Hillary Teared--and Edwards Blinked
So Hillary teared up. If you watch the video, you can see, sort of, the tears welling up. Call it the honey shot.
Whereupon, if an ABC blog is to be believed, John Edwards shot himself in a nether region this way:
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 tough business.”
Now, this is the kind of response that gives my entire sex a bad name--the "resolve" to rough up the opposition any old way. Where is Edwards' regional charm all of a sudden? I do wonder what it is the reporters heard that led them to paraphrase his first response as "offering little sympathy"--and would be interested to know if any readers see a fuller quote--but in any event, I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is a wise human being, and yes, wise human beings have been known to tear up.
P. S. Tuesday AM: I'm just getting to yesterday's comments. What exactly did Edwards say? CNN has a slightly fuller version:
John Edwards told reporters he was unaware of Clinton's emotional reaction and would not respond to it, but added, according to CNN's Dugald McDonnell: "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being President of the United States is also a very tough business. And the President of the United States is faced with very, very difficult challenges every single day, difficult judgments every single day."
Yeah, and one of those "difficult judgments" is whether to vent a stupid, sexist insult and imply that an emotional loss of composure is at odds with "strength and resolve." Edwards flunked. I stand by my aspersion.
And don't miss Katha Pollitt's interview with Pat Schroeder on the flagrant double standard re tears.
I'm sitting here counting up all the ways its possible to say 'so what' on this particular issue.
483.
January 7, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on, Vaughn. A '1' rating? Really? Valdron's post was funny!
January 7, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was this over-the-hill Hillary schill's response dated January 6, 2008?
January 7, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of those beef jerky commercials, "messing with Sasquatch." Poke the bear at your own peril, John.
January 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a shame I'm going to miss the evening news tonight. Just judging from the interwebs, as Valdron suggested, this story is going to be blown so far out of proportion, it's not even funny. Let's start with the premise of the post: John Edwards' remarks gave the entire male gender a bad name? Slow down, there champ. Somebody take his keyboard away for a while. There are thousands of years of misogyny and bad behavior that give our sex a bad name, and if this makes the list, it's within the last 15 inches of the scroll.
I know this is an exciting, tense time for all of us who are so clearly politically "interested" right now, but let's try and gather ourselves, shall we?
January 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strikes me that much of that is blog, media and campaign advisor created. Out of things like crying or a single advisor that has done some lobbying or which votes they showed up for or how they were more pro-DLC in 2004.
Really, if people would just step back and look, they'd see that there's much ado about not much.
Look at each of the 3 Dem frontrunners, their entire history, their upsides and downsides, what they'll actually be able to do rather than what they say now they want to do (i.e., all are going to have to negotiate on health care mandates, all are not going to be able to get out of Iraq exactly as they say they are going to,) how their foreign policy advisors intermingle and intersect, the various mixes of experience vs. inspirational ability, balance it all out, and what you end up with is three remarkably similar presidential possibilities.
The "radicals" have been eliminated, so silly controversies are being created to make the race exciting. And it amazes me that some very astute students of politics are falling prey to that. These three candidates have fewer policy differences between them than in any other primary I remember.
I'm not negative about it at all in a Naderite type way, I'd be happy with any one of the three, plenty enough "change" for me in any of them. I have my preferences as to personality and who I'd prefer to see on the tube all the time for 4 years, but that's not very important, just silly.
The smartest blog comment I saw lately is one that suggested they stop fighting right now and intead of debates have confabs about the future of the party, promise each other that the winner will appoint the others in cabinet posts. Bill Richardson could moderate.
January 7, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
As with it as always ArtAppraiser.
Btw, I hate to bother you with it, as your taste runs towards 18th and 19th century Neoclassicism, and it's probably not going to amount to much anyways... but have you heard about this little movement... it's called Modernism.
Something about "change" and discarding the shackles and mindset of past eras. Looking for new ways of doing things. The experts say it's not going to amount to anything and not to take any "modernists" seriously. We already have 2 dimensional images and use perspective to infer a 3rd dimension. The basic rules of aesthetics are established. What more could one hope for?
Oh those silly Modernists. If one steps back to look at the big picture, one sees it's much ado about not much. Indeed. Tut Tut.
January 7, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser.
Good point on the big-picture view of policy differences. Reality puts all of them in the "subject to change" category anyway.
I see Obama's ability to inspire as being the vehicle. What impresses me is how his mind works . Obama's unscripted response to the attack on him by Australia's Prime Minister John Howard the day after he announced is what sealed the deal for me.
In the real world, men who are tough don't advertise, they don't have to.
Looking at the way Obama's campaign has been put together and is being run, one can see his early experience as a community organizer at work. Pat Lang, who is starting to ask HIS OWN questions about Obama's success has a thread with some very interesting comments from experienced and respected commenters. The post by commenter Frank Durkee is invaluable for first-hand detailed descrption of the "school" of community organization they both attended. A later commenter noted great similarities with current COIN doctrine:
"Just a couple of oservations concerning training I share with Obama, the Chicago Institutres training in community organization. It requiires that you ask the toughest questions you can find. That you listen to find out what is actually happening in the areas you seek to organize, that you get to know, analyze, and interact with the actual powerstructure of the population you are organizing. that you identify "leaders' among th poor, train them to do their own work, research, actions, etc, set the agenda.
It holds to no permanent enemies and no permanent alliances. much of what the Col. and others have suggested concerning the Intelligence process is similiar. the content perhaps different but the goal is to kow as well as possible what is going on, who is doing it, what agena one is supporting and how to obtain it. A key element is the development of focused, researched action groups not of specialist but of the local leaders. Being able to listen, to speak, to analyze, and to act are all critical. An 'organizer sets out as one to build a trained self sustaining loval action group to interct with the powerbrokers oto enable change for the client group, the poor in most cases."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2008/01/a-strange-seaso.html
IMO, this is key to Obama's success on the ground, insistance on bi-partisanship and suggests an approach to establishing an efficient infrastructure once in office.
(BTW. Commenter "taters" on the above thread is an integral member of the "noquarter" team. Couldn't resist that one)
The whole business of FP advisors is a big area of "concern"/interest to me but not for this thread.
January 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Mr. Gitlin (and Duncan Black) on this meaningless kerfluffle.
Which raises the question of why Josh Marshall, Mister TPM, is flogging it so hard.
sPh
January 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because any attention is good attention for Hillary at this point. Edwards should have just ignored her.
January 7, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is bigger than that. What this is, is the beginning of a shift in Hillary's character that is displayed publically. What we are witnessing is a campaign theme shift. Hillary is now going to be presented as the victim and underdog to build sympathy for all that she has suffered when all she was trying to do was work hard for America. WATCH.
Next, we are going to see her start using Obama's speech. Just as she stayed on message during this 'weep lapse' moment. She was so overwhelmed emotionally, yet she snatch JRE's line and uttered " I take this personally" while at the same time, co-opting, Obama's unity message and saying 'our country, our children and we can do better'.
This is the beginning of Hillary's new strategy. Next we are going to see the establishment come out in droves, bringing in their followers to her campaign stops to make it look like she has local supporter. The unions and mayoral and government locals will ship their people to her events to make her look electable.
Make no mistake this 'weep moment' was the signal for a new direction in her campaign where she is 'vulnerable' and 'likeable' as well as a trooper who has been on the front lines fighting to build a better America and we are going to see all the special interest groups, and status quo political establishment come out and close ranks around the 'frontrunner'...who is having a 'bad moment'.
If anyone recalls, this is what Rove said would need to happen, that HRC would have to lose in order to win, that a setback and loss of frontrunner status could be used to shift from the inevitable message to one of tireless fighter.
January 8, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watch it... seems like you're channelling Matthews here... Nasty nasty predictions...
RAWSTORY: Chris Matthews: Democratic establishment will 'kill the fire of insurgency'
Although, it seems to starting == I'm already getting overload of Hillary 'supposed' credentials on the Thom Hartmann show. I hope people, ok 'enough' people will be able to see through the spin.
January 8, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthews is likely channeling me. lol
January 8, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Matthews tends to view a lot of things through the prism of his own youthful experiences. I believe he was a 16 yr old volunteer for Robert Kennedy in California, when Kennedy was shot - which puts a bit of an eerie spin on his talk about how the "establishment" will "kill" the fire of insurgency.
I think a much more likely scenario is this: The establishment likes winners. Obama is a guy who has proven he can turn out voters like crazy and get tons of independents to vote for a Democrat. Why wouldn't they want to jump on the bandwagon and ride it to victory? The Clinton machine still has a lot of influence, but I expect to see a stampede of defections.
January 8, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
On Matthews, If I recall, he also has major major issues, to put it mildly, about how the Clintons in particular play politics. Almost as if they killed the 60's kumbaya dream with their own hands. :-) He's a cynic who doesn't like cynicism? I always wondered what kind of indoctrination his mentor Tip O'Neill practiced on him, because my college roommate in the 70's was an Irish Catholic from a family long active in Dem politics and she thought Tip was the coolest thing ever.
January 8, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO,Matthew's Peace Corps stint in Africa is also a big facet of his prism.
January 8, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with people crying in sincere emotion for the right reasons.
But who was Hillary crying "voice cracking" for? Her voice cracked and she got emotional for Hillary, the Clinton entitlement, and the DLC.
How about shedding a tear for the victims of NAFTA? The Clintons' and DLC's biggest legislative "accomplishment" was NAFTA. They rammed it down the throats of more progressive Democrats, with the full backing of Republicans. Shed a tear for the the American families impoverished, and the foreign workers in border slums with open sewers, whose government are also bought by the same foreign corporations, while the Clinton's donors raked in the profits.
A tear for the Iraq vote, our thousands of dead, tens of thousands of wounded, many with brain and mental wounds, and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and millions of refugees. Which has not benefited any Americans outside of military contractors and Halliburton and such, and which the DLC went along with becasue they were too short sighted to see the long term catastrophe, and just covered their asses politically in the short term.
A tear for the victims of ENRON, whose growth in the 90's and egregious late 90's corruption was directly facilitated by Clinton deregulation, while the Clinton pal Paul Krugman was cheer leading ENRON as the "new paradigm" and taking a $45K "consulting fee" from ENRON. And PK was also a shill for the Clinton push for NAFTA.
A tear for Clinton telecom deregulation which has lead to the consolidation of media, and duopoly collusion.
A tear for WALMART, on whose board Hillary sat, which has driven many small businesses out, busted unions and employed illegal labor in near slavery conditions, with some immigrants actually living in WALMART stores. While WALMARTS owners make billions they vacuum out of communities and then invest internationally to expand into China and such. None of those dollars ever coming back to Middle Class Americans.
How about a tear for the middle class, which the Clintons, DLC, New Dems, Third Way, types have been screwing over for decades. How about a tear for the American people when "Democrats" like the Clintons decided it was easier to triangulate supply-side economics and token social liberalism, to jump on the Reagan bandwagon.
January 7, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be the Leftwings fictional account of the country but it is not based on ay sort of reality. Furthermore Obama is a perfect DLC candidate is more centrist than either Clinton.
NAFTA, WALMART have all be genrally good for most Americans. They have provided more goods at lower prices than would be possible than in your elitist view of America. WALMART is an Arkansas based corporation. I bet they made the lives of a whole lot of Arkansasans lives better.
NAFTA would have been a lot better if Mexico had not plunged into a recession. Then Mexico lost lots of jobs to China.
What about Enron? It was largely made up of a group of friends of the Bushes. It was thought to be a new way to produce energy. Instead it was a fraud. So?
Technology and the rise of India, China, Brazil and other nations are both causing enormous changes. Wishing them away is nice but won't make things go back the way they were.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 7, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You would have to look long and hard to find anything less truthful and more ridiculous than mr Greenbaum's statement above. Walmart and NAFTA a net plus for americans? you must be joking.
January 7, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"WALMART is an Arkansas based corporation. I bet they made the lives of a whole lot of Arkansasans lives better."
Sure with that great pay and benefits for the employees - not.
January 7, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
WALMART's model is to come to town and drive out local businesses on their "low price" model. Then they hire some of the people whose jobs they destroyed, for less pay, and without benefits. They vacuum those profits up and out of the community, never to return.
Their employees are so poor, over worked, and lacking benefits, they rely heavily on social services, which further impoverishes the community, and their children are at risk developmentally due to lack of medical care and the hardships of poverty, which means decades of costs WALMART passes onto the tax payer and community.
WALMART isn't low cost. It's ultimately very costly to the communities they prey on.
All so the Walton family can make billions in profits and keep expanding that awful model everywhere like some kind of contagious wasting disease. Truly some of the worst people in the world. Almost a caricature of the small minded business man run amok, and the banality of evil.
***
By comparison look at Costco. A very similar model, only their employees have benefits and above average wages. They've expanded internationally, not as fast or aggressively, but they do far good for communities they're in. They wind up being much healthier for the community, much "lower cost" in reality.
January 8, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could have swore that Ken Lay gave money to the Clintons too.
January 7, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, get a life. It's not just you and your pompous positions that are real. I get so tired of people like you who call themselves leftists, when all you are are pontificators.
January 7, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Swiftie...
Please pick up the white courtesy phone ... here
~OGD~
January 7, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Hey Kosmik:
Nice list here. Did you happen to notice the following?
I think Don Key has said it best about the "reporting" on this...
Now the questions:
Was Don referring to:
1.) the report from the ABC blog, or
2.) Gitlin, or
3.) The TPM front page headline "Edwards to Hillary: Don't Be A Crybaby", or
4.) all the above?
I don't know about Don, but I put my money on #4 ...
Hey Gitlin, more H20 ... You also Josh!
~OGD~
January 7, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's not all choked up about the Lebanese, Iraqi and Afghani women (and men) who have suffered from her support of war. The ones who died, or have been mutilated, or are living in prison or out in the desert scratching for food, or have become prostitutes to survive. She's disturbed because she's lost her lead, poor dear.
This comes at a bad time, when Dem candidates are trying to look as macho as those big, bad neocons and not be Weak On National Security. Clinton, particularly, has been trying to look tough, calling for a larger military, backing the rape of Lebanon and threatening Iran.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
January 7, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If true, this was a mistake for Edwards. I agree with you, Dr. Lippin, about the health of shedding tears, and to paraphrase many a poet or the Bard (I am thinking of Henry V surveying the scene of battle with the Gauls) a warrior who does not know tears is truly a tragic figure.
I am on record saying that I believe it to be genuine, because I think Hillary is suffering right now as her campaign hits rough water, and I think it would take an extraordinary actress to convincingly call on those emotions on cue. I feel empathy for her now, because while I may disagree with some of her positions and her generally centrist and cautious approach to policy, I do believe she sincerely wants to help and serve.
This said, I cannot help but believe that this is a net loss for Hillary. I can envision it being a plus with many people who have `worked' on themselves and possibly with the women's vote, but I cannot see it helping her reach the many who are uncomfortable with tears and view it as unseemly in a candidate.
But for Edwards to jump on that? Mistake.
``...Stand still. The forest knows
Where you are. You must let it find you.''
from `Lost' by David Wagoner
January 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have shed tears myself in the face of defeats. As a fellow human being, I of course have only compassion for this kind of pain. It is cruel that anyone should have to taste failure and rejection. But of course we all do have to face just that. In every race of this sort, there is only one winner. The rest are defeated, and it hurts.
January 7, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is my understanding that Edwards did not "jump" on this, as you say. Apparently, a reporter described what happened and asked him for his opinion. IMO, Edwards paid her the extreme compliment of treating her like any other candidate. If this had happened to Obama, Richardson, McCain, Romney, whoever, he would have said the same thing. As someone who marched for the ERA and has experienced sexism up close and personal, I think John Edwards is the most enlightened candidate on women's issues I've ever seen. His positions on choice, for example, are firmly to the left of Hillary. His positions on economic fairness for women are impassioned and far-reaching. There's no sexism or "meanness" here, IMO. He just stated the truth: if you run for President you need to show that you are up to the physical and emotional strain.
January 7, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Todd Gitlin-
Wow- Perfect opportunity to mature as a nation. This was a seminal and defining moment!
I would ONLY vote for a candidate who knows honest emotion.We come back STRONGER (not weaker) when we weep. I know this as a physician.
Hillary's tears were genuine! Edwards made a mistake here.It will hurt him. But he most likely won't cry which is his and our loss.After all big boys don't cry. But big men sure do.
Dr. Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com
January 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spare me.
This female chuckled at Hillary's little show of being a real person and human blah blah blah and is bemused by the male reaction to the crocodile tears.
That'll show Putin.
Perhaps Edward's response is due to his background and learned knowledge that in general, the toughest ladies around are southern belles best described by the classic "Iron fist in a velvet glove". Hillary played the same game, pouting during the most recent debate and just now , Hardball's Chris Matthews aired a clip of an encounter with her illustrating how she works it.
I applaud Edwards for recognizing this fraudulent little piece of theatrics for what it is.
Dear Hillary,
It's time for you to seriously consider your rumored Plan B. You are supremely suited for the position of Senate Majority Leader and could indeed, become a great one.
Best,
Lally
January 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's it exactly. It's not emotion that's being derided, it's the phoniness and the self serving contrivance of it.
At best, Hillary is getting emotional for who? For herself! Because her campaign is falling apart and her sense of entitlement evaporating.
Who else is always gushing and getting emotional, for himself, over the "hard work" of the Presidency whenever he's botched something big and his numbers are plummeting.
***
btw, the amount of rating abuse coming out of the Hillary camp is really disgusting. Talk about sour losers.
January 7, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards was spot on imho. This could be her very own "Dean Scream" moment.
What with her meltdown on Saturday when she failed to contain her composure/anger revealing a massive flaw that could be exposed on the international 'stage' - this is not good! Is she is stable enough for the Presidency?
We have been fed the line for so long from her spokespeople telling us -- that people “don’t vote for plans, they vote for presidents." Well, sorry but Presidents don't cry because they are down in the polls -- PLEASE!!
She has not only alienated many progressives with her hit on Obama, but has successfully alienated the republican/independent voters who have always had a problem with 'a woman' well any woman being Commander in Chief -- and when they see one that cries being down in the polls... Well, God she's toast.
January 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
To my critics ... the criticism hurts I know... I feel your pain... really... but sometimes it's necessary. The Democratic Party under the DLC has just screwed up far too many times. Onward and Upward../
January 7, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMHO, you can either (a) regard both Clinton's tears and Edwards' rather dickish reaction as being significant, or (b) regard them both as moments of weakness/idiocy in the heat of a campaign that aren't representative of how either one would be on a day-to-day basis.
I'm going with (b). Like Huckabee's showing the commercial that he wasn't going to air, both of these will shortly be forgotten, and rightly so.
January 7, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Jesus. It's a political campaign--not a frikkin' cotillion. If Hillary wants to run with the bad dogs, she's got to prove she can piss on three legs. Making weepy, bathetic speeches in public is the sort of thing that ends political careers. Edwards is fighting for the right to be president. He took a swing at Hillary today. She's taken plenty herself. This isn't a gender issue. You've just made it that way in your mind.
January 7, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Run with the bad dogs? Piss on 3 legs? Who says Neanderthals are extinct? My guess is those were tears of pride about something. I still choke up when that eagle comes sailing into Yankee stadium. Makes me think of my kid in Iraq.
January 7, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Gitlin, you're right about Edwards' comment. The tears of Clinton were genuine - a truly unique moment in her campaign thus far. Most likely, he didn't see the video beforehand, and so when he was asked, he responded based on what was provided to him: that Clinton cracked on the campaign trail.
I think if Clinton were to run the clip, in its entirety, she would make the most compelling case for her candidacy yet - her passion for the country is phenomenally deep.
Yet, in reading the comments, I am also struck by another thought - that her tears came from the realization that her 35 years of fighting the small fights have come to naught.
The toll on the dethroned frontrunner must be horrific (though less on the 2nd place finisher in the General - Gore excluded). Unlike Dodd and Biden, Clinton knew, just knew, that she was going to win. To lose it to an upstart like Obama must drive her nuts.
January 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, the whole time she was whining, she was also using the moment to attack Obama (in a really cowardly way, I might add). Listen to it again and try to ignore the alligator tears and just listen to the content--she sounds like a spoiled child who isn't getting her way. It was phony as hell. Edwards was being kind.
January 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my prediction: After Hillary loses New Hampshire, she gets up on stage and screams, "I hate all of you and I hope you die!" Then she runs off the stage, never to be seen again. That's sort of my fantasy, anyway...
January 7, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) she didn't even tear up. she "voice cracked" which is easy to fake, and which she immediately turned into a lame political argument to attack her opponents.
2) Todd Gitlin got just about everything wrong. He got Edwards wrong, as the actual Edwards quotes in this thread show. He got Hillary wrong, becasue as others have pointed out, it was pretty phony and contrived. She didn't cry, or tear up, at all. And as best she was lamenting her own political fortune. Probably from sleep loss and the agony of defeat.
***
btw, the amount of rating abuse coming out of the Hillary camp is really disgusting. Talk about poor losers.
January 7, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
His actual statement was:
January 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry link here
January 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
ABC News showed the video of Edwards in the same context Todd is us it, not in the way CNN did. Which is correct? And wasn't Edward's equating tears with weakness with either interpretation?
January 7, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Source, please?
Todd Gitlin
January 7, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN, link above.
January 7, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read it and weep Todd.
Like I said, part of the problem, tripping over yourself to be PC becasue people like you have such known buttons so easy to press, and such predictable behavior from habit and association. A sucker for this kind of crap and MSM spin.
January 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will there be a correction at least noting the full quote from CNN?
January 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what Hillary said as she did the voce crack:
No kidding Hillary. I'm sure she doesn't want to see the Clintons fall back, and lose all those great opportunities, to pass legislation like NAFTA, to run the DLC and move Democrats to the right, and to sit on the board of WAL*MART, or get jobs at power brokering law firms after Bill is elected AG in the state.
***
btw, on JackRussel's rating abuse, I thought Jack Russels were smart dogs, but I guess they're also lap-dogs and leg-dogs.
January 7, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Obama's and Edward's message. How a man who is a mill workers son became a millionair and a man with Obama's backgound is able to succeed in America with his name. HRC was totally on message, this was nothing but a poll-tested 'weep lapse' moment to see how the message would play with a small group. A small group of 15 women who 'just happened' to have coverage from all the major network and cable stations as Hillary 'succombed' to all the pressures on her as a person who has been so demonized while only striving to do what is best for this country. ugh! gag me with a spoon...this was soooooooooooooooooooooo
scripted!!!!!
January 8, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the Hillary quote above was arrogant.
January 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few thing:
1) Todd's insistence on misusing a quote to slander edwards as sexist is pathetic. If a man cried on the campaign trail, you better believe his chances would be closed to done. And what the hell does this have to do with sex?
2) Gitlin is such a PC policeman, why dont you talk about the issues here, rather than misattributing Edwards remarks as an intentional hit on hillary. All he said was campaigning is tough business. Is this not true? Is it not true that the presidency is also tough business? Likely to be more trying at times than the campaign trail.
3) This is purely my take, probably has nothing to do with JE's position--but maybe John Edwards, whose wife is dying of cancer and has been running a much harder schedule on less money, might not be broken hearted over her tears.
4)Hillary's tears cannot be believed. Why do I say that? Because in December her campaign publicly said it was going to show the "softer" side of Hillary and, coincidentally, she teared up and got emotional. Here is the link:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/18/clinton-gets-emotional/
TG is well known for savaging people to his left by playing to politically correct politics and denouncing the the supposed angry meanness of those to his left. Shit, he has made disparaging the 60s a sort of cotton industry.
Dont try and make this into a Lazio moment
January 7, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I figured. There's no way Edwards would have the time to spend looking at the blogs today.
January 7, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the whole story that Prof. Gitlin linked to, it is obvious that it’s a hit job; a cut and paste of quotes out of context. They begin with:
Later, they explain that Edwards hadn't heard about and was not even talking about Hillary’s emotional moment but:
They explain that his wife was more sympathetic (when Edwards hasn’t even commented on it) but even she could “not pass on the political opportunity and added that voters will decide whether or not they want to see watery eyes.”
Of course at the bottom Edwards does address Hillary’s moment; but “appeared to adopt his wife's more sympathetic tone.
It’s the same old piss yellow journalism that is supposed to pass for political discourse and civic enlightenment. Does this help define Edwards’ character? Does anyone think he would “jump and pounce” on Hillary because she showed some emotion? Does anyone think there is anything telling about an exhausted Hillary getting emotional anyway?
January 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so on the money that it makes me tear up.
We've had sixteen years of this Press Corp Junior High coverage that savages democrats so badly that all of them are afraid of being human beings.
Why democrats accept this and from reading the posts here, believe their crap, is a mystery to me.
January 8, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the voters will stay focused on the key issues and pay no attention to this latest media diversion.
The media also barely acknowledged that Edwards came in second in Iowa and beat Hillary. They did not promptly give this huge upset the recognition it deserved. Of course prompt recognition of the facts would likely have helped Edwards in New Hampshire.
The day after Edwards beat Hillary in Iowa, one NPR news summary that ran frequently went something very close to this: "The race between Obama and Hillary is now on in New Hampshire." No mention of Edwards at all! The MSM (of course) did the same.
After Edwards' victory in Iowa, the MSM and even NPR and Ashbrook promptly labeled Edwards as the "confrontational" or "angry" candidate. Ashbrook implied that the voters labeled Edwards the angry candidate, despite that it was a media label and Iowa voters had just given Edwards tons of support. I guess some just accept this propaganda without making up their own minds.
I think Hillary was genuine and deserves respect and compassion. I also have much more evidence of media propaganda than I do that Edwards is at all mean-spirited.
I'm hopeful voters will dismiss this diversion and take a hard look at the important differences between these candidates. So many mistakenly expected meaningful change when the Democratic Congress took control; I would hate to see more disappointment after the next president takes office.
January 8, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
These two caucuses are too close together--the candidates are very, very tired. Edwards' comment was not helpful at all to his campaign.
January 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iowa's a caucus. N. Hampshire is a primary which permits crossover voting and voting by independents.
January 7, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this front loading of the primaries was Bill and Hill's strategy to begin with. They believed they could have her win all these primaries by Feb and there would be no doubt who the nominee was. Their tactic backfired. They never calculated how this strategy would benefit ANY candidate who was able to sweep the primaries. That is why they view Obama as an insurgent they never dreamed that any Democratic politician would have the ability or political courage to challenge Queen Hillary the unstated 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee. She was entitled and everyone KNEW she would claim her mantle.
So, tough luck that their planned steamrolling and loading of the deck can now bowl right over them and leave them strewn in the path of another candidates victories.. It is their just desserts.
The best part is they never saw it coming.
This is a great day for America, we have a people's candidate not a machine candidate who truly can bring about change we can believe in.
January 8, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the fact that Edwards said he wasn't responding to it meant that he wasn't responding to it.
January 7, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
except then he did.
Come on Dee Dee, quit drinking the koolaid.
This is a major mistake for Johnny boy. About all we can say is bye bye, don't let the door hit you as you walk out.
Or to quote grandma " good riddance to bad rubbish"
At least he has his hedge fund job he can go back to, At least he won't starve.
Jack
January 7, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a major mistake for Edwards, by a longshot. Many of his supporters are anti-Hillary and many others are men who refuse to vote for her based on gender. Edwards will have to do a lot more than this to have the door hit him in the back. Besides, what Edwards say about a commander in chief needing resolve when the going gets tough is true.
Hillary's 'weep lapse' is no different from and as calculated as her 'the boys are all ganging up on me' act following the debate where she was challenged as the frontrunner on the issues. Other than this time it was the voters who spoke instead of the candidates and opposed her.
If anything this 'weep lapse' is beginning to demonstrate a pattern that she is a whinning sore loser when confronted with the issues and the pressures of being a candidate for President.
I do not like it one bit. She makes women look awful under pressure (despite it clearly not being PMS based on her last birthday) and she should not be held to a different standard simply because she is a female. No male would be. Richardson is seen as a whiner without tears with all his Rodney King 'can't we all just get along" statements so HRC needs to suck it up and learn how to deal with the stresses and strains when you are in the playoffs and going for the division title. All those regular games during the season don't count so she needs to stop with all this 'i don't want to see the country go backward' as if she is the only one with the ability to lead this country. She isn't. So Hillary needs to suck up her injured pride, as that is all this was, and play harder...after all she is the one with the pronouncement of 'I'm in it to win it"...well the game is on the line, sweetie, so start acting like it and stop your kvetching and bellyaching.
I would say grow up but she is the oldest Democratic candidate by a long shot there is no excuse for her weeping.
January 8, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
whiterosebuddy,
You are not a mind reader. No one (except Hillary) would know she was faking it. Edwards wasn't asked his opinion about that. I guess if Edwards wants to appeal to sexist males it was a good move. Otherwise, I think what he said sucks.
January 8, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one needs to be a mind reader to detect insincerity, pretense and a lack of authenticity. The individual exudes it with their behavior and especially the pattern of their behavior.
I don't think Edwards sucks.
I think Hillary is a fake, shrewd and calculating artificial and will do and say anything phony as a twodollarbill corrupt politician, just like Romney except she has no track record of success as an executive and he does.
January 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
" I don't think Edwards sucks."
Neither do I, but I think what he said sucks.
January 9, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am forced to agree with Mr. Gitlin. Also, I have noticed that many of the other commentators seem to be focused on the wrong person. To me, it’s about Edwards taking a really, really cheap shot at a fellow Democrat. I don’t care whether Hillary deserved the cheap shot because she’s a bad person or because she supports bad policies or whatever. This is about John Edwards. I’m a very strong Edwards supporter but this really was an incredible tacky, cheap thing to say. It really makes him look like a boorish jerk. This is the first time I’ve ever heard him say or do anything like this but I must admit it does reflect very, very poorly on his character. I would hope that Edwards would make a full apology, like a gentleman.
January 7, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's a cheap shot at all. In fact, I'm glad she's being called on her phoniness and "voice crack" routine, and that it's not presidential.
She did it in the debate too. It's phony, playing on the worst sentiments, and un-presidential.
January 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Let's not forget the garish colored jackets, cackling laugh and 'that hurts my feelings' all pretenses she has affected as part of her feminine gentler side.
January 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is relevant. Edwards was not asked if he thought Hillary was faking it.
January 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how does Edward not being asked this make it irrelevant to MY point which is that there is a clear pattern of this pretense and artifice that goes along with the 'weep lapse' moment when it comes to her playing the gender card?
They are already reporting that Hillary has the women vote in NH and that they have turned out in high numbers to vote for her. If you thnk this weeping wasn't calculated, so be it. I see it differently.
January 8, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is relevant to an analysis of whether what Edwards said is appropriate.
January 8, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reply was to this statement in the post by Kozmik:
If you think this is not relevant to what the analysis of whether what JRE said is appropriate, do not respond to these 'irrelevant' posts. Or recognize that people see it differently and chose to discuss other facets in their analysis independent of the revelancy to you.
January 8, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll respond to what i want to.You respond to what you want to.
January 9, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...
It seems an awful leap to conflate Edwards' comment as being in any way sexist.
After all, "toughness" has been the measure of a president for the past eight years! Or have you been sleeping? Remember all the attacks on Kerry? Gore? anyone who so much as asked "why" about Iraq?
Frankly, it saddens me to see such a shallow, miserable argument featured on this fine site.
January 7, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It seems an awful leap to conflate Edwards' comment as being in any way sexist."
No kidding. But this has been a consistent Hillary theme whenever she's caught, she plays the victim card.
January 7, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Edwards by equating showing emotion with weakness was being sexist.
January 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except he didn't. Read the quote, and the context.
Having real passion and emotion is one thing. Being phony and emotionally manipulative, the way she's been throughout her campaign, is at best unhelpful and unpresidential.
The pillow cudding was bad, not becasue there is anything wrong with pillows, but becasue it was a phony attempt at likability that fell flat.
Her attempt to be tough and humorous in the debates was bad, not becasue there is anything wrong with toughness or humor, but becasue her cackle was phony and her attacks backfired.
Her newfound sentimentality isn't bad becasue there is anything wrong with emotion, but becasue it's again a contrived display of phoniness, and she's lamenting her own political failure, not real issues.
January 7, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
Because if Giuliani or McCain choked up like Hillary I sure hope someone would've been there to say what Edwards did.
To me it seems Gitlin and those supporting his argument are the sexist ones here, essentially arguing that women should be treated differently. They shouldn't. To think women need to be coddled is quite chauvinistic in my book.
January 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all in the context of why the candidate chokes up regardless of if they're male or female. If Rudy or John choked up in that same situation it would be fine by me. Aren't you the one saying that it's appropriate for a female but not a male? So aren't you the one saying that women "should" be treated differently?
January 7, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if Rudy got choked up while lamenting how his numbers have fallen, and how hard it is running for office, and how sincere but misunderstood he is, you'd think that was swell?
I'd think it was horrible, phony, and a desperate ploy to play the victim card and not take responsibility for his own disastrous campaign.
January 7, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well - again it's all in the context. In the context you're setting up it certainly sounds inappropriate. But I think if it was set up differently it could be appropriate.
January 7, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way I'm "setting it up" is exactly how Hillary's campaign, and Rudy's for that matter, are going.
How would you set it up? That she just happened to gush through some of her tired campaign slogans, to a panel of women after losing women in Iowa, at the same time her numbers are plummeting, and her campaign is desperately imploring her to show the "softer side" and "connect" to voters.
Phony! Same as she's been throughout the campaign.
January 7, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’m for equal opportunity for all, but honestly, we can’t pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t read Edwards’ remarks as sexist, but I don’t think discussing the issue of a woman as president should be out of bounds either. Generally speaking, men are not as emotional as women just as women are not as aggressive as men. I know, generalizations become stereotypes, but sometimes it's necessary to an argument.
Is there a question to be raised about having a female president? Could be, depending on the candidate. It could be argued that a woman is more suited to the job (i.e. peace might break out). Personally, I don’t think it’s a major factor and the individual character of the candidate surmounts characteristics like race or sex. But if a candidate tends to crack under pressure, just as if a candidate loses his or her temper, it is a valid issue. I haven’t seen any Democratic candidates do either (some of the Republicans border on doing both).
January 7, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, perhaps. Another view is that men do not display emotion as women do. Similiarly, women are very agressive they just display it differently manner from men. Men typically are referring to physical aggression when using the term. However, while women are not physically agressive they are certainly very emotionally agressive. Just as HRC is using her emotional 'weep lapse' here aggressively to build sympathy for her having loss frontrunner status. There is even a term for this, it is called passive aggressive.
January 8, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Repeat deleted.
January 7, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeat deleted.
January 7, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deja Vu all over again, Tom:
On Line News Hour: Remembering Ed Muskie
Dunno what this says vis a vis sexism...but it says something about frayed nerves in a campaign process which seems guaranteed to bring out something but the best in us.
aMike
January 7, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, and I'd say the critical issue here is not the expression of emotion. But the bemoaning one's own political fortune. I actually got a little teary eyed watching one of her speeches years ago with my wife, which was really good. We also got a little misty eyed when Obama spoke in 2004.
But this latest phony bungling is exactly the kind of misstep that I've seen throughout her campaign, and why despite my having been ready to volunteer for her, before Obama got in the race, I really can't stand her now.
My politcal philosophy has always been to vote for the lesser of evils, and make one's real opinion known, waiting for the day when I can finally vote for an exceptional candidate.
After 20 years ranging from mediocrity to catastrophe, that time has finally come. I'm supporting Obama.
No more Clintons and no more Bushs. No more Reagonomics and Reaganomics-lite. No more NeoCons and no more New Dems. No more spoilers and unelectables either.
January 7, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the misinformation about Muskie that came out was the result of one of Tricky Dick Nixon's tricksters, Donald Segretti.
January 8, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tless2
Why? When men show emotion it is described as weakness as well, so what makes it sexist to say it is weakness when a woman does it? The fact that she is a woman and presumed to be emotionally weak based on gender does not alter the societal view that when men show emotion they are characterized as week as well, unless they are at a funeral or bedside of a loved one. Weeping under pressure when the going gets tough is viewed as weakness no matter what gender one is.
January 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Edwards was sending a deliberate message that Hillary was weak by showing emotion. He didn't say that explicitly but he did it implicitly by switching the topic to what it takes to be commander in chief. If he is asked about Mitt Romney's crying on TV and he switches the topic to what it takes to be commander in chief than I'll amend my statement to say that Edwards is simply insensitive to the role of emotions in the lives of human beings. My guess is he wouldn't do it, so I'm staying with my analysis that his reaction was sexist.
January 8, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Why? Men are judged as weak when they cry, so how is it sexist. Moreover, how sexist was it that Hillary coincidentally happened to be with a small group of 15 women to have this weeping lapse with while surrounded by all the major networks who just so happened to be at this intimate gathering? Please...get real.
The pundits are claiming that her 'weeping lapse' galvanized women out to the polls tonight...how sexist is that?
January 8, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am real.I'm talking about Edwards, not society in general. I think the pundits are right in their analysis tonight. They aren't being sexist. They're trying to analyze what happened tonight.
January 8, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you see nothing wrong with a sexist weeping lapse creating a sexist response? You see nothing sexist about her saying while she was 'weeping' to a group of women only that she "does not want to see this country go backwards", as a clear reference to the false pro-choice mailer she sent out about Obama's voting record to make women think they would lose abortion rights and go back to back alley abortions. You see nothing wrong with all this sexist gender card playing on her behalf?. Yet, you think that what Edwards said regarding her clearly blatant sexist actions was sexist, and it is HIM you take umbrage with?
Well, you are the one having the sexist response it seems, it is no different than when the girl hits the boy first or pushes him in the mud, the boy hits back or shoves her down too, society blames the boy as boys are not suppose to hit girls as girls are the 'weaker' fragile sex. The fact that you can't see how this entire episode was sexist pandering initiated by HRC Clinton to begin with is astonishing and actually quite chauvinistic on your part.
HRClinton played the gender card and you responded in a sexist way on her behalf. This is the oldest trick in the book girls play to get boys in trouble. geez
January 8, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear whiterosebuddy,
I no longer talk to you about sexual orientation issues. I see no reason to continue a dialogue with you on gender issues. You are assuming Hillary was being phony. I'm assuming she was not. Edwards took the opportunity to talk about what's needed in a commander-in-chief in a clear attempt to sublimally suggest Hillary is not capable of being a commander-in-chief. Hillary is not my first choice but by your lashing out as Edwards did you are helping to create many more Hillary supporters.
January 9, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what Edwards said was dead on target. Is Hilliary going to go into a crying cracked voice misty eyed moment when a foreign leader asks 'who does your hair'?
I do not think anyone can create more Hillary supporters. Hillary is a polarizing figure. Folks either really like her or they really intensely dislike her. It is visceral. Folks are not crossing over on the basis of some misty eyed moment. The entire pundit thing about women voters is false it is a total fabrication made up to account for massive voter fraud. The majority of women in this country can't STAND Hillary, which is why she did not have the female vote in IA. What we have seen in NH is a complete aberration based on the polls, exit polls and the massive crowds that came out for Obama. There were very few folks at Hillarys upset speech. Where did they go, why would they just vanish if this was suppose to be such a way to show you can't treat women this way, It is all false. Hillary is the establishment candidate and she did not win fair and square.
Nothing anyone says creates more Hillary voters. Even the woman who asked the question did not buy Hillary's contrived 'humane' moment she voted for Obama and remark that right after Hillary has her teariness, she then stiffened her back and kept going like it had never occurred. The women sadi she was unimpressed.
January 10, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also have to say, people like Todd Gitlin being such suckers for this kind of crap are also part of the problem. Speaking of triangulation and tired politics, guys like TG hear Hillary supposedly "cried" and start tripping over themselves to prove what sensitive guys they are. Give it a rest.
Real feminists and real humanitarians deal with real issues. Not theatrics. Theatrics don't change the DLC and Clinton record and what they've done to the middle class. The millions of people who have wept as a result of Clinton policies.
***
I've watched the video several times from different sources, and I don't see a single tear. I see a voice crack and bad acting at exactly the moment Hillary's advisers are telling her to be changier towards more passion.
In her announcement she was told she had to be likable, and cuddled pillows. In the debates she was told she had to be tough, and brought out the cackle and repeatedly shot herself in the foot. Now she's trying to be passionate, and doing the "voice crack" routine.
What's her next act? Playing the saxophone? She already plays the establishment like a fiddle, but the people are sick of it.
Heavens help us rid ourselves of this phony, with her conservative Reaganomics lite, and the wedge social liberal issue tokenism.
January 7, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Todd, you're getting all cuddly on us with Hillary? Edwards makes you ashamed of your sex? Where was your Kumbaya during the run up to the Iraq war when you were trashing millions of Americans who were marching in the streets protesting the Bush gangsters imminent violation of the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and a long list of other international laws and agreements?
Edwards embarrasses you?
You're a piece of work my friend.
January 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was he? That would seem odd for Gitlin. He can be a bit sloppy and PC in the wrong way, but he's usually anti-war at least.
January 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. He became an advocate for humanitarian war when that was the justification to bomb Serbia.
January 7, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd Gitlin has been pretty consistent in proving himself to be the Joe Klein of TPM. Nuff said.
January 9, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much ado about nothing. We dont know the true emotion behind her "welling". It could be self pity . If that were true then thats human but weak.
I didn't think Edwards response was awful. Not nice but not awful. Both people are under great stress and likely sleep deprived. Chalk it up to that and let it go.
January 7, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
so is she tough as nails or a crybaby?
Hillary needs to make up her mind.
Edwards point was dead-on
and the commenter above who noted what she was actually crying about (i.e. DLC, etc) made a great point regarding these crocodile tears
yeesh, is she going for sympathy votes now? is this supposed to appeal to women voters?
it sure generated the right reaction from the poster here upon edwards for daring to question the blubbering
January 7, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
This is a good question:
Well ... If it is any measure whatsoever, the wonderful woman that I have had the fortune to be partners with (as in spouse) for the past 35 years, and is a caring special ed teacher (for 28 of those years), who is quite centered, and strong-willed, responded when seeing the video of Mrs Clinton:
I almost rolled off the couch.
~OGD~
January 7, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell your spouse, it ain't hot flashes, Hillary was 60 in October.
January 8, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Some of us are right and some of us are not. Sob. Some of us are ready and some of us are not. Sob, sniffle, sob. Some of us know what we will do on day one and some of us really haven't thought that through enough. Sob, sob, sob..."
Oh, come on, Hill. Just say it to his face. Enough with the cheap shots. Just walk right up to him and say, "You're a fucker, Obama, and you're ruining my chance to become the princess!" You'll feel a lot better. Seriously.
January 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that so many of Clinton's supporters are inclined to treat this race as little more than a high school popularity contest driven by irrational affections and hatreds, or just a psychodrama filled with national learning moments and catharses, it would be a good time to recall the substantive basis for the rejection of Clinton by many Democratic voters. Please let me share a letter I wrote to some local papers yesterday, to sum up my case against her:
Dear Editors:
Back in the fall of 2002, some Democratic consultants urged Congressional Democrats to vote quickly to give President Bush the war he wanted in Iraq, so that Democrats could take the issue of Iraq “off the table” for the 2002 election, and run on their domestic agenda. These consultants made a very cynical calculation: If the war succeeds, those who vote for it will share in the glory. And if it goes poorly? … Well Americans have bad memories and a short attention span, and the war’s supporters will never be held accountable.
So in November of 2002, with the lives of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis hanging in the balance, Senator Clinton voted to authorize the Bush war in Iraq, a war which has been a disaster for US foreign policy in the Middle East and around the world, has cost the American people over a trillion dollars, and has visited an atrocity on the people of Iraq. The record shows this vote was part of a pattern of bad foreign policy judgment from Senator Clinton, a pattern that continues to this day.
During the Israeli-Lebanese war in July 2006, with tensions high and hotheads calling for an expansion of the war into Syria and beyond, and with international diplomats working feverishly to end the conflict, she took to the streets of New York in a fanatical celebration of “disproportionate force” and anti-UN vituperation. At a time when cool-tempered leadership and good judgment were required in order to prevent an expanded regional war, she lent her support to demagogues.
In January of 2007, she told an audience at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School that the Bush policy toward Iran was not sufficiently confrontational, and urged an even harder line than was being taken by the Bush administration.
And then in September of 2007, less than four months ago, she voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which handed the administration the rhetorical justification it needed to initiate hostilities in Iran. Had it not been for the subsequent release of the National Intelligence Estimate, which undercut the administration’s hard line case against Iran, our overstretched forces might be fighting in Iran today.
In each of these cases, whether through crass political calculation or because she is sincerely attracted to the Bush approach, Senator Clinton has sided with the party of belligerent fools who have wrecked our foreign policies and discredited our government around the world.
New Hampshire voters do not have short attention spans; and there is nothing wrong with our memories. This week Democratic primary voters begin the process of holding people accountable for seven years of folly, waste and destruction, and decisively repudiate the Bush policy with which Senator Clinton is all too comfortable.
Dan Kervick
Etc.
January 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Important to point out that Obama didn't show up to vote on Leiberman/Kyl, probably because he knew it was a setup. I know it was a loser either way, but Hillary was dumb enough to stick her foot in the trap.
January 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent letter to the Editor Dan K.
Btw, we have not ever seen HRC shed a tear for those caskets unloaded at Dover nor in the Arlington cemetry for all her willingness to be more confrontational towards Iran.
January 8, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary needs to emote and learn how to connect with people.
Edwards told a story during the debate, he was on fire and emoting and reaching his audience... then Hillary stepped on that "enchanted moment" and crushed it with her heel, then she proceeded to intrude and push in her answer.
She's been trying to recover ever since.
Edwards did not cry... he brought the tears to others eyes. Big distinction.
Hillary hanging with the girls and crying, though I have no doubt she may be sincere, but it sure is odd timing and it just isn't the right way to do it.
She's out of step.
January 7, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's extremely difficult sometimes for me to resist the urge to be a total wise-ass at some politician's expense, but I feel it's important to get serious and point out that TPM was partly the cause of a lot of this trouble today. Please re-read the headline on the front page:
"Edwards to Hillary: Don't Be A Crybaby"
That's easily as dishonest as anything I've read on Drudge. See, when you start from a point that low and that misleading, it's easy for things to spiral out of control. TPM is as guilty as the MSM for throwing out a trashy, dishonest headline like that in order to grab the reader's attention.
January 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Edwards to Hillary: Don't Be A Crybaby"
That title pissed me off to. And TPM needs to tighten up the quality control on headlines.
People like Todd Gitlin need to stop, think, and get the facts, before going all PC and malleable like warm taffy. he's not helping anybody with his tired old PC sloppiness.
January 7, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gitlin did ask for someone to find the actual Edwards response, and he said "I do wonder what it is the reporters heard that led them to paraphrase his first response as 'offering little sympathy' ". He's not running with wrong facts, exactly, but provisionally accepting them and suggesting a conclusion.
Let's lighten up here. Only complaint we can make is Gitlin posting to often and too shallow. That's our job.
January 7, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it would have been good for Gitlin to do a little research himself beforehand.
Which is a pretty serious complaint. Which I've felt about Gitlin for a long time. I know his record, what he's done. Lots of people have a great resume. Though, I'm not that impressed personally by University activists from that era, becasue I don't think it took much, and the standards were pretty iffy. There were some great ones, and a lot of flakes, and everything inbetween.
But he's posting here, today.
I think it's sloppy and his posts are pretty lazy and inconsistent. He needs to get it together and stop phoning in these lame posts to more than his fan club.
January 7, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was sloppy, but it was also neither categoric or too extravagant in its modest conclusion. It was mainly trivial.
January 7, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, and Gitlin has a chronic problem with sloppiness and trivial posts. You seem to be saying they're not too bad, I'm saying they are. Regardless, they ain't great.
January 7, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, having just watched the video of Edwards on ABC's Evening News I think TPM had the headline right. Edward's was being mean-spirited and the headline captures that. I thought the whole thing made Hilary look good until she said, "Some of us are right and some are wrong. Some are ready and some aren't. That was arrogant. Obama here I come.
January 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards is ALWAYS being mean-spirited. It's why, even though his ideas are pretty good, he's slipping in the polls. People may believe him when he says that his "angry young man" routine comes from deep within, but what does that prove? That he's a hot-head? Who is he trying to appeal to? Do we really want a guy like him in the White House? And if we do, why not just vote for McCain? He's WAY angrier than Edwards.
That said, that's part of the problem with the headline. It paints a picture of Edwards that's clearly biased against him. Intentional? Or just careless and lazy? Either way, it was a crappy headline in my opinion. Not worthy of TPM's generally higher standards.
As for Hillary's comment, I think she was being more than arrogant. She was being phony and opportunistic. As usual.
January 7, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
unclesmedley
"Edwards to Hillary: Don't Be A Crybaby"
January 7, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is toast. She pretty much had to pretend to be a man, and if a man cries it's over (see Edmund Muskie). Not that things should be this way, but they are.
I have not made a secret of my discomfort with a continuing Clinton dynasty, but I don't dislike Hillary, and agree with others that found her warm and smart when not campaigning.
If she ended up the nominee I would be pumping her up with enthusiasm. But I don't think she'll survive New Hampshire. She's getting boos there, and Obama is getting cheers.
January 7, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, on the other hand, reacted this way:
"'I didn't see what happened. I know this process is a grind. So that's not something I care to comment on,' he told reporters who threw questions at him as he bought tea for his throat and cookies and cupcakes for the press corps."
He sure knows how to stay above it all. It's one of the reasons he's winning and one of the reasons he'll be a great president.
January 7, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Grace under pressure is a helluva lot more stateman like than weeping ever will be.
January 8, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have all along been pretty convinced of Edward's phoniness, but have never thought of him as stupid.
His comment was very, very stupid.
I have never been a Clinton supporter, either President or Senator. (I caucused for Tsongas in 1992 and have been pulling for Obama all along.)
But Senator Clinton can't win. She getting hammered for being "angry" for displaying a bit of impatiences at an Edward's criticism during the last debate and today she gets hammered for displaying a bit of emotion.
We put a stop to all of this silliness by:
Enacting a Constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college (instituted by the aristocrats who wrote the Constitution because of their mistrust for the unwashed masses).
Enacting a Constitutional amendment establishing that corporations are not considered "persons" under the Constitution.
Establishing a national primary two months before the election.
And limiting campaigning to the publicly funded publication of one's biography and and platform.
Media outlets would not be happy with such changes. Screw 'em.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The electoral college was set up so people wouldn't be forced to ride a horse 300 miles through the desert to cast their vote. And if you want to establish that corporations are not persons under the Constitution, you'll need to take it up with the Supreme Court. Because in 1886, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, they implied that corporations are, in fact, persons, thus helping to set the stage for the mess we now find ourselves in.
January 7, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snark aside, it wasn't about the convenience of the voters; it was about maintaining the power of the states (at the expense, ultimately, of their citizens).
And the Santa Clara decision is up there with Dred Scott for worst SCOTUS decisions ever.
January 7, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turnow,
With that comment about Hillary tearing up, Edwards' stock went down a few points with me.
January 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I direct your attention to your signoff statement.
January 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was on CNN and she scratched her nose; heh, you know those Clintons, she's no doubt trying to entice The People With Big Noses Vote.
January 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having just seen the 15-second clip a few minutes ago, and knowing nothing of anyone's reaction, my thoughts were, "Wow. That's real emotion. I've never seen Hillary like that before. Oh oh, voice cracked, almost tears, oh crap. Now she'll be too weak and girly to be president. I can hear it now."
Sure enough, that's exactly where Edwards went. And that is the tightrope any female candidate for President is going to have to walk for the foreseeable future. Lock up your emotions in iron resolve and you're a phony. Let them peek out and you're weak.
Here's what will happen. Television news, always in search of 15-second sound-bite that will relieve them of their responsibility to do any real reporting, will play this every 10 minutes until Hillary drops out. You will never see 2 minutes that gives it a context or shows her regaining her composure. That would just screw up the story.
It will be just like the Howard Dean Scream. Most people never saw the clip with the real sound in the room, where it was clear that nobody there could hear his words. Hardly anybody ever saw the clip go on 5 more seconds as he turned to the other people on the stage and busted out laughing, showing that he knew it was over the top. No, context like that just gets in the way of the story; "Dean Is Nuts!!!"
The funny thing is that if I had seen this Hillary, the real human being, a little more over the last 16 years, I might well have supported her. For me it's too little too late.
January 7, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
over-looking the tears, I sensed anger at Obama in her comments. He didn't wait his turn, like he was supposed to.
January 7, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was anger, frustration and injured pride.
January 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this article for real, Gitlin? This is ridiculous.
The CNN writeup on this eschewed the phony ABC sensationalism and made it clear that he was neither calling Clinton a "crybaby" nor was he implying that.
Even assuming, arguendo, that he was criticizing her tears, in this context, I can't help but criticize them either. She gets weepy in front of voters because she might lose an election? Really? So we should have a President who openly cries about LOSING AN ELECTION. OK, gush gush love love, and all that, and if people think crying is the best catharsis, well have at it. But honestly, in a race where the top three Dems would all be lightyears better than the GOoPer opposition, crying publicly about not winning the primary in New Hampshire is pretty self-indulgent. That's not sexist, but what is sexist is to think she couldn't hold back on self-indulgent emotions because she is a woman.
Let's assume that the whole "I don't want the country to go backwards" thing is the real basis for her "emotions" (which may or may not be real). I know you have to have an ego to run for the highest office in the land, but is Hillary so self-centered that she thinks the country is going to go backwards (her words, not mine) if Obama or Edwards wins this, instead of her? Honestly?
January 7, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "I don't want this country to go backwards" nonsense is similar to Bill's "voting for Obama is taking a big risk" argument. It's a desperate (and fairly pathetic) attempt to make Obama unacceptable to voters by raising the specter of a potential disaster if you vote for him. They're trying to worry people into supporting Hillary. It's a standard political technique, and the Clintons know it well. It's a complete insult to the intelligence of the American voter. Hillary may have teared up in the process of taking a cheap shot at Obama, but she was mainly taking a cheap shot at Obama. The tears were extra.
January 7, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink