Monday, February 04, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
I hope none of the rest of you has ever cried at work, but I have—three times in 24 years—and though in theory it's no big deal, in reality it's humiliating. (That tally includes the day a friend's husband and only child were hit by a bus while crossing the street in New York, an occasion on which, though I think it would be accurate to say I was bawling after getting the call, nobody in the newsroom even looked up. The woman who sat next to me told me later she would have cut her phone interview short if she hadn't put it together that it wasn't my family that had been killed.) So first, if Hillary Clinton is getting tears in her eyes even semi-on purpose, then there really is no limit to what she is willing to endure to win this thing. I guess the glass-half-full view of this would be, wow, that is one committed candidate. But please, somebody tell me we are not sitting here wondering whether watery eyes are or are not a winning strategy for a woman in a presidential race. And this is a victory for our power base?
Of course, it could be sheer coincidence that Hillary Clinton showed a rare glimpse of emotion on the day before the New Hampshire primary and again on the day before Super Tuesday. Just as John Edwards could be waiting to endorse until he's decided for sure which of his former rivals would be the better president. And maybe Clinton and Barack Obama will join forces and form that Dream Team. Yet though I consider myself a sappier-than-average person, none of these scenarios strikes me as even remotely possible.
The first time Clinton got misty, I fell for it, but this time around, it's hard to see her as anything other than a woman who sticks with whatever has worked for her in the past—sometimes to the point of diminishing returns. (Yes, Bubba, I am lookin' at you.) So, if she does well on Super Tuesday, I'll lay down money that she will be similarly overwhelmed on Feb. 8, 9, and 11.
-
sponsorship
Personally, I find that nowadays I cry in ludicrously sentimental movies which I don't even like, while actual tragedies, both personal and world-historical, leave me dry-eyed and grim. Since when did tears signify anything truly important? Anyway, for those still paying attention to this fast-fading story, here is a link that offers tips on "how to cry on the spot" when you really need to.
-
sponsorship
Sadly, the Clintons have a well-deserved reputation for crying on command. (Remember Bill Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral.)
The great irony of that moment at the Yale Child Study Center is, the days when she was a "bell-bottom-wearing hippie chick" are probably the last days when she was her true, authentic, cry-when-I-need-to-let-it-out self. Staffers who know and love Hillary and insist she is funny, real, etc. in private are always nostalgic for her coke-bottle-glasses days, instead of the current public persona who robotically repeats lines about the "future of America's children."
To be fair, later reports have said she was not really crying, but just tired.
To be unfair, I mention the question raised at a dinner party this weekend: Is Hillary's stark public/private split the result of being married to a cheater? Going out into the world every day knowing that everyone knows requires you to develop some pretty hard armor.
-
sponsorship
If Plaxico Burress can sob on national television and no one questions either his toughness or sincerity, let's let Hillary wipe away a tear without going all meta on her.
-
sponsorship
At a campaign event in New Haven, Conn., today, Hillary Clinton may have teared up a little as she was being introduced. Clinton fans raced to say she is exhausted and vulnerable. Clinton-haters interpret it as a cynical effort to gin up another rush of sympathy like the one that put her over the top last month in New Hampshire.
Clinton has famously called herself a Rorschach test, and already at Fox News they’re jawing on about how she was faking it. Interestingly enough, the real outrage seems not to be that candidate Clinton got misty, but that she somehow lacks the originality to show her human side in new ways. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to lose one's composure in New Hampshire may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose it again in Connecticut starts to look like hysteria.
-
sponsorship
FunnyorDie.com, the online video site from Will Ferrell that brought us “The Landlord” last year, has posted a two-minute video called “Porn Star Politics” (see it here). It opens with porn stars at a convention awkwardly reading a script explaining the importance of Super Tuesday—line delivery is not these women’s specialty—and includes the adult entertainers’ own picks for the presidency. A woman in a bikini top is very eager to vote for Hillary Clinton: “She was actually the one running the country how many years ago? So, it’s like, she did it then, she can do it now,” she notes. Mary Carey, porn star, Celebrity Rehab patient, and former candidate for California governor, also makes a quick cameo.
The video seems to aim to get us to laugh at the ditzy porn stars’ limited political knowledge. A giggly woman enthusiastically says that she’s going to vote “liberal.” “I don’t even know who’s up for election,” another says in a flat voice before making some rather strange comments about Barack Obama. The shots of heavily made-up and scantily-clad women are juxtaposed with iconic American images. On paper, it sounds sort of funny—let’s laugh at the dumb porn stars. But somehow, it just feels like a cheap shot. Perhaps I’d be more inclined to enjoy it if it featured some male performers, too. But the only guy to make an appearance is wearing a leather mask and threatening to spank Hillary Clinton. Come on, Will Ferrell. I want to laugh at dumb male porn stars, too.
-
sponsorship
We have a guest post from Sally Quinn, who is moderator, with Jon Meacham of Newsweek, of OnFaith, an online conversation about religion. (Slate and Newsweek are owned by the Washington Post Co.)
The shrinks must be having a field day with this one. Hillary Clinton has a real chance to be the first female president, but the perception since New Hampshire has been that she is running as the first female stand-in for her husband's third term.
The first female president should be elected on her own merits—because she is the most qualified candidate. Just as she should not be held to a different standard because she is a woman, she should not be treated differently because her husband is out there campaigning with her.
Yet it now appears now that the Clintons are running as a couple—a team, not a candidate and a spouse. In fact, after Obama's big South Carolina win, Clinton said: "We went there and asked the people to vote for us. They voted for him."
It is also becoming clearer each day that Bill Clinton has more than just the good of the country at heart. He has his own administration, his own reputation to vindicate. The minute Hillary "found her voice" in New Hampshire, Bill went out on the hustings—face red, eyes narrowed, finger wagging—and pushed her out of the way.
Of course it would be exciting to have a female president (as it would be to have an African-American president). What we also want, though, is someone who has earned it on her own, whose power is not derivative.
It's true, as Chris Matthews recently dared to suggest (and was unfairly slammed by feminists for doing so), that part of the reason Hillary was elected senator in 2000 was because voters felt sympathy for her after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Others suggested that she got the sympathy vote last month in New Hampshire.
There's nothing wrong with that. People vote for candidates for myriad reasons. It was charming in a debate when she said, "That hurt my feelings" after it was implied that the voters didn't find her "likeable." It was moving when she teared up in a diner talking about the hard campaign.
At last, we thought, there's a real person behind the superwoman façade. "I found my own voice," she said, and the quote was splashed on the cover of Newsweek.
But has she? Since then, her voice has been almost drowned out by her husband's.
After Hillary's triumph in New Hampshire came Obama's big win in South Carolina. Still, even amid speculation that Bill's meltdowns may have contributed to her loss, reports were that Hillary staffers had decided not to muzzle the former president. The plan was just to let Bill be Bill.
But Bill Clinton has gone way off the reservation these past few weeks, and he has hurt his wife badly. We've seen this movie before, and it's not pretty. Hillary needs to get the hook, get him off the stage, and win or lose on her own. "Fair and square," as he likes to say.
Do we really want our first female president elected out of sympathy because her husband humiliated her again? If I've heard one person say it I've heard it from 100 in the past few weeks: "If she can't control her husband, how can she control the government?"
There's really only one person who is responsible for getting him off center stage effectively, and that's Hillary Clinton herself. Harry Truman had a famous line about the presidency that could well apply to her now: The buck stops here. For Hillary, Bill's campaign should stop now.
-
sponsorship
Oprah Winfrey declares victory for the cause: "Now look at this campaign: The two front-runners are a black man and a woman," she said at a California rally she headlined with Michelle Obama, Maria Shriver, and Caroline Kennedy. "What that says to me is we have won the struggle and we have the right to compete." The New York Times continues: "[I]nstead of seeing a painful choice, voters, Ms. Winfrey urged, should see a moment when they 'are free from the constraints of gender and race.' "
Meanwhile, in an essay loaded with great-looking data, Linda Hirshman points out that "if men are Republican enough, the Republicans need not care whether the women are less enthusiastic about them than men are." Which helps to explain the question I asked the other night. In discussing the effects of the question you were discussing, Dahlia and Rachael, about why women consume less political news, Hirshman points out that single women tend to be the least checked in—and so the most up for grabs.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?