January 7, 2008
Opinionist: Hillary, Please Don't Cry
Don't cry, Hillary. No, seriously, don't. You probably already heard that Hillary Clinton cried at a campaign event (Globe), and it took Bostonist a while to process.
When a woman in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, asked Clinton how she stayed so upbeat, Clinton started crying and said (among other things), "It's not easy. It's not easy. This is very personal for me. It is not just political. It is not just public. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game; think like who is up who is down. It's about our country."
This Bostonist seconds Amy Derjue's opinion on the crying. Derjue advises Clinton to "be the snarky bitch" because now pundits will jump down her throat for being "emotional." Clinton's appeal is that she's mean and tough. She's easily got the "Thatchers," as Stephen Colbert might put it, to hold public office. She's got more "Thatchers" than the rest of the other candidates' balls combined.
And now she cries. The tears don't come at a good time because they look like a play for sympathy in the polls. Mitt Romney cried, and it didn't suit him, either. When a person who has been through the fire like that--and any politician running for a position this high has been through the fire--the time for crying is over. Plenty of awful things have been said, and those people are tempered steel. Any amount of crying will come off as false. If a candidate is going to cry, he or she should do it in a hidden "crying room" protected by armed guards. But crying? No way. Not the time for it.
Then again, if the crying is a sign that Hillary Clinton will deliver a Dean-esque Barbaric Yawp after the primary results are delivered, we're all for it!
Photo of Hillary Clinton speaking at Nashua North High taken by Chris Klein from photos tagged "Bostonist" on Flickr.
|
It made me want to vote for her because it showed she's not the tough ol wench that everyone has made her out to be.
Anyone who actually watched that video clip and didn't think it was a very human moment is without a soul.
And, if she was actually acting, then I'd vote for her on that too.
Why do we hold our leaders up to such a tough standard? They are after all, people just like us who have committed their lives to politics - I believe for one of two reasons:
A. They have giant ego's that need to be stroked.
B. They believe they can actually change things for the better and are so passionate about it that they do it despite all the scrutiny.
Typically, a big component of how people vote is reckoned on which of the above categories a candidate fits into.
Today, I saw a glimpse of Hillary fitting into category B. And I was nowhere near a supporter up until that point.
This country needs more leaders with passion.
-bosco
All good points. But I am worried that those who regularly attack Clinton will take the tears as an opening.
Then again--I could be wrong because it's clear that she won a new supporter! And we'll find out tomorrow how many people agree with you.
test
I agree with bosco. The appeal with Bill Clinton was that he was personable and seems to fit into bosco's B category.
In the recent NH debates, all the other candidates seemed MUCH more appealing through "human" passion than Hillary who (in my opinion) came off as an aggressive, corporate, spinsterish middle-aged woman. If Chelsea was not in the audience, one cannot tell if she had ever been a mother. I think we do not need another impersonal pig-headed leader. Acting or not, I think Hillary's passion is REAL and it shows in this event.
Change cannot happen without passion. I am tired of people fearing emotion. I don't see how democracy can work to its full extent if we condone the suppression of personal expression from ANYONE. I am not advocating unprofessional excess or weak leaders; BUT if we fear emotion so much, we are fit to vote for, and be managed by machines.