The question to be asked is this: should women in public life be
treated exactly the same as men? If so, is it not relevant to note that
any male candidate who cried in public about the stresses of his
campaign would essentially be finished? When we don’t hold her to that
standard, are we being sexist or just humane? I mean, I have long felt
her to be one of my least favorite national politicians, but I can
still see she’s hurting, even if her bewilderment is inextricable from
her sense of entitlement. I’m okay with politicians weeping
occasionally in public. Churchill did it all the time.
On the other hand, I can see why Clinton can get frustrated. When
she went tough on her opponents in the last debate, she was deemed
"vicious" or "shrill" rather than simply aggressive. Maybe she can’t
win either way.
No, I suspect not. I think she’s simultaneously the first woman to have a genuine shot at becoming president, and the least likely woman to ever become president. She’s reviled by anyone within three inches of the right-side border of moderate centrism, and the media has largely bungled coverage, giving legs to cleavage stories, pantsuit stories, and now misty eyes. And she’s hated because of her husband, who also famously gave her some other reasons to dislike him; if she loses to Obama, he’s partially to blame. She’s mired in the "woman for president" business.
I would love to see a woman president, but not her. Here’s my take – the Clinton campaign is recognized as having the biggest political machine working to get their woman the nomination. I do think she’s calculating, for better and for worse, and I have to wonder if someone so controlled, so clearly intelligent and planful, would go into that diner unaware of her emotional status, unaware of the effect – disgusting as it is – that seeing her "crying" on national television will have on millions of undecided voters who haven’t really thought all that much about whether a woman might be too emotional to be president. As Sullivan said, if a male candidate got misty-eyed over the stress, he’d probably not even be allowed back on his own campaign bus. I can’t help but wonder what she was thinking, though I don’t like myself much for wondering.
Edwards, for me, has pushed too many wrong buttons in recent weeks. I like the anti-corporation message, though he does sort of do it with crayons, but he’s starting to grate. This was a very stupid thing for him to do, on so many levels:
This is a man who has used his most private tragedies–his wife’s
cancer, his son’s fatal accident — in his campaign in a way that had a
woman done the same she would surely be accused of "oprahfying’ the
lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself
early on as the real women’s candidate, and who has repeatedly used his
likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona.
Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about
women: they’re too emotional to hold power. ABC’s Political Radar blog
"Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New
Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to
bring into question Clinton’s ability to endure the stresses of the
presidency. Edwards responded, ‘I think what we need in a
commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns
are tough business, but being president of the United States is also
Dude, you just made yourself the anti-Obama, flushed your female voters down the toilet, and hung an "opportunist" placard around your neck. Now who is Obama going to tap for V.P.?