Hillary Clinton and Excitable Women

Hillary's got emotion. Who knew? Not even Clinton, herself, I'll wager. But now that her floodgates have opened, and New Hampshire women have apparently responded with their own outpouring of support, it's a surer bet that we'll be forever swamped with Clinton's feelings; glossing over questions about her record, her claim of experience, and drowning out legitimate questions about the potential of a celebrated political insider actually changing the way business is done in Washington.

Playing off of the moment late in the NH primary race where she welled-up with emotion when questioned about her own ability to manage through the campaign, Clinton told her supporters last night that she had "listened" to them and had found her "own voice" in the process. "I felt like we all spoke from our hearts," she said, "and I am so gratified that you responded."

It may well be true that there is too much being made of the 'transformation' of the normally businesslike Clinton into an empathetic figure, based on her response in the NH debate to the charge that she isn't as likable as her closest rival; and based on her insistence that her candidacy is "personal," and not merely political. However, NH women -- who make up 57% of the electorate there -- gave Clinton 40% of their vote, in the wake of her emotional display.

What interests me is the way that Clinton was able to communicate her commitment to voters by revealing and sharing her own vulnerabilities, and, by framing her campaigning efforts as her own personal sacrifice on their behalf.

"So as tired as I am — and I am," she told the woman who asked about her ability to manage her hairstyle, " . . . and as difficult as it is to try and keep up what I try to do on the road, like occasionally exercise and try to eat right — it's tough when the easiest food is pizza — I just believe so strongly in who we are as a nation so I'm gonna do everything I can to make my case," she said.

Contrast that revelation from Clinton about the sacrifices she's making in this campaign with other testimonials of commitment from other candidates -- for example: from Gore and his son's near-fatal accident; or from Edwards and his wife's bout with cancer -- and her confessional seems downright opportunistic, rather than purely empathetic.

But, many women in NH seemed impressed enough by the challenges Clinton acknowledged she has endured -- in putting herself out there in the rough and tough world of politics -- to vote for her, based on that apparent affinity they feel for a fellow woman struggling to elevate herself in the big, judgmental world of presidential politics -- perhaps, seeing her fight to rise to the top of the heap as akin to their own day-to-day struggles in environments which haven't traditionally accommodated their ambitions and aspirations to their ultimate successes.

Clinton's own expressed frustrations are as understandable as her decision to exploit the positive reactions to those expressions. It's easy to understand the potential impact of the election of our nation's first woman president on the ambitions and aspirations of women throughout the country and beyond. As the eventual, successful elevation of minorities in the workplace to positions of influence and control created an atmosphere, around the nation, where other minorities would also be considered for similar advancements, the elevation of a woman into the presidency would, undoubtedly propel even more women in the future into ultimate positions of influence, in and out of government. It's that prospect which should appeal, to some degree, to even those Americans who have expressed misgivings about Clinton, herself.

Her closest rival in the campaign, Obama, has spoken often about his "hope" for the future. In fact, his own advancement into the presidency would create a similar dynamic for those minorities who would be identified (and would identify themselves) with his successful rise into power. In his concession speech to Clinton last night, Obama hailed the emergence of a "new American majority," despite that coalition's inability in NH to wrest enough votes away from Clinton to propel their candidate into governance.

"You can be the new majority who can lead this nation out of a long political darkness – Democrats, Independents and Republicans who are tired of the division and distraction that has clouded Washington; who know that we can disagree without being disagreeable; who understand that if we mobilize our voices to challenge the money and influence that's stood in our way and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there's no problem we can't solve – no destiny we cannot fulfill," Obama told his supporters.

Obama's is a compelling appeal which has tweaked the interest of independents and republicans, as well as fellow Democrats. "We will remember," he said, "that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in America's story . . ."

Yet, I can already see the outlines of an even more compelling American "story" emerging behind the campaign of the new-found emotions of Hillary Clinton. Equality for women was not automatically ensured by the securing of their right to vote, no more than it was for blacks in America. As with black Americans, places and positions were made for women to operate and work from which didn't threaten the status quo. And, as with black Americans, the advancement of one of their own to the highest office in the land, will motivate and inspire other women to demand more positions of ultimate authority and control -- and, to be recognized and accepted with the same degree of success their standard-bearer can manage.

All that's no small matter. The election of a woman to the American presidency would be historic and earth-shattering. Whether Hillary Clinton can maintain the enthusiasm among women voters that she achieved in NH in other parts of the country is an open-question. To the credit of women voters, issues and positions do matter a great deal; as does the demonstrated commitment by the candidates to those issues and positions. It remains to be seen whether Clinton can sell her brand of Democratic governance to the rest of the nation, which is itching for something different than the political play from the cast of characters which has dominated the Washington stage for decades.

But, if we can appreciate the pent-up will of the women in the electorate to take charge and shape the nation according to their own images of success and achievement, we can well understand the passion and intent behind support for Hillary Clinton's campaign . . . even if the impetus presents itself in the form of concern and identification with the mundane sacrifices in the campaign of an accomplished, ambitious, fellow female.

Anna Howard Shaw, U.S. minister, suffragist, and speaker, born in England, spoke to the nature of men and women in politics before the forty-fifth annual convention of the National Woman Suffrage Association in Washington, D.C., in 1913.

"... women are supposed to be unfit to vote because they are hysterical and emotional and of course men would not like to have emotion enter into a political campaign" she said. "They want to cut out all emotion and so they would like to cut us out. I had heard so much about our emotionalism that I went to the last Democratic national convention, held at Baltimore, to observe the calm repose of the male politicians. I saw some men take a picture of one gentleman whom they wanted elected and it was so big they had to walk sidewise as they carried it forward; they were followed by hundreds of other men screaming and yelling, shouting and singing the “Houn’ Dawg”.... I saw men jump up on the seats and throw their hats in the air and shout: “What’s the matter with Champ Clark?” Then, when those hats came down, other men would kick them back into the air, shouting at the top of their voices: “He’s all right!!”... No hysteria about it—just patriotic loyalty, splendid manly devotion to principle. And so they went on and on until 5 o’clock in the morning—the whole night long. I saw men jump up on their seats and jump down again and run around in a ring. I saw two men run towards another man to hug him both at once and they split his coat up the middle of his back and sent him spinning around like a wheel. All this with the perfect poise of the legal male mind in politics! I have been to many women’s conventions in my day but I never saw a woman leap up on a chair and take off her bonnet and toss it up in the air and shout: “What’s the matter with” somebody. I never saw a woman knock another woman’s bonnet off her head as she screamed, “She’s all right!”.... But we are willing to admit that we are emotional. I have actually seen women stand up and wave their handkerchiefs. I have even seen them take hold of hands and sing, “Blest be the tie that binds.” Nobody doubts that women are excitable."


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

with a host of other devices, to manipulate the public makes me sick. I will never vote for her. I think the Clintons are a cancer on American politics, same as the Bushes.

in the strongest possible terms. I don't think for one second this was a situation where Clinton used "feminine wiles". I don't think many people voted for her yesterday because she showed emotion...rather I think a pretty fair number voted for her because they were outraged at the blatantly sexist way the media covered her in the last few days. A lot of women (and men for that matter) that I've talked to in the last couple of days were pretty pissed off about it.

on her, she did it with the "hurt my feelings" shit at the debate, the calculated "voice-break" moment and those planted "Iron my shirts" guys. I don't know if that helped her win, but I've lost all respect for her. She will do anything to win, and have power, and people like that frighten me.

to that poster because I was just too gob-smacked over that comment.

who did it as a joke?

These asshats even use a special needs student in their stunts.

them, same as the teary "I just want what's best for us...I'm just so worried about my country" BS--all happened the same day. Not one "sexist" heckler on the campaign trail for almost a year, and then all of a sudden a few guys in the back who heckled in a cute/gentle way, that she was able to parry with a joke about sexism--maybe the rest of America is stupid enough to buy this, but I can see through it. She does not make a move that isn't calculated or scripted. Maybe that "do anything" attitude will make her a winner, and I'm sure many on DU love her for employing those less-savory tactics, but I can't admire that. Obama is to blame for his loss, and I don't make excuses for him--but one of the reasons I'm attracted to him is because I don't want to watch 4 more years of the Clinton playbook of ugly politics.

"....one of the reasons I'm attracted to him is because I don't want to watch 4 more years of the Clinton playbook of ugly politics."

Yeah, I can see you object to ugly politics. :eyes: You've consistently presented some of the nastiest posts I've seen during this primary race.

I express my opinions, same as anyone else. I don't make racist, sexist, or homophobic posts, I just give my assessment. I say honestly why I don't like Clinton, and Edwards, and whoever else is in the race. Honesty is hardly "ugliness".

I imagine that throughout the course of the primaries, a lot of the supporters of candidates who don't win a particular state will call a foul every time. Will maintain that dirty tricks are utilized each time an opponent wins. Will justify to themselves and to any who will listen that it wasn't a "real" win.

I also imagine there are supporters of candidates who think everyone but their own candidate engages in ugly politics. Who think that everyone but their own candidate is partisan, unelectable or anything else they can manage to assuage a loss and smooth their ruffled feathers.

I imagine there quite a few political hacks and cronies... and we'll hear from them each and every time the candidate they support does not win.

Clinton had NOTHING to do with them.

Just to show what jerkoffs they are...they use a special needs kid in their stunts.

Her "It hurts my feelings--but I'll try to carry on" response was a quick-witted, self-deprecating joke, and she wouldn't have had to use it in the first place if the dumbass moderator hadn't hit her with that ridiculous question about her likability.

Her "emotional response" in NH was a single moment, not more than a couple of seconds long, where her voice weakened from exhaustion and stress. Many people can be strong, strong, strong, in the face of adversity, until someone, anyone, expresses kindness or understanding, and then at that moment, one's throat suddenly and unexpectedly gets choked up. But the unreasonable attitude of people who hate Hillary is evident in the bizarre way they have reacted to and overinterpreted that extremely brief moment.

But having said that, I also have to say that one reason I don't want her to be our candidate is that unlike the other candidates, she has to face that unreasoning conditioned (by the MSM and RW fanatics) hatred from so many people who would otherwise vote Dem, but who absolutely won't vote for her. Not only will they not vote for her, but many would stay home on election day and thus hurt the Dem candidates downticket from her.

The American electorate is filled with emotional, infantile morons. They want to have a beer with Bush and they think that because she got mildly emotional for a couple of seconds when someone expressed kindness, that means Hillary is a "snake" (I heard that one from a Dem who would never vote for her and who even said he would vote Republican in spite if the Dems dared to nominate her.)

When someone's negatives are so high (40%), and consist of such unreasoning, ridiculous revulsion based on endless lies told by the RW MSM, then I honestly don't think that person can be elected, no matter how much money she can raise, no matter how powerful her machine is. Also, we still have the problem of election fraud and unverifiable hackable electronic machines to deal with--and that has not been dealt with and probably won't.

So although I would be quite happy with any of our candidates as president, I am fervently hoping that Hillary doesn't get the nomination, because I don't think she can win. My favorite candidate is Edwards, but any of them, including the ones who have already dropped out, would be good presidents.

People who say they wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances are oblivious to the importance of getting a Dem in the office to get moderate or liberal judges onto the federal bench, or to appoint the next 3 SC justices, because it is almost certain that 3--2 at least--SC justices will retire during the next president's term. That obliviousness is evidence that they are morons who allow their emotions to rule when they should be at least trying to use their brains a little bit.

BTW, it also pisses me off that the Dem candidates are not stressing the importance of having a Dem president appointing judges. That omission is moronic, too, but maybe they don't talk about it because the Democratic voters are not showing any evidence of being aware that it matters, and candidates speak to what they think the voters want to hear. (The Republican candidates are telling their voters that the judiciary is important.)

plus I still can't overlook the IWR vote.

The blatant misogyny has been infuriating.

now i am completely driven to HRC.

the candidates' records and policies?

Everyday, I learn a little bit more about how malleable we are.

now i feel between her and obama, she is my candidate.

his stance is the most left-leaning and his anti-Corporate Greed message is music to my ears. But Senator Clinton is my second choice. She would be so good for women and children...which means good for education, health care and women's reproductive choice. I truly believe she is much more left-leaning than the public thinks, but to be palatable to the independents, etc. she has to appear centrist.

Last night was the first time I have been HAPPY during this hate-fest primary at DU. I am so very happy for Senator Clinton and our nation.

I firmly believe that if Obama is the nominee against McCain, we and the nation lose. People say they want change, they don't. People fear change. Look at elections of '68 and '72. I don't believe the Red States are ready to vote for a black man, unfortunately.

There have been a number of posts either accusing Clinton of faking the teariness or being a cold fish. A clear case of damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. And a sign of how far women STILL have to go to be taken seriously. Open racism is no longer acceptable (although there is plenty that is more covert and institutional) but sexism is still blatant and out there for the world to see. A clear example is the way this episode (the choking up) has been treated in the press and on this allegedly progressive message board.

I'll tell you what, I have never been a Clinton supporter but I will vote for her just to make the sexist shitheads on this board and in the country angry. It's about goddamn time they got over themselves.

or are you just assuming it was calculated?

it looked very genuine to me. when i speak of something that is very important to me, especially when i am run down, i often get choked up.

she thinks she needs to. She is a master of self-control. I defended her at the debate when people said she sounded angry--I didn't hear anger, I heard forcefulness. But the weepy shit--uh, no. Hillary would rather die than be caught genuinely getting verklempt--if she did it, it was for a specific purpose. Her handlers are experts in manipulation and marketing.

strong people cry. especially when tired, overworked or passionate about something.

they are just as fatigued, and in Edwards' case, very disappointed and frustrated (and don't start about Mittens Romney--he's a goofball). Hillary is probably tougher than they are, and has more control over her emotions--given that, the moment was just strange to me. The whole "I just love my country soooo much, I weep for it" was ridiculous. When all else fails, conjure tears and sympathy--that's how I read it. She's not above that.

she is tough but she is not a man and thankfully does not have to be a man.

Seeing him on the Newsweek cover?

As a fellow Obama supporter I call TOTAL BULLSHIT in your swiss-cheese poor excuse for an argument.

#1 She didn't cry, and you know that, but in a pathetic attempt to repaint the situation to your liking, you lie and distort.
#2 All of the men on our side have gotten choked up at one time or another so this is all just the same old petty campaign bullshit, old as time itself.

I support Obama and Clinton, and the kind of shit you just pulled doesn't help him at all, but hey, keep it up. I'm fine with either one of them and Obama is very young. He can always run after Hillary's second term.

that they are too soft or using feminine wiles.

it on his own--like Edwards, he was good, but not good enough for NH. That's OK. But I call it as I see it--I thought the weepiness was a ploy. You may disagree.

Let's be honest about this:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE6DB1230F931A2575AC0A965958260

George Washington "was obliged to wipe his eyes several times," according to the account of one Dr. Cogswell, at his heady arrival in New York for his swearing-in as the first President. And Teddy White wrote that "the elegant and controlled" John F. Kennedy had "tears in his eyes" the night he was elected in 1960.

But the wages of wet cheeks became a volatile issue during the Presidential campaign in 1972, when Edmund Muskie's prospects were buried in a snowstorm as he stood outside the Manchester Union Leader and emotionally denounced the newspaper for attacking his wife. Although the Maine Senator maintained that he did not cry, reporters engaged in a thoroughly unscientific inquiry into whether the drops on his cheeks were snow or tears. Patriotic Tears O.K.

During the 1980's, as male movie stars made moist vulnerability chic on screen, President Reagan brought sniffles into fashion for male politicians. At appropriate moments of national pain or pride -- the Challenger accident or the salute to the "boys" of Normandy -- his voice would quaver and his eyes get wet. Most Americans loved it, because it made the cowboy from Hollywood seem sensitive and it reflected the country's emotions.

Other men followed, especially those under pressure to warm up a cold image. Gary Hart cried when he visited his Kansas birthplace, and Michael Dukakis when his wife publicly revealed her addiction to prescription drugs. George Bush never allowed himself to "blubber," as he put it, while he was fighting the "wimp" image during the 1988 campaign; but he sometimes misted up as President when he talked about sending men into combat.

emotion was the fact that someone had just expressed kindness and understanding. I experience this all the time, and I am sure many of you have, too. You can hold it together and be strong in the face of adversity and hostility, but the second someone expresses sympathy, you lose it. And again, I have to point out that she never "lost it." She just slightly choked up for a very brief second. It looked entirely real to me, and it also looked as though she was trying hard not to let it happen.

Furthermore, if the MSM and the anti-Hillary fanatics had not made such a very big deal about it, it would not have been such a center-stage phenomenon. It wasn't Hillary who called attention to what should not even have been noticed because it was such a brief and minor thing. This is like saying that Howard Dean deliberately manipulated the press into making a big deal out of the "Dean scream," which was entirely a media-invented issue.

I mean, there weren't even any actual TEARS. I can't believe so much is being made out of such a small moment.

give me a break.

And as if she could only express emotion because it was calculated.

What a pukefest.

McCain has done everything but blow Bush for 7 years yet you have stated you have great respect for him?

Something is funny here.

Don

if she's my only choice, it won't matter to me who's President, the country won't be any better off either way. It's either going to be outright wrecked under a Repub, or paralyzed with gridlock and partisanship and GOP Clinton hatred under her. Four more years of Big Dawg's antics, of the VRWC, all of that shit. Tired of it--too much so to vote for it.

Do you like having control of you uterus?

Seriously.

Because Hillary Clinton consistenly scores 100% ratings from NARAL. If you can't think of any other reason to vote for her in the general election...that one alone is enough for me personally.

I don't know.

:sarcasm:

it isn't just about the SCOTUS, though that is important. It's about electing/appointing people at every level of government that don't view women as incubators for fetuses.

That is the key issue to me and I think a lot of Americans, male and female.

over centuries, I say Too bad for you.

How many mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters have had to give up their hopes and dreams just to stay alive.

when the hours are long and the stress. It's a long (and rediculous expensive) fight. Good for her. I'm not voting for her but she proved she has a place in the party just like her husband.

Wasn't Obama ordered by his doctor to rest Monday night?

I love how they get to tell us what's what.

She hitched her wagon to his political star power back in the 70s, moved to AK for that reason (they weren't married when she moved) despite her friends' bewilderment over the fact that she was throwing away HER OWN brilliant legal future.

Had she not been First Lady of Bill Clinton, her run for the NY Senate in 2000 would have been absurd and without that perch, we wouldn't be considering her now.

and men standing out there saying the are strong and got balls...hell if it wasn't for the women in the world to take care of them where in the hell would they be.

And any body saying Hillary is using wiles is full of it...at least she isn't prancing around on a stage and speecheyfiying.. and telling people they must have hope...and be inspired.

Hell all the candidates tell us we must have hope, but along with that hope they tell us what they want to do for this country, how they are going to do it. They give a speech that is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Just like THEY don't miss all the cruicial votes and plan to bomb Iran.

Kick ass Hillary show you got what it takes, and you don't need to dance on a stage to do it.

Oh, how awful!

I can't believe Obama would do such a terrible thing to people!

BTW, your reference to "a man jumping and dancing" on the stage really rubs me the wrong way.

I hope to hell you're not stereotyping somebody with this.

Jesus fucking Christ.. go to bed.

be specific.

I don't think anything I wrote is any more offensive than these hit and run smack-downs.

Although, actually I can. It's not that different from many other threads. Oh, these excitable hysterical women, swayed by emotion & empathy in one 5-second coffee shop clip. Not really fit to vote at all, can't use logic & analysis.

The 'excitable women' reference was meant in the same vein as the suffragist I quoted in the end intended: As a sarcasm toward the notion that women are too excitable, as compared with men.

And I understand that you were using "excitable women" in an ironic sense. But the post actually reinforced the very attitudes that you were claiming to decry. Because you say that the women of NH voted for Clinton solely based on her 30-second display of "emotion" at a NH coffee shop. Overcome with emotion & empathy for her, women flocked out in a fit of excitable emotion. This thesis is flawed, because it ignores the fact that Clinton had massive support in NH throughout this election, which only narrowed after Obama's Iowa win. And she always had more support among NH women - even when she was "cold" and "unemotional". Women do care about issues & policies, like you said. And that's why they supported Hillary. To make this all about how women were overcome w/an emotional fit does female voters a disservice.

you've trashed this post for no reason at all, except, maybe because I don't share your own view. I took the time to listen to and read the reactions of women who voted for Clinton, many who expressed support AFTER her emotional displays. Yet, I don't see where I limited her supporters rationales to those displays. You've mischaracterized the post, entirely.

between the idea that women supported her because of the "emotional display" - which I think is not the case...and the idea that women supported her because of the media's sexist response to that "emotional display" - which I find much more likely. I know a lot of pissed off women right now.

but, there is no question that many women expressed support for Clinton because they had seen a 'human' side to her that hadn't yet revealed itself. Several women interviewed, including one referenced in the original reporting who was at the 'tearing' event, said that display of emotion compelled them to support her. It's not out of line, I think, to translate that, as I do, into women identifying their own struggles with the challenges Clinton faces working to advance herself to the top of the political ladder. Many women have expressed that identification. Many more were reported to express that affinity in the wake of the ramping-up of the personalization of Hillary.

It didn't matter in Iowa - but then, Facialexpressionsgate started just after...They were angling for a "scream" and they got blowback!

what, too busy to explain yourself?

As it continues unabated, I predict it will seal the nomination for her.(last night II thought it was open - but as I read these threads...)

Hillary didn't plan on it. It was caught by cameras - and exploited - to demean her. It gained her support. Like Bill had 70% approval rate during the impeachment.
Whatever she decides to do with it - her business. But you made into an issue.(meaning MSM, you personally, everyone who got excited by it)

it began with the response to the 'likability' question in the debate, by the way. The rhetoric about the campaign being 'personal' to her seemed contrived without anything to explain her sacrifice beyond her own travails. But, MANY women who voted for her expressed their identification and affinity with her expression of those travails. It was as simple as their feeling that Clinton was 'one of them'. I don't think I carried that notion too far to suggest that Clinton's advance might be seen by many women as a springboard to their own potential for advancement to the top of whatever ladder they're climbing.

Hell, it IS an issue. But, it makes no sense at all to beat down anyone who takes the time to point it out and try and understand what Clinton was doing (I think standard political posturing) and the positive reaction (of SOME women) to her posturing.

If it was "calculated" it just goes to show women are "calculating." If it was unplanned, it just goes to show women are emotionally unstable. If she was emotionally steely, she'd be "unnatural", "masculinizing", "compensating" or "awkward" (i.e. weak)

I am all for valid criticism of Clinton, but this is ridiculous sexist bullshit.

because she's a woman?

We characterize the political posturing of candidates all of the time. Does her gender make her immune from criticism or speculation of her own political posturing?

No one questions whether Obama is manipulating his facial expressions to appear more masculine, or trying too appear less masculine to assuage the fears of the racist white male vote. That's because we have an idea of what a Black leader should look and sound like: MLK. We don't question Edwards' expression, when his voice swells with emotion over the working class.

There is no way a woman won't appear to be posturing or manipulating, regardless of what she does. When she was reserved, she was said to be "playing masculine." Now that she cries she's "playing feminine."

It's what all women in positions of power must deal with.

and, I doubt the posturing from these candidates is over

as I have, without characterizing the intent and motivation of all others.

was really nothing, nothing at all.

There is no model for a powerful female leader in US gender politics. Whatever she does it will be gender inappropriate.

I'd hope that whatever it takes, she already possesses it, and, doesn't have to make it up from scratch.

The gender system she exists in will always label her as labile, steely, manipulative, a bitch, or mothering. She may win despite this, but there is no balance to be achieved.

because of the advancement of minority individuals into ultimate positions of power and influence.

I've also seen many of the negative, obstructive labels fall in the face of a diverse, capable generation of minority individuals (educationally, economically, and otherwise).

I think she is a very tough, self-possessed woman--but not masculine. I consider myself to be the same way--I am not a crier in public. That's why I don't buy the sudden well-up of emotion in front of the cameras, in a situation that was not emotionally-charged (compared to a memorial service or visiting Walter Reed, say). That's why I call "wiles" on her. I have no doubt that she cries in private and is a normal female. But the Hillary I watched for 15 years would not have "let it go" at such an odd moment--unless there was some gain to it.

or blow up in anger. She also is very tough and self assured. And the public respects her very much.
I do think though, that when Diana died, she overplayed the distant and detached public figurehead to the point that she seemed inhuman, and that did turn off a lot of people. There's nothing wrong with showing emotion over a tragedy.
As long as a leader demonstrates they can keep it together in a crisis situation, and not let their emotions get the best of them, a rare choke up shouldn't be considered a criminal offense.
The only time we would probably see Putin choke up is if he's forced to give a toast to Bush at some international function.

Hillary Clinton conceded today that a rare moment of public emotion in a New Hampshire coffee shop had helped bring her back from the political dead.

The usually stoic former first lady said that the incident, in which she became teary as she discussed what drove her to keep fighting for the presidency, had afforded her a "connection" with New Hampshire voters that had propelled her to a 3 point victory in the state's primary over favourite Barack Obama.

“I had this incredible moment of connection with the voters of New Hampshire and they saw it and they heard it. And they gave me this incredible victory last night,” she said during an interview with CBS. Analysis of exit polls from New Hampshire showed that women voters, traditionally her most loyal supporters, flooded back after deserting her for Barack Obama in last week's Iowa caucuses. Mr Obama narrowly edged Mrs Clinton for the female vote in Iowa primary last week but yesterday she enjoyed a clear 13-point lead.

Stunned aides savouring Mrs Clinton’s victory credited the “humanising” effect of the coffee shop incident as well as her performance in Saturday’s candidate debate in which she passionately defended her own record in office against Mr Obama's "message of change".

“They watched that debate. I think they saw Hillary Clinton and she contrasted the records. And I think the humanising moment yesterday, I think that’s what did it,” the Clinton campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, told MSNBC.

Bill Clinton too credited the brief glimpse of his wife's vulnerable side for her unexpected win. "People saw who she was," he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3160177.ece

Clinton's senior adviser Ann Lewis said: "I know it, but I can't prove it."

"She is a reserved person. Speaking about herself does not come naturally," said longtime Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson.

New Hampshire voters, Wolfson said, "saw a lot more of who she was, which was somebody who was 15 points down in the polls and, like all the candidates, exhausted.

"This was all about her reaching inside herself," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0922696520080109

In NH Hillary won because of a large "traditional" northern liberal base turnout led by MANY women, mainly working and middle class women. There is little doubt that she received something of a sympathy vote in the late hours evidenced by the gender differential in the voting breakdown resulting largely from her emotional release and very possibly by a perception that the "boys have ganged up on her" of late. NH liberal women had their say and beat Obama by 2 points. (Also, there is little doubt that if more I's had come over to the Dem side and if it wasn't a three-person race, Obama would have won.) Now, don't get me wrong here. I am married to a wonderful professional woman who makes a hell of a lot more money than I do. I work with more women than men, and EVERY person, regardless of race, is of extraordinary value. But that LAST thing we need in this race is a gender fight. The goal must be to beat the Republicans in the general election, plain and simple, and choose the best candidate who can win NATIONALLY. We must be more objective than subjective here. Hillary has very HIGH national negatives. Those will be VERY difficult to reduce or overcome. This time we MUST put up a nominee who can appeal to a significant number of independents and even some thoughtful Republicans. Like it or not, we MUST understand once and for all that we need to win back more men and plenty of Independents into our voting block so that we can have the broadest coalition possible to defeat the Republicans which is the real goal. I like Hillary. I admire her. She would do fine as President. But I just plain know that she'll have a VERY tough time winning the general election. It would be great to have a woman president. But THIS particular woman is big-time risky.
Be honest and ask yourself this simple question, "What red state can Hillary DEFINITELY turn blue??"
It's a very tough question to answer. Indeed, we risk losing some blue ground with her. Obama has much more cross appeal. I meet R's and I's all the time who say they would NEVER vote for her. Obama almost tied her in NH, but the bigger story both there AND in Iowa is that he is winning MANYIndependents and even some R's. THAT is a winning NATIONAL coalition, not what Hillary got yesterday. Again, in a two-person race she would have lost again to Obama, and without McCain even more I's would have gone to Obama. Obama CAN win nationally. Hillary is a serious risk.

The D's will snatch defeat from victory once again!

but the disgusting reaction to that by the media

both to her response to edwards in a debate prior (that was labeled as a 'moment' where hillary came unglued, but all it was just her responding in a firm and forcefull tone of voice) as well as her crying (which didn't actually involved any crying, it was just her getting slightly emotional for like 2 seconds), and the overreaction is what actually created the sympathy for her, you know what i am saying?

In Iowa she got pissed off publicly at a person trying to ask a question.
In New Hamphire she cries about how nobody understands her. What gives in New Hampshire?

Since I know she has two sides like that, I will not vote for her, ever!!
Most people are uneducated about their candidates. John Edwards will figure a way to get through. He's campaigning hard with passion.

Go John Edwards

but, I find it hard to accept that the 'media' overreacted, because, the Clinton campaign embraced and promoted the idea that women were attracted to vote for her because of the 'humanizing' effect as she revealed and discussed her vulnerabilities. There was also an element of empathy in the approach she adopted late in the NH primary which seemed to attract voters.

But, there were definitely folks who were sympathetic to her because of the drumming she took for 'welling-up' in that question and answer event. I've heard a lot of criticism from women who insist that there are deeper issues and concerns behind their support other than any affinity over Clinton's emoting. I wonder, though, if those women who profess their support for Clinton because of that sympathy against the drumming from the press (and others) are just reinforcing the notion that their support is shallow.