Unfortunately for Hillary, the Golden Globes have been canceled, thus her strategic weep fest will do nothing for her on the red carpet or at the polls; all signs point to the fact that her appeal for sympathy won’t be enough to catapult her to victory in the New Hampshire primaries tomorrow evening. Even after her emotions escaped her, Obama was nine percentage points ahead of her, showing a resilience I believe he’ll carry into tomorrow’s primaries.ÂÂ
I’m hip to the Clinton tactics; I’d hope most sensible Americans are as well. Hillary pulls all the stops – and she does so with eloquence and tactility. While I’d love to believe that she is genuinely in love with Lady Liberty, her tears are more than convenient. She came in third in Iowa and her numbers are down in preliminary New Hampshire estimates. Clearly, she’s looking for some last minute compassion.
Ironically, she claims she is not exploiting her gender, yet her appeal to instill pathos in New Hampshire voters is completely accepted – and this is so only because she is a woman. If a male contender were in Hillary’s place, shedding tears and getting choked up, he would be saturated with negativity for his lack of masculinity. Clearly, she’s playing the gender card as best she can as she utilizes her feminine reactionary skills to draw voters in.ÂÂ
Now, I’m aware of the fact that many Democrats are so enthralled by Mrs. Clinton that they’d venture to claim she was actually genuine in her emotionally-driven response. If in fact this is the case, she is a sore loser at best. Appealing via tears is a sign of weakness. Hold then in and forge on; it’s not the end of the world, Hillary. She claims she cares so much that she simply couldn’t restrain herself. As can be expected, she’s playing it cool:ÂÂ
One-time presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton scoffed at suggestions that she had an “Ed Muskie momentâ€? on the campaign trail Monday, when she was driven to the verge of tears at a campaign event during the final hours before New Hampshire voters go to the polls Tuesday.ÂÂ
 And in Hillary’s own words:ÂÂ
Now, for my continued diatribe: While I believe a woman deserves to become president (this is to say that I am not opposed to the idea of a female holding office), Hillary Clinton is not the woman for the job. Consider – and by consider I mean actually ponder the irony associated with the fact that we live in a global climate that does anything but foster female leadership roles – the Middle East (or as I like to call it the “Cauldron of the World’s Demiseâ€?). ÂÂ
If Hillary were to be elected, what would Middle Eastern leaders have to say about America? I mean, they love us so much as it is; I simply cannot imagine the enamored state Islamist leaders would find themselves in if a woman were to be elected the leader of the free world. Not only is Hillary a female (and we know how well women are treated in many Islamic nations), but she’s also a sore loser (which probably makes her an even bigger joke in the eyes of insane Islamists). ÂÂ
And I’m not attacking women. I’m simply stating the obvious: Our relations are less than adequate with the Middle East. I believe wholeheartedly that this is the worst possible time to elect a female. And while we shouldn’t have to yield progress to please radical Islamic wing nuts, it’s more than sensible that we hold off on a female president. Yet, most liberals haven’t even considered this; they’re still trying to get over the fact that we’ve had a cowboy in the White House for the past eight years (and don’t get me wrong; I’m not a Bush hater. I’d take a cowboy over Hillary any day). But gender is the least of Hillary’s problems. She needs a reality check and a moral compass that works; there’s more to being president than simply adhering to the idea that we must help our fellow man. Like Kerry, she’s an idealist – one who will never fulfill all she’s touted.ÂÂ
In sum: We need a strong leader who is ready for the challenge that leading this great nation poses. I wonder if we’ll see more tears when the results role in tomorrow evening?
The last thing we should be concerning ourselves with is what the heads of Islamic nations will think. They will hate us no matter who we elect so let’s elect the best person, without regard to immutable characteristics such as gender or race.
I agree that Hillary’s use of the gender card on the stump is a double standard that men can not employ. However, her greatest failures as a candidate are her policies, not her ability to campaign. Supporting the President for several years throughout a failed and incompetently managed military fiasco shows that she does not have the correct judgment to be our commander-in-chief.
While I disagree on the military matters, I do agree that her policies are her greatest fault. I also agree with the idea that Islamist nations will hate us either way, but I’d still venture to say that electing a female at this juncture is totally nonsensical.
“…electing a female at this juncture is totally nonsensical.”
Which is worse, electing a female or someone that can’t even locate Pakistan on a map?
We need to move past the “we hate Bush” mentality that has guided the left since 2000. The issue I was getting at is world respect; we’ve lost it and we need to regain it. I simply think that placing a female in office at this point in time will birth new issues concerning our international relations.
Concentrating on how idiotic Bush may be doesn’t pale the gender issue at hand.
I’m not a Hillary supporter, but it’s clear to me she’s getting a bum rap. A sexist rap, if you will, as well as a deep-seated “anti-Hillary” rap.
She didn’t “lose it” in the Saturday debate; she vigorously defended her record against Edwards’ innuendo. That showed me her passion and her fighting instinct. If a guy had fought back that way, he’d be praised. She should be too.
And her “meltdown” in the diner seemed to me to be a heartfelt moment where she displayed her emotions. She’s been battered from the start of this campaign, in large part because of her gender and that mysterious thing called Clinton hatred.
Again, I’m not a big fan of hers, but I have no problem with a show of honest emotion.
Other countries have had female heads of state and would not have a problem if we elected one.
But with the world situation as unstable as it is, and the stereotype of “females being weak,”
it’s AMERICAN VOTERS who couldn’t accept a woman president.
At least not THIS woman at THIS time.
I agree with Steve about Hillary getting a bum rap.
I’m not a Hillary supporter, and her persona has always turned me off, but I can’t see her display of emotion in that diner as weakness.
She’s been looking visibly strained by the rigors of the campaign trail, so it’s not surprising that the emotional fatigue might express itself with the tears allowed to women by our sexist society. It’s just another kind of sexism that denies those tears to men.
Macho Hispanic societies allow their political men to cry in public without losing face.
And besides, Bush is a phony ‘cowboy’– Vicente Fox says in his autobiography that Bush is a “windshield cowboy” who is afraid of horses. That swaggering ‘machismo’ of Bush’s is bogus– it’s really the baseless self-assurance of a rich kid who grew up accustomed to privilege.
Unfortunately, it’s the foot soldiers of our military who have to suffer being used by an emotionally stunted man who treats them as personal playthings he got for Christmas.
Also, it’s utter nonsense that we should shape our foreign policy according to what Muslim dictatorships think about the place of women.
To debase ourselves and our ideals by trying to appease medieval and backward-looking mullahs would be the worst display of weakness.
I think we would all be having a very different discussion if the first serious female candidate for President was not a former first lady.
Bill’s shadow looms large over everything Hillary does.
Well, that’s the devil’s bargain she made to get where she is.
How about a Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir type in contention? Even the present, and former Secretary’s of State, from an image point of view.
Point blank, Clinton is not convincing enough as she presents herself. It’s like she’s playing to a script, saying what she thinks people want or need to hear, and half believing it herself.
I may be missing something, but I don’t share the visceral hatred for Hillary that seems to animate her detractors.
Yes, she has taken opportunistic (and in my opinion, wrongheaded) positions on issues that matter to me, and I never planned to vote for her.
But I do think she’s smart, tough and determined, and would make a fine chief executive.
It’s her misfortune to be running against Obama –a candidate who can touch the hearts of voters in a way that Hillary just cannot.
And that’s her downfall.
As with most things in life, timing is everything.
Considering New Hampshire…As Vince might suggest….”it ain’t over ’til the Black Jewish Lesbian sings”