Tears for Fears
Why are we so surprised that Hilary Clinton has a heart? She answered a question, at the end of a juggernaut of campaigning with a simple unplanned moment of truth. Her obvious love for our country, of the true sacrifice a public servant makes and the one overlooked and biggest reason one would want to hear from a candidate, that they care, that they are grateful for the life they have been given by others who served before them.
It was a real moment, tears or not, and it seemed to cut through the bullshit that accompanies most answers on the campaign trail.
Michael Moore's analysis of her vote for the war was that as a woman she has to "be as 'tough' as a man, she has to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted."
Why is a woman's natural emotionality, as well as incredible sense and judgment and compassion and strength, a liability. None of you would be here were it not for a woman's strength -- you men try giving birth, something Mrs. Clinton has done. Most of all, don't we really want a president with a heart, a big, open, warm, loving, mother's heart to lead us out of this bleak despair, into the light of hope and peace.
Please don't just classify her tears as a hoax or a "woman's moment". Classify it as a human contact made in a time of great need and I for one am proud of her commitment to service and duty and honor and yes, tears, for we have so much to be sad about and so much to hope for in the future.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There isnt any Crying in Politics! I wouldnt want our next president showing emotion! Im a woman and I dont think what she did was right. She was only crying, because she was losing!
"Why is a woman's natural emotionality, as well as incredible sense and judgment and compassion and strength, a liability."
When they're all in the same package, it's not a liability. When they come out separately, as they did when Clinton used judgment with no sense, emotionality with no compassion, and none of the above with any moral strength that the criticism alights upon her.
Nah the tears came after she realized she is despised and would never become president. Have they started counting those votes yet???
Hillary is an admirable public figure in my opinion and someone I would be proud to vote for in the general election. But she's not at the top of my list for the presidential nominee of the Democratic party.
She has, as stated earlier in previous entries done her best to convey the perceived strength of a man in order to participate in top level American politics. Her display of tears a few days ago are not a sign of weakness, but just of emotion being shown to the voting public for the first time. I'm surprised we never saw it before.
She has had more (unjustified) mud thrown at her than any other woman I've ever seen with the possible exception of maybe Jane Fonda. The intense hatred stirred up during the Clinton presidency for both her and Bill by the republicans was and continues to be a disgrace. She has learned to campaign the hard way. Unfortunately, she's using the same tactics she learned from them. She has come out swinging from the beginning. The republicans will continued to hate her because that's what they do.
For the rest of us we have five excellent candidates to choose from folks; Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel and Clinton. A few weeks ago we had more. This not a "lesser of two evils" lineup. I hope we can reduce the amount of mud throwing and firmly back which ever one of them lands the nomination.
The well financed swift-boaters are getting their smear campaign ready for whomever wins the candidacy. We need to be ready for them. I say run ads smearing the swift-boaters for what they are; liars who are drunk with power who will say and broadcast anything to get their way before they can start tearing down the Democratic nominee. Make them look like the scum they are.
The Democrats deserve their time to make things in this country work for it's citizens again. The republicans aren't interested in doing this. In my lifetime, they never have been.
Jamie, I've always loved you and your work, but I'm just NOT buying it was a genuine moment, in large part because of what you, other bloggers and even the main stream media seemed to have missed in this event. THAT would be a critical look at the words Senator Clinton was actually saying, at that time, in New Hampshire.
The WORDS were(approx.), '..it's that we've made so much progress, and I just don't want to see us slide backwards', and then the tearful sigh.
There are are SO MANY things wrong with that statement on so many levels, that I cannot comprehend the fact that tears were even involved.
The one over-riding question that must be asked of her is, BECAUSE of those particular words; Is there ANY area of 'progress' the Senator can name, that has occurred in the last 7 years, that's equal to the 600 year slide in habeas corpus.
We've had the OPPOSITE of 'progress'; in OUR country's standing in the World community, in OUR Constitution, in OUR Governments integrity, in OUR national security, in Americans with health insurance, in corporate responsibility and even OUR country's 'debt-status' economy.
Where IS this 'progress' she spoke of?
Minimum wage? Yeah, that stacks up...
NO, Jamie, the actual words she was speaking, were far more terrifying than the thought that OUR next President might truly have emotions. She BELIEVES that we've been continuing to make 'progress'.
EVERYONE, seemingly, ...just failed to 'listen'.
Thank you, Jamie, for taking a media moment and shedding some clear, honest light on it.
If Hillary blinked people would find some reason to criticize her for it. It's insane.
Excuse me, but I find it rather cheap to defend Hillary's Iraq War vote simply because she had to have "a heart of a man." These postmodern excuses need to stop, because we need a candidate that looks at the situation and does what is right. Obama was against the war BEFORE the war even began. Hillary has too many special interests to be president. We need change, and we have seen too much corruption. Clinton wants to draw attention away from her own acceptance of lobbyist money by pointing out that Obama's campaign chair is a lobbyist. That is true, but he doesn't accept money from him in exchange for voting a particular manner. Senator Obama has been a legislator longer that Clinton; he has done great things for the state of Illinois, and I believe that he will do the same for America.
As for Hillary's crying episode, who cares? I am more concerned with the issues and what can be done to improve this country. It shouldn't be a deciding factor in terms of voting, because it makes a mockery of our process. Vote on the issues.
I don't know why this would be regarded as something worthy of debate. She teared up. That's it. Some would see it as a sign of weakness while others see it as a natural, truthful reaction. I cannot understand why people feel that they have been manipulated by Mrs. Clinton's moment of open emotions. Had Obama done it, would people call him a "sensitive man"? It makes me wonder about the people who believe that if a woman tears up, she displays emotion for her own gain. Some people have written she should have teared up over the destruction of Katrina or the death of many soldiers. Maybe she's angry about these issues. I don't understand the expectation that candidates need to be robots during their campaigns: say the right thing, shake the right people's hands, wear the right outfit, and not get emotional. I wish the flip side was true: where candidates don't rehearse speeches, where they do speak about what frustrates them, and when they do show their true natures and beliefs. Instead of targetting the women's vote, the Black vote, the religious vote, the conservative vote, the liberal vote,the corporate vote, why not say "this is who I am and if you agree with my platform, I welcome your support"?
Curtis us right about Hillary but it would have been nice if Curtis gave the same heart-felt consideration when she supported Schwartzenegger--her good friend.
Hillary isn't special because she's a woman and no one should vote for her because she is. God knows, women have had their moments of shame in history e.g., Indira Ghandi turned dictator, Evita Peron was well..we know what she was, all those european queens who were colonialists and ruled with an iron fist, the last tsarina of Russia, a neurotic anti-semite who ruled her husband and in effect the country, the last murderous empress of China and Margaret Thatcher, a right-wing so-and-so etc.
I believe in Clinton however to get this economy going again, more so than Obama. We're going to need someone who can do that but if the race card continues to fall into play, with Obama supporters claiming a vote for Hillary is a vote for bigotry, you can guarantee a republican win.
I think you've got it wrong, Jamie. Moore's comment regarding toughness was aimed at the fact that we live in a patriarchal society. For a woman to break through that shield requires her to position herself much as a man would.
I think Mrs. Clinton has realized this early on, and it has worked to her advantage. Should she express too much femininity, though, she would surely lose a huge portion of her base.
One tearful moment is good politics; two is not.
BTW, I am strongly inclined to vote for a woman executive, but Hillary is not that woman, as I look at the big picture and see a disingenuous person. Just my opinion.
Thank you Ms. Curtis for your cogent examination of Senator Clintons's tears. However,it seems that I may be the only one in the nation who heard the question asked of her which promulgated her emotional response. She was wrapping up a thoughtful -albeit technocratic-response regarding our young men and women in uniform and from beyond the cameras and above the din she is asked "who does your hair?". I cry for her and this nation. Have we really come a long way?
The feminist icon Germaine Greer has another take on Hillary and it is hilarious! I'm a feminist of Hillary's generation and Greer has a view that is closer to mine.
http://tinyurl.com/3aqepl
Hillary Clinton has been deeply involved in Democratic politics for 35 years. We know were she stands.
Obama is another untested, hyper-ambitious politician who has done NOTHING significant in his entire life.
His entire political platform consists of some anorexic whining about "hope" and "change"
I go with a known and trusted candidate.
If we can't get Kucinich,
its Clinton for President in 2008 and 2012.
Jamie, I loved you in Tailor of Panama. You played a woman with a great heart. You were devoted to good men because they were good men devoted to a good cause. You eschewed the false.
I just can't see Hilary in that role, can you?
I wish they'd run a bigger picture of Jamie Lee Curtis. She's still kinda hot.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
