Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire last night and she did it by crying — fake crying — in public. She tugged at female heartstrings and bullied men into voting for her by feeling sorry for her.  Hillary “found her voice” in a ridiculous, trembling, tremolo that will hurt her more in the future than it helped her last night.


The good thing in Hillary’s “dry crying” is that a desperate ploy of
that kind can only work once. She played the crying card in New
Hampshire and it will no longer be effective again. You can only
“become human” once in public campaign. She played it.  She’s played
out.

The ghost of Vince Foster
must be alive and haunting New Hampshire somewhere — either that — or
there is a deep Racism in America that still thrives in the dark
underbelly of humanity where people willfully lie to pollsters that
they will vote for a Black Man in order to look good and to feel good
about themselves, but when the reality of the private polling booth
hits, they vote The White Way… even if it means voting for… a
Woman.

That
disconnect between purposefully skewed polling and voter reality is a
plague on American politics. 

There’s a history of Blacks being ahead
in the polls and then losing in the election, and one must wonder why
that happens.  As one political analyst said this morning, “From now
on, Obama has to deduct 12 points from any polling numbers he gets to
account for the liars.”

Obama is the most formidable American political force in two generations — but I worry for the skin he’s in
— and I am fascinated by the “most put upon minority” claim to fame
that can allegedly be “set right” in the democrat primary:  Is the
repression of women in society more in need of fixing; or is the
oppression of Blacks in America a more pressing salvation?

37 Comments

  1. A crying shame – shame on her for pulling that trick – shame on those who fell for it.
    As a woman – how pathetic can you get?
    Apart from anything else who wants a female who “dry cries” as soon as things get tough ? – fat lot of good she is going to be in the White House.
    (Disgusted of Devon)

  2. Nicola —
    It was a dirty trick! If you watch the video of her dry crying — you can see she is willing herself to be “emotional” and she wouldn’t make it out of first semester acting with a fraudulent act like that.
    The press, however, ate it up! She’s real! She’s human! She’s a REAL HUMAN WOMAN!!!
    I agree Hillary becoming “human” is bad for her long term business — especially if she’s president. She’ll regret that temporary reprieve New Hampshire gave her as she tries in vain to regain her steely, tough, edge that she just irreparably dulled.

  3. Gordon —
    Obama’s team was devastated last night. The press said they were in for a 12 point win and they lost… even if they knew it was coming… none of it is good for momentum.
    It fascinates me that the press is reporting how “quirky” New Hampshire is and how the polling is always wrong. Does that make NH quirky or a state full of liars?!!
    As well, how can the press report today, “Hillary made a comeback win against the odds,” when it appears that internally both Obama and Hillary knew it was going to be close and that only the polls were wrong. Is it possible to “make a comeback” when the facts don’t support the phrase?

  4. Just for the record, I’m no fan of HRH. But the woman is absolutely brilliant. Though I was half falling asleep last night, even Dick Morris had to agree (though I didn’t get to listen to his entire commentary). Sorry, Dick.
    In my experience, folks just eat this emotional B.S. up. They love it!
    I fear she’s on to something, David!
    It’s all about emotion, especially for the female voter. And it looks like she can turn it on and off when she needs to.
    Move ’em to tears and they will come . . .

  5. You’re right, dmtessi, Hillary is good at manipulating emotions and playing the core in her favor. That’s the skill of an experienced politician and, yes, it can be dangerous because many people think she’s being genuine when she is not.
    Dick Morris, I think, is still secretly in love with the Clintons even though he’s been vicious against them — so I sort of take more of what he says as reasonable than something a political hack/rep/mouthpiece like Did Myers and Lanny Davis provide as “disinterested” observers of the political arena.
    The case may be that the power of a woman is more than of a Black man in America. What a contest this will be in the end and, sadly, one of them will have to lose.

  6. Talk about making lemonade out of lemons!
    Morris is one of those guys I absolutely abhor, but when he comes on I can’t stop listening …
    I have a love hate thing with Morris, as does he with the Clintons.
    I have to admit I find Dick Morris strangely fascinating . . .

  7. I agree, dmtessi, Dick Morris is a genius who just isn’t able to honor the business mantra that you don’t ever go against those who help you pay your mortgage. He plays a dangerous game when he gets into shanking the Clintons.
    He is definitely entertaining, though, because he knows how to tell a provocative story.

  8. It is very strange to be watching this process from afar – and without the benefit of all the background commentary.
    A lot of my female American friends are voting HC because she is female ……. and it annoys me that they let her get away with a lot of b***s*** because the fact he is female seems to override anything else.
    I still find that Obama inspires me – something none of the other candidates do not. I like to be inspired .

  9. I know a lot of women who feel the same way, Nicola. They are for Hillary because she’s a woman, not because of her qualifications or inspiration. They feel it’s their turn to “get back” and they don’t see the disconnect or the hypocrisy in their support for a candidate based on gender alone.

  10. Yeah. It’s pretty depressing, really. If you’re for Obama there are those who claim you’re for a Black man and not a guy with fresh ideas — it’s a strange sort of self-expressed branding when people react to your presidential choice.

  11. Nicola —
    That’s a great article by the BBC. I agree if you really want change — you go for Obama and not another Clinton. The fact that Obama is Black, relatively untainted by Washington, and he has an “international” name of the world are all sublime benefits.

  12. David, I’m just curious. If there was no Obama, then who would you look to? Because I’m not feeling any love for HRC here (or HRH, if you prefer) which, incidentally, pleases me immensely.
    I guess what I’m asking is would you support HRC if she won the nomination simply because she’s a Democrat?
    I’m asking only because this is going to be a real dilemma for me come election time.
    I’m seriously thinking about jumping parties, but I pray she’s not the nominee, though she very well could be.
    Any ideas that you might be comfortable sharing?

  13. Hi David,
    I loved the last paragraph of your article the most!
    It’s like a double aged sword – people are unnecessarily labeled regardless of their choice.
    If you support Hillary then you are Pro – woman, if you support Obama – then you are pro – black.

  14. While the antics of the season underfoot are disturbing they are hardly new. Long ago the nomination process became a popularity contest dictated by talk show appearances and sound bites rather than substantive evaluation of a candidate’s potential to govern and administrate the domestic and foreign image of the US. How different would the rancor and grandstanding be if we had 10 parties instead of 2? A coalition government? Instant run-off elections? Our choices are limited as they are, nomination by the media and for the TV audience and newsstand only further dilutes the participation of the electorate in the process. I am concerned about the country’s readiness for the cultural and historical precedent that the Democratic party seems headed to present (either a woman or a black man). Also how many presidents have we had from states above the Mason-Dixon? History is not on the side of either of the candidates. How much does this country really want change?

  15. dmtessi —
    You ask an excellent question and it goes right to the conundrum of living a proper life in an immoral society where one often must make a choice between two devils.
    If Obama is out and HRH is in ( that’s her new name for me, BTW 😀 ), I will have to go with HRH not because she’s a democrat, but because she’s the next intellectual in line.
    Education is paramount to me and I want the smartest possible president because, in my experience, the smarter the president… the better he has been for our country.
    We’ve suffered through the frat-boy-never-study tell-me-the-answer mentality for eight years and look how far we’ve fallen as a nation at home and abroad.
    When I look to the conservative side of the polls I am not struck that any of them — except for the verifiably insane Ron Paul — are intellectual in the least and they prefer to play on hateful emotion than on enlightening the burden of our daily thoughts.
    When I look to the liberal side, I see two shining examples of a “freeing” intellectualism in codes, memes and expression: Obama and HRH.
    I don’t think we will lose with either of them, but Obama is easier to take every day and he will take us in newer and undiscovered directions — and that’s just what we need as a country right now after eight years of dim-minded leadership.

  16. Yes, Katha, the media has made the democrat race about “The Woman” and “That Black Man” and it makes my skin crawl.
    I wish we could set history apart from the election, but I fear we’re condemned to live with the chance of history being made unless and until it is actually made.
    Then we can move on because the spectacular has become ordinary again.

  17. foley —
    What you bring up is an interesting topic and it directly stabs at the inadequate job the — public, private and home — schools are doing for the republic: None are teaching the values and responsibility of active leadership in the population when it comes to politics.
    Few children today have an understanding of the political process and how choices made in the voting booth have a direct response to what happens in real life courtrooms, hospitals and private bedrooms.

  18. Thank you for your thoughtful response, David.
    I agree about G.W. Though I’m not into Bush bashing per se, this guy must have flunked International Relations 101 and, by the look of things, never took the course!
    You bring up an excellent point about “smarts” (not to be confused with “street smarts”) and how essential it is in evaluating a candidate for presidency. It’s interesting how that part gets lost in the process.
    We had the lowdown on Bush and it’s certainly come back to bite us big time, especially those who voted for him.
    It’s like a bad marriage. It’s not like you didn’t know any of these things going in, but living with it long-term is quite another matter . . .

  19. dmtessi —
    Right! When we think back on the “big thinkers” of recent presidencies: FDR, JFK, Carter, Bush I, Clinton — you immediately see they have a grander scope of the world beyond the immediate interests of the USA. They reached out beyond common limits to enhance minds and better lives through demonstrating tremendous intellect and supporting higher education.
    When we think of recent anti-intellectual presidents: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush II — we see a purposeful condescension to anything educational or smart in favor of playing on emotion instead of memory. If you’re smart, you’re the outsider and you are not welcome. Faith over memory. Believing over factual relevance.
    When we look at recent presidential failures: Carter, Mondale, Dukasis, Gore, Kerry — we see how a lack of educational leadership at the top trickles down to the populace who then vote with anger and emotion where being smart is considered bad and education is thought of as the enemy to be disemboweled and defeated in the polling booth.

  20. Nixon however was highly skilled in the art of diplomacy and some would say he was a master of foreign relations.
    Who could forget those adorable panda bears?
    It was a major headline in my elementary school weekly reader!
    Gold star for anyone who can remember their names without googling. I couldn’t.
    Otherwise, I’m obviously in total agreement about Tricky Dicky.

  21. dmtessi —
    I can see how Nixon in China could be seen as a worldly and intellectual break, but for me it was more an emotional ploy — see the pandas! — and not really an intellectual endeavor much in the same way Reagan had his “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” emotional moment of pandering.

  22. Paglia peels into HRH:

    A swarm of biographers in miners’ gear has tried to plumb the inky depths of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s warren-riddled psyche. My metaphor is drawn (as Oscar Wilde’s prim Miss Prism would say) from the Scranton coalfields, to which came the Welsh family that produced Hillary’s harsh, domineering father.
    Hillary’s feckless, loutish brothers (who are kept at arm’s length by her operation) took the brunt of Hugh Rodham’s abuse in their genteel but claustrophobic home. Hillary is the barracuda who fought for dominance at their expense. Flashes of that ruthless old family drama have come out repeatedly in this campaign, as when Hillary could barely conceal her sneers at her fellow debaters onstage — the wimpy, cringing brothers at the dinner table.
    Hillary’s willingness to tolerate Bill’s compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause — which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.
    It’s no coincidence that Hillary’s staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary’s rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let’s not forget Hillary, the governor’s wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.
    Hillary’s disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem’s fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/

  23. A finely crafted thesis by Paglia. But I’m not buying it.
    Call me simple, David. But Hillary’s no different than alot of women I’ve met over the years in practice. In perpetual denial about her husband’s serial infidelity and always hopeful the leopard will change his spots.
    Bill is a charmer and manipulator of the highest degree and I’ll bet she still loves this guy; absolutely worships him. And internally believes she can’t succeed without him.
    But she could.
    This is the primary reason I cannot vote for her. If she lacked the courage to leave her philandering husband, I cannot believe she possesses the courage to run this country.
    Then, there’s a question of her moral intelligence. And my gut tells me it’s actually not that far off from Nixon.
    She has so little power and control in her personal relationship. And so she will seek it in her political life. At any cost . . .
    Let’s hope Obama gets the nomination . . .

  24. dmtessi —
    Paglia has never been a Hillary fan. Early on she thought HRH was bad for women because, just as you suggest, she looks the other way when it comes to infidelity.
    I agree HRH should’ve been done with Bill after she threw the lamp at him after learning of Monica. She could’ve still had the life she has now and she’d be seen as stronger and as her own woman now instead of her hubby’s second chance at life.
    I don’t think she adores Bill, though. My feeling watching the two of them together is she can basely stand him and he is sort of lost in a hillbilly “gosh ‘n golly” ether of human denial.
    The proof of Hillary’s intellectualism is in her daughter and her upbringing and her education. I’m certain Chelsea will not make the same mistakes of her parents and that kind of genius is not inherited, but rather learned through burning skin and blinding observation.
    Breaking the familial chains is important and Chelsea will struggle free from the toxicity of her family much in the same way Obama is trying to break us all in a whole new direction.

  25. David–
    I’ll have to pay closer attention when Bill and HRH are together. Perhaps Bill has lost much of his luster for her because he is no longer president. He’s much older now and he’s had some health problems. Last time I spotted him on TV, he didn’t have quite the same vigor. But he was still extremely “likeable.”
    That would be interesting if he’s actually slowed down his “activities.” Who knows? Maybe he’s given it up all together. Sometimes health issues and medication bring on sexual dysfunction or decreased libido.
    I still say Slick Willy has a “hold” on her. I concede the “adoring” part may have been a thing of the past. But I predict she’ll never let him go. And while politics plays a huge part, she has a sick need to stay with him. A tragic personal story.
    As to Chelsea, I wish her the best. She seems like a nice gal!

  26. You could be right about Bill losing some of his drive, dmtessi. I’m sure he’s on a lot of severe medication routines for his bad heart that effect other tubes and vessels. 😀
    If HRH wasn’t going to leave him after Monica and the impeachment — she will never leave. She cast her lot with him. He said he owes her 14 years of being the supportive public spouse — so that’s the deal they made with each other’s devils.
    Let’s hope Chelsea turns out to be the bright shining spot in our future in the same way we hoped Amy Carter would help lead us along the righteous illuminated path.