Why I Have Trouble Believing Hillary's Well-Up Was Real

Some analysts are presenting their belief that Hillary Clinton's well-publicized "well-up" after last Saturday's Democratic Presidential debate enabled her to show enough of her "softer side" to push her over the top in New Hampshire.

That may be the case, but I remain unconvinced that the well-up wasn't anything more than a stage act.

I mean, here you have a woman who managed to keep a steely public face during all the years of Bill's cheating. A smart but oh-so-calculating Senator who has always voted on the basis of political calculation than true belief.

And you expect me to believe that Hillary lost her cool with the well-up?

I posit a different scenario. Going into the New Hampshire vote, it was conventional wisdom that Obama had the young Democrats, as well that state's more liberal males of all ages.

That being the case, Hillary had to play to her base. Women, including more than a few older women who as part of their life experiences, have either cried or held their own daughters when they, um, welled-up. For reasons that escape me, enough of these women may have bonded with Hillary's emotional presentation to vote for her.

Well, it worked. At least it did in New Hampshire.

Playing the emotions card didn't start with Hillary's well-up, though. Think back almost eight years.

This identification-building strategy was no different than the so-called spontaneous Al and Tipper kiss during the Democratic National Convention of 2000. Build up Al Gore's comparatively weak demographics among male voters by showing his side as a macho man loyal to his wife (unlike, guess who).

Comments

[klondiker]

How are you enjoying those sour grapes there?

[yabu]

You don't know anything about Al and Tipper if you think that kiss was staged or had something to do with Clinton's behavior. I would have been surprised if he had NOT done it.

Macho man loyal to his wife? That is a contradiction of the day. Machoism is not about being loyal to one woman, exuse me.

[cerebros]

Though I am a Barack Obama supporter, I was moved by her display. She showed her human side. It was good to see, and I actually like her a little more because of this. That said, the question I had is whether she was crying for herself or for the country. I think either way it is a human reaction. But I believe her tears were more for herself. She was expected to have this nomination wrapped up by the end of the first quarter fund-raising in 2007. But Sen. Obama's fund-raising (especially with his high number of donors), his victory in Iowa, have forced her to work very hard. Also, for about 24-48 hrs there, it looked like a former shoe-in for the nomination was going to KO-ed within the first two primary battles. That would naturally make anyone feel like their whole world has turned on them and make them get emotional.

Even though I am disappointed that Sen. Obama did not win the NH primary, I am glad to see this contest stay close and the discussion continue. I think the people win when the discussion gets prolonged, and the candidates get stronger.

[DavidHealy]

I'm sure tears will go a very long way toward solving our health care crisis . . . . . right.

[Simone]

Egads - what a non-article. You haven't quite made up your mind if Hillary's well-up is real but you don't ponder if Obama's hope is real or Edwards' anger is real or McCain's straight talk is real. I'd well up, too, if I were her because too many of the attacks from the other candidates and the media have been personal, not policy based. They are playing high school name calling with her and she just smacked them back my getting a scholarship to the best college around.

[frustratedinohio]

She's not crying now.

[lynnn]

I do not want a president who just now gets it (although that person has had 35yrs).

[suki21693]

Overanalyze much?
Whether it was real or not -- why do so many people really care if a presidential candidate wells up a bit? Human emotion is a good thing (as long as it is not some kind of bipolar insanity). Cut a person a break, if they don't show sufficient emotion they are lambasted as being wooden (or plastic).

And since every nuance of every speech any of the candidates give is rehearsed and staged, what difference does it make if this was?