Hillary cried (almost) and won...

The whole hoopla over her almost-crying isn't to be underestimated. She benfitted greatly from it (the hoopla, that is).

The Clintons have ALWAYS benefitted from unfair press. I don't know why, I don't know how, but they somehow have the aura of "underdog" even when they're way on top, and voters treat them that way. She gained hugely by the silly attacks on her this week. And they'll attack her worse in the GE and she'll benefit from that, too.

First they tried to make it sound like she lost her cool in the debate by being too passionate and angry while defending herself. Remember? That was when folks started debating whether she had had a "Dean Scream" moment which hurt her. But unlike with the "Dean Scream", no one doctored the sound track for Hillary's reply. Many people saw it themselves and decided that Hillary was simply being strong and appropriately passionate in defense of her record.

Then barely a day later she got a little emotional responding to a question live, and up like clock work came the media speculation if her "crying" was too emotional and weak for voters to accept in a potential president. Hard/Soft; damned if she did and damned if she didn't. The one/two combo attack on a woman showing any emotional deviation from polite and reasoned was pretty stark. It wasn't just the clip when "she almost cried". The ridicule over Hillary's "debate melt down" moment set up the incident with that question perfectly. The double standard was too hard to ignore this time, too dramatic, too rapid fire, and too close to the actual voting when everyone was paying close attention.

she's damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't. And yet, electorally, she benefits from such nonsense.

...she gets blasted by the media for being an ice queen if she does NOT show emotion. Everyone has also been through that drill repeatedly. It is all very blatent. They thought they could get away with it but they over played that hand, and although Hillary isn't, backlash is a bitch.

reaction to it -- they both have always handled it extremely well.

WHY do they benfit from it?

Bill was always pretty self-effacing - but so are most other successful politicians. I suspect the attacks against them are just transparently unfounded.

If a strategy works, adopt it.

Along with the economy and health care.

See The War Room for details.

Now she is for experienced change!

First she mocked it. Then tried to endorse it, all the while I guess it was part of the deal Bill ran on which presumably is part of her "experience".

What happened was she was running on "experience"...then she got behind and saw how change had a larger followign....so she morphed her message.

Now, nothing inherently wrong with that. Politicians are known for changing their positions all the time.

But Bill Clinton did not invent change. He just ran on it. Same with Obama. Hillary has run against and for and for both so far. Who knows how many changes there will be in her position.

And even JFK waited until his inaugural to mention that a torch had been passed to a new generation.

Hell, Julius Caesar didn't invent change. But Bill Clinton was the guy who put the concept front and center in his 92 run. Along with "It's the economy, stupid" and health care, of course.

No one owns it, everyone is yapping about it--because the MEDIA keeps bringing it up.

I don't recall any mocking, it was more like "Change when you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground isn't useful." And that is a point....

I don't remember people saying Mitt was weak after he teared up about the Mormons deciding (in the 70's, for God's sake!)
to admit blacks to their church. Where was the talk of "weakness" and questions about his sincerity? It's all such bullshit.

I have not been a Hillary supporter, but I found the press and folks here to be beyond the pale in their double standards lately.

Most people said they didn't believe Mitt.

They actually DID use the weak word with old Mitt--they thought his little story was pretty fucking weak, and that he was making shit up (like his daddy marching with MLK--oooops, that didn't happen EITHER!!!)!!!

This is not a compassionate guy--if he were, he wouldn't have strapped a dog to the roof of his car for twelve hours, so that the dog, terrified, shit all over itself.

Your point IS valid, though--it's a bullshit double standard. The fact that so much of the shit comes from the D side of the aisle is disheartening, and really reflects badly on some of our membership.

:freak:

or are you just talking out your @ss?

And her entire campaign was prepared to discuss the "humanizing moment", and then later in the day, the attack that never happened.

They always manage to get their message out when it's about them.

Nothing mysterious about it at all.

but she certainly WAS attacked. You can simply search this very forum for evidence of that.

I watched all day and was dismayed at the absolute adoration she was getting over her humanizing moment. Tucker Carlson is the only one who said something negative. Suddenly, Dan Abrams comes on and starts talking about her being attacked. Wha???? And we all know who Dan Abrams is. This isn't the first time they've accused "the boys" of attacking her when no attack happened. It's just absurd.

is that what she's shooting for here as far as analogy goes?

She isn't the first candidate to sound that way during an exhausting campaign. What I wonder is why the press finds this so riveting. Another example of lazy, time- filling reporting.