3 thoughts on “That Humanizing Moment”

  1. Ugh! If she'd won on any other grounds.. I could accept it. But she won because she “humanized” herself with fake tears. How stupid can some NH women get? Listening to NPR all last night and this morning, all I heard was “they were ganging up on her… this is all she ever wanted in her whole life, why should we not support her dream?…. I couldn't take it when the men made her cry….”.

    I contrast that with a lot of the comments about Obama from Iowa (and NH) where a lot of intelligent voters keyed in on his promise of change, not so much because they want to believe in a fairy tale of a bi-racial prince or 21st Century Kennedy but because they understand 4-8 more years of the Clintons would be 2x as toxic as the first time. When 50% or more of the country hates your guts, I don't see that as boding well for a potential presidency. Ditto for Edwards.

    Please! If she's the nominee I hope McCain or Huckabee eviscerates her and the Democrats for years to come. Hell I'd vote for Romney over this crap… at least there's a valid explanation for Romney's flip-flopping over the past year.

  2. Eddie,


    Swap out Clinton's sex-coded rhetoric with race-coded words, and you get a race monger like Sharpton or Jackson.

    A while ago, Dick Morris mentioned that the Democratic nomination typically comes down a candidate of the college educated (Tsongas, Bradley, Dean, etc) against a candidate of the high school educated (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Clinton), with the former nearly always winning.

  3. Excellent point! Thank you for clarifying that for what it really was. As an unpaid Obama volunteer (while I wait out the job market here and dread how many months it will take for the first GI bill check out to arrive), I have met so many “grown-ups” who stun me with their backgrounds and politics that are supporting him, or at least hoping he gets the Democratic nomination. They want an honest to God election with real debates over real issues, not a scorched earth culture war.

    Nevertheless, I think Dick Morris could be right. I just hope to God not. That's not what this country needs.

  4. Read a couple of articles on the subject at the London Times. Seems to me the possibilities being suggested for Clinton's win highlight the advantage of a caucus system (for the record, I'm not a big fan of it).

    The Crying theory discussed here: who would be willing to admit to a roomful of strangers that they're voting for someone because they had a crying jag on tv?

    The Race theory: It's one thing for atavistic impulses to creap up in the privacy of a voting booth, it's another to be asked to walk your talk in public.

    In short, you're encouraged to say WHY you're voting in a particular direction as you do so. That's the disadvantage of the system, too– 50 years ago, a black candidate would likely have been better served by a primary as his supporters wouldn't have to face down a roomful of bigoted neighbors.

  5. I agree that both theories come into play, and that in the voting booth people become more susceptible to them.

    Same with the separate factions in the party, it's also consistent with the establishment/darkhorse contrast. But historically, it's rare that the darkhorse candidate wins. All the 'non-educated' candidates win the nomination. It would suggest that something be different this time for the 'educated' candidate to win.

    All the more reason for people to be susceptible to such an 'emotional' appeal. Her entire campaign was about proving she could handle things like a man, and so makes it more ironic that the last card (she thinks) she plays is an exclusionary sentiment (of being a woman), and survives. Maybe people get caught up in the moment and don't realize the hypocrisy involved.

  6. Eddie,

    Agreed, and agreed.


    Wrt crying, presumably older, low-income, poorly educated females. In other words, Hillary's base of support.

    My fear is the race theory is being pushed by the Obama camp,as a response to Hillary's sex mongering [1].


    Well said.

    Maureen Dowd ripped you off, btw:

    “Gloria Steinem wrote in The Times yesterday that one of the reasons she is supporting Hillary is that she had “no masculinity to prove.” But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran.”

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/01/10/sex-monger.html
    [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

  7. Dan,

    Ha, I think I read that yesterday actually and the idea just stuck with me. In that case, I can't believe I just channeled Maureen Dowd…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *