe" is so eagerly sought after that there will always be one for every losing candidate. And The Big One will always be the last one before their campaign crashed for reasons completely unrelated to the gaffe.

  by Free Spirit on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:25:55 PM PDT

•  Really a backhanded attack on the female gender

  The way the press played the story gave me the first urge I ever had to vote for Hillary on February 5.  (It subsided quickly.)

  But women everywhere should be pissed off at how this story has been played.

  by Minerva on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:27:40 PM PDT

•  Look this is Bull S**t by MSM I am for

  Obama all the way.............What bothered me was the part she was making is personel to me......Did anybody catch the Debate the night before with John Edwards statement it is personal to him and if you want the change you must have a personal conviction for running..............Next day she came up with this.....I just can't buy it.............Remember back when Bill claimed that Edwards and Obama was attacking here after the Debate several months ago and they came up many statements at that time but the Night of the Debate Chris Matthew said she needs to say its because I leading..........About four days later the buss word was because I am leading...........Chris is full of shit but it wasn't until 4 days she came up with this.......I like Hillary but she not my pick.

  by army193 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:29:06 PM PDT

•  Totally saw this coming...

  proof

  by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:37:28 PM PDT

•  Boo Hoo she didn't cry

  her voce cracked..but I think if she is going to demonstrate her passion (which is a good thing) she should learn to do so thru her voice and her body language. Clintons campaign should really nip this in the bud by addressing the MSM and other critics and asking them which is true...Hillary the cold, hard, calculating ice queen..or Hillary the weak and weepy candidate? It can't be both, so we must conclude neither is true nor accurate and are only being propagated to distract the voters from focusing on the issues.. And this is the message that should be going out right now.   Further, the Clintons are too good at politics to make these types of mistakes...why and how are they happening? Lastly, I have no horse in this race and support all the candidates for the Democratic Party. I have decided to remain neutral and contibute to all but vote for none, atleast in the primary.... I do think the better they all perform, the tighter the race, and the longer the race will continue..and time is what we need to be able to truly assess each candidate. The only life lesson I know for sure is  not to make permanent decisions based upon temporary circumstances and only time defines what is temporary.

  by fiona2 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:37:48 PM PDT

•  I confess

  Sometimes I think I have been corrupted by the right on Hillary.  Now I am not looking for any troll rating--I am just being as honest as I can about my feelings about her--and I consider myself as progressive as any here.

  When I saw her tear up--my thoughts were not of her showing her humanity.  I did not see it as manipulative or contrived, forced emotion.  I thought of Ed Muskie.

  And I will even confess this--and believe me I hate that it was in my head, but that doesn't make it not there--when I saw the story of the "Iron my Shirt" sexism at her campaign event, my first thought was that the guy was a plant from the Clinton campaign.  I told my wife about the headline without my supicion, and her reaction was that the story made her want to vote for her even more than ever.  I feel like if that mistrust is there in me, then it has to be magnified in people who don't like her.  And let me be clear--I DO.  Should she end up getting the nomination, I will campaign for her.  I will support our nominee.  The thing is--I keep coming back to the idea that if she makes ME nervous, then there is a problem.  Another clarification--I do not think she is weak.  Hell, I didn't think Ed Muskie was either.  Campaign trail is rough and emotionally draining.  I do however always think about how average people will react to things.  

  So for the following reasons I feel like Hillary is a liability:

  It is the fight the republicans want

  She has the ability to do what none of the republicans can--unify their base

  Given our current GEOpolitical climate--who should be the face--Male or female?  Black or White?

  The experience meme works if you are an incumbent, but the experience meme after 8 years of opposition leadership is a look backwards psychologically for most voters at a time when they want to look forward and crave change.

  I do not think the brand "The clintons" is resonating.  

  Guarantees no honeymoon and immediate devisive politics for yet another election cycle.

  SO there it is.  I have been successfully brainwashed haven't I?

  Here's the thing though--If I have, then there is a problem, because I really really like her.  If I can be gotten to then how easy will it be to get to the people who aren't voracious political junkies?

  I think Penn has severely miscalculated.    

  by chap on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM PDT

•  Though it has been said in ways by others...

  I was not in the Clinton camp at the caucus, but this really REALLY pisses me off.  And for me to use profanity here, you know that it does.  When will the media...  main stream and otherwise... remember the word context.  When I first saw the clip yesterday, that was my comment.  It all depends on the context.  And sure enough, when placed in context (in my opinion) it was an honest expression of emotion and passion. I believe Senator Clinton deeply cares about her country, and the choking up a bit was the expression of a caring and committed citizen.

  When will we ever get responsible journalism again in this country?  

  Oh yes..  and I still would take any of our Democratic candidates over any of the Republican candidates by several country miles.

  by gilgaiiowa on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:07:00 PM PDT

•  It's not "the moment"

  It was a combination of things.

  This nomination truly was hers.  But her campaign made a long series of missteps.

  It began back in the October debate with the "non-answers" most notably the one about driver's licences.

  Then she went negative and that reminded people of the same old shit.

  Meanwhile, Obama and Edwards stayed mostly positive except to fend off the negative attacks.

  That positive approach wore really really well on Obama.  He began to remind us of what we had always hoped he'd be.  He began to cure cynacism and lift spirits and make people believe.

  And the more attacks came, the more desperate and tired and mean spirited HRC looked.

  Kindergarten?  Drug dealing?  Come on people.  That smacked of bullshit and most people just said no.

  And Obama held his head high and stayed with his message of hope and change and bringing people together.

  And Iowa, 95% white, said "Let's go for it."

  And still HRC didn't get the message.  They kept on with the negative

  Themes like:
  "False hope"
  "MLK was a dreamer.  LBJ was the hero."
  "Vote for me or the terrorists win".  
  "Roll of the dice"

  Then the moment.  Lines stolen from Edwards laced with negative attacks on both Edwards and Obama.

  Today, voters will say no to that negative old style of politics again.

  Today, they will send the message that they want something different, something better.

  Peace.

  by broui on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:03:37 PM PDT