« Hillary Clinton Goes There | Main | All Predictions Wrong or Your Money Back »
John Edwards Goes There
By Jeff Fecke | January 8, 2008
As you know, earlier today Hillary Clinton cried. Okay, well, she didn’t cry, exactly; her voice sorta broke as she related to a crowd how hard a race for president can be, and how she and the other candidates were running because they believed in what they believed in. You know, she sort of acted like a human being.
Well, this was of course the worst thing ever because, as we all know, the only thing worse than a woman who doesn’t show emotion is a woman who shows emotion. And so the chattering classes immediately took to the airwaves to determine whether this had wounded Clinton’s campaign fatally, or double-secret-super fatally. (Answer: neither. She was done before this happened. This, if anything, might help her.)
As part of this bold, truth-seeking, important journalism, which focused on the truly important things, like whether humans have emotions, rather than trivial matters like the war in Iraq or the current housing crisis, our journalists fanned out to the Edwards and Obama campaigns to find out how bad Hillary had screwed up.
To his credit, Obama refused to take the bait:
During a campaign stop at Jake’s Coffee in New London, New Hampshire, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was also asked to comment about Clinton’s teary moment.
“I didn’t see what happened,” he said, but added, “I know this process is a grind. So that’s not something I care to comment on.”
Come on, Barack! If you’re going to be a front-runner, you’ve got to attack whether you know what the facts are or not, like, say, John Edwards here:
Edwards offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to question Clinton’s ability to endure the stresses of the presidency.
“I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business,” Edwards told reporters Laconia, New Hampshire.
Edwards did not go on to state, “Plus, a penis — a big, honkin’, swingin’ dick — that helps too.” He merely implied it.
Look, I’m not the biggest Hillary fan in the world. But what she showed on the stump today was human emotion. I’ve cried. You’ve cried. I bet Dick Cheney even cried when he found out he couldn’t invade Tehran.
Clinton herself did not cry. Didn’t even tear up. Her voice choked up a little bit, which means she felt and meant the words she was saying. But she didn’t cry.
And if she did cry, so what? We have no problem with anger on the campaign trail — John Edwards is a font of righteous anger. We have no problem with snarky, sixth-grade level putdowns, if Saturday’s GOP debate is an indication. We have no problem with laughter, even when it’s faked.
So when a candidate expresses a more nuanced emotion? Well, I myself would hope that a president would cry before committing our nation to war, would cry when he or she thought about what happened to New Orleans, would cry when he or she talked to actual humans who are struggling to get by in this country. Sorrow, sadness, fear? These are the appropriate emotions to feel, and indeed, only a sociopath wouldn’t feel them. I would worry about a president who never cried during his or her term in office. I worry our current president hasn’t cried enough.
That doesn’t mean I want a president who dissolves into a puddle, unable to do anything at all. But that surely doesn’t describe Clinton, who has run her campaign with flinty-eyed resolve. No, all Hillary did was, for just a moment, show us that she’s human. And humanity — basic, normal humanity — is not a weakness. We are not electing a superhero. We are electing a president. Clinton has given liberals many reasons to vote against her. Her possession of human emotion, like her possession of a vagina, is not among them. Shame on Edwards for insinuating that either of them is. Clinton is getting enough sexist flack. She doesn’t need it from people ostensibly on the same side.
Topics: Barack Obama, Feminism, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards | 5 Comments »
January 8th, 2008 at 1:27 am
I think it’s awfully coincidental — and politically convenient — that just after a strategy session in which Hillary made it clear that she was going to be more hands on and eschew the advice of her consultants, suddenly we see a flash of emotion. And on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. Of all the times to “crack,” why now? And in her case, showing emotion is actually seen as an asset for her — the ice queen candidate who never shows any vulnerability. This was a calculated decision to remake her image in the throes of a faltering campaign. In light of this, I am suspicious of the authenticity of such “emotion.” What also bugs me is the type of question asked of her in order to elicit her answer. “How do you do it?” Now THAT’S gotta be a plant if there ever was one!
January 8th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Dear John,
It’s primary season. Everything is fake. Get over it.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:59 am
You know, I saw the clip, and if Hillary was acting, then she’s got a long and distinguished career in the theater after her political career is over. I’m not a Hillary fan, but if this was staged, it was pulled off remarkably.
That said, I don’t think it was staged. And I think it takes a lot of irrational hatred of Clinton to think it was.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Jeff Fecke wrote:
I think I sense a bit of irrational exuberance on behalf of a fellow Democrat.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Well, I’ll be damned. Hillary just won New Hampshire. Those tears really did work!