Hillary Clinton apparently turned around the Democratic Primary in New Hampshire in the final days when she turned on the tears in a diner, surrounded by the Yeah-yeah Sisterhood. Was it real, or was it Memorex? Inquiring minds want to know! Peggy Noonan shares some thoughts at WSJ.com:
While everyone beats the hell out of the media, which is never wholly a bad idea, one should point out what everyone in politics and journalism knows: Hillary Clinton's own people knew she was going to lose. Major supporters and fund-raisers thought so and said so, for weeks, off the record.And they were not heartbroken about it. I saw no tears. They were shocked, not saddened; shaken, not stirred. One told me the problem was the campaign had been so obsessed from day one with showing she was a commander in chief that they never thought to urge her to be a woman among women. She used her sex--the boys are picking on me!--but she never assumed her sex. Then, tired and with nothing to lose, she allowed her eyes to well. It was an arresting sight because it suggested the presence of a soul in the machine.
Let's look at the tears before they harden like resin into cliché. Quickly. She was taking questions in a diner, a woman asked how she does it each day, she started talking about how hard it is, and she got misty-eyed, her voice soft for once--conversational, not hectoring.
Exactly 100% of the people who saw it on the news and on YouTube had one reaction. It was to ask a question: Is that real or artifice? With the Clintons you always have to ask, which is the great Clinton problem.
Read the whole column at the above link. Whatever the reason for her brief showing of emotion, Democratic women seem to have bought it. Noonan contrasts the entire image Obama has built for himself, one of being cool, calm, collected, unflappable, unemotional.
Obama won among male voters, but not by as much as Hillary won the female vote. Women also constitute a slightly higher percentage of the Democratic primary vote in most states - will this translate into an advantage for Clinton? And, given the evident success of the emotion display in New Hampshire, will we see more open emotion down the road?
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Commentary, Democrats, Hillary, Primaries
Tags: Democrats, Hillary Clinton, presidential campaign, primaries
Comments (4)
I saw your comments on Hugh... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Glenn Koons | January 11, 2008 3:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I saw your comments on Hugh's blog today Jim. And it seem that we conserv-Pubs are in a confused state of wanting to eliminate our guys before 47 states even get to vote! Will the media love our guys if they cry? Or if we get someone to say that people are racially insensitive to white guys? Or will the MSM now attack our guys because they will not have disdain for the Judeo-Christian ethos? I am sick and tired of the MSM and the pacifist socialists of the Dem-Left trying to define the GOP nominee. Except for Paul, I like all of our guys over any Dem nominee. It will not take the Bradley, Hil cry, or Obama 'nice hope' scenarios and ploys to nominate our final guy. Experience, agendas, national defense, tax cuts, jurist SCOTUS selections and closing the borders will do it hopefully for our electorate.
1. Posted by Glenn Koons | January 11, 2008 3:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2008 15:42
2. Posted by Jim Addison | January 11, 2008 5:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, the Giuliani and Thompson campaigns and most of their supporters, from what I see and the email I get, have tended to stay away from mentioning/criticizing/"attacking"/"contrasting with" the other candidates (Thompson did target Huckabee directly in the debate in Myrtle Beach, but on policy alone).
The others have been unrelenting in criticizing each other, often behind the scenes in emails from the campaign staff and/or supporters. Huckabee had a major "527" operation shredding Romney in Iowa phone calls, but the Romney "contrast" ads were on TV and got more publicity. McCain bristles at any criticism at all, and tends to snap, but most of the dirty work is done behind the scenes (where they don't hesitate to strike).
Now, I wouldn't object to that alone. I think "contrast" ads can be fine, even beneficial by pointing out legitimate differences. But all three of these are distorting/exaggerating their opponents' positions, and it's counterproductive.
In Hewitt's case (which has now seemed to affect Ruffini as well), it's become ridiculous. I disagree with McCain and Huckabee on many issues and don't completely trust either one of them, but as you note they look a lot better next to Hillary or Barack. My opinion of Romney has declined steadily over the last two months, due to the conduct of both his campaign and his supporters like HH.
2. Posted by Jim Addison | January 11, 2008 5:18 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2008 17:18
3. Posted by jackson | January 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Nothing expresses my reaction to Clinton's teary Q&A better than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN4JeMMoGJI
3. Posted by jackson | January 12, 2008 1:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2008 13:42
4. Posted by Rusty | January 12, 2008 9:49 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Without a doubt the tears were contrived. Without a doubt. We've had Hillary in the spotlight for 16+ years now. Not once has she shown anything like this. Not once. Then, when she needed it, it was there.
Yeah. Right.
My wife's reaction was I think more common than was reported: "If I did that at work, I'd be toast. How dare she pull that crap."
4. Posted by Rusty | January 12, 2008 9:49 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2008 21:49