Hillary Shows Feeling, is Slammed

posted by Katha Pollitt on 01/07/2008 @ 11:15pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (120)

Subscribe Now

John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not "crying" as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of "oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power. ABC's Political Radar blog reports:

"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.'"

Ooh, right,we need a big strong manly finger on that nuclear button! Even if that finger has spent most it its life writing personal injury briefs in North Carolina, which, when you come to think of it, is not an obvious preparation for commander-in-chiefhood.

"When people say they don't want anyone's finger on the button who cries, I say I don't want anyone's finger there who doesn't cry," Pat Schroeder told me when we spoke by phone this afternoon. "Tears show someone is a human being." Schroeder ought to know. In 1987 she was viciously attacked for shedding a few tears while announcing her withdrawal from the presidential race. "Ronald Reagan used to tear up all the time," she said. " when John Sununu left the New Hampshire governorship to run Reagan's campaign he was crying so hard he couldn't finish his speech. Bush recently teared up. Dozens of male politicians cry. But when a man cries, he's applauded for having feelings. when a woman cries, she attacked as being weak."

Hillary Clinton, long criticized as cold, shows a bit of feeling and is attacked as overly emotional. It's the latest installment of the ongoing double bind in which if she wears a black pantsuit she's too masculine and if she wears a pink shell she's too feminine; if she's serious she's humorless and if she laughs she "cackles." (George Bush has a horrible heh-heh-heh laugh, Schroeder reminded me. But who, besides Jon Stewart, makes anything of it? ) When Hillary was First Lady she was attacked for being too involved in business of state; now, when she claims "experience" we're reminded that First Ladies are basically trivial. "I'm so sick about the way Hillary is treated I can hardly talk about it," Schroeder told me.

It's bad enough when the media goes after Hillary like a pack of addled lemmings. A few weeks ago it was her wrinkles -- would people vote for a visibly middle-aged woman? today it was her welling eyes. But Edwards is not some on-air airhead . He's supposed to represent "change," remember? You'd think he'd be more alert to sexist gender scripts, given that he's been dogged by accusations of effeminacy for (oh horrors) spending too much time and money on his hair.

I guess in his case metrosexuality only goes scalp deep, because today he sounded like quite the old-school bully boy.

Hillary Clinton has taken a beating in New Hampshire for tearing up in a conversation with a supporter.

Comments (120)

Ooh, right,we need a big strong manly finger on that nuclear button! Even if that finger has spent most it its life writing personal injury briefs in North Carolina, which, when you come to think of it, is not an obvious preparation for commander-in-chiefhood.

Ooh Ouch!!!

Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 11:24pm
"You'd think he'd be more alert to sexist gender scripts, given that he's been dogged by accusations of effeminacy for (oh horrors) spending too much time and money on his hair."

And I thought I was the only one thinking that way.

Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 11:26pm
Couple of points in reply:

1) I haven't seen the footage of John Edwards or read the whole of what he said, but I agree that it seems like an unnecessary cheap shot.

But is that a sufficient reason to say, "I hereby withdraw my vote for him." Isn't that a bit like saying to a relative, "You have embarrassed the family by your crass words, and I am hereby disowning you as a relative of mine."

2) I did see Hillary's "crying" footage. It immediately brought to mind the footage of John Boehner's teary performance. Sure Hillary's was brief and relatively subtle, but let's get real here. Shedding tears on national tv has never been Hillary's MO, and to do it now when she is at her greatest moment of political peril strikes me as all too obvious performance art.

Where were the tears for all the damage that Dubya has wrought on American families and American status in the eyes of the planet?

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/07/2008 @ 11:37pm
Sorry for the sloppy post above. Accidentally hit submit instead of preview.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/07/2008 @ 11:40pm
'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.'

This is pouncing? Or (oh horrors) a 'sexist gender script?'

First of all, not once does he mention women - and while Ms. Schroeder informs us that 'when a man cries, he's applauded for having feelings. when a woman cries, she attacked as being weak,' there's no evidence to back this up; I don't remember Barack shedding a few tears and being hailed by Edwards as being in touch with his feelings. This is just the same strategy that I'd thought Hillary had gotten over using months ago: pre-emptive accusations of sexism.

Posted by hitomi at 01/07/2008 @ 11:43pm
Sorry, I was hasty with my previous post. I should have put 'Hillary's supporters had gotten over.'

Hillary hasn't, as far as I know, said anything yet about Edwards' comments.

Posted by hitomi at 01/07/2008 @ 11:48pm
But Edwards is not some on-air airhead . He's supposed to represent "change," remember? You'd think he'd be more alert to sexist gender scripts, given that he's been dogged by accusations of effeminacy for (oh horrors) spending too much time and money on his hair.

I guess in his case metrosexuality only goes scalp deep, because today he sounded like quite the old-school bully boy.

~Katha

Is this actually Katha writing or Maureen Dowd?

Come on, Katha, you can do better than cheap shots.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/07/2008 @ 11:50pm
Men can be subject to that shot as well. Remember Muskie's speech in response to attacks on his wife in 1972. Even the perception that he teared up put the final blow to his candidacy.

I think BKool's point about this perhaps being a bit of theatre is a good one. This could easily have been a replay of the Mrs. Alito incident, who left in tear, as if on cue, during the questioning of her husband.

Posted by brunowe at 01/08/2008 @ 12:26am
B_Kool_66: I don't think Pollitt's comments are cheap shots at all, and this is far from a dishy Dowd column. As I argue in my own post, [chutry.wordherders.net] Clinton has consistently been positioned by the political media as too calculating for years. Now that she shows a specific kind of emotion, she seems too feminine. The gender double-standard is ridiculous and Edwards should know better.

Posted by chutry at 01/08/2008 @ 12:29am
thank you ms. pollit. when i watched what edwards had to say this morning, i thought to myself...wow, he just sewed up the whole southern white male vote. i'm still undecided with my vote. but since edwards put this repulsive aspect of his personality on display, i am certain i will not vote for him. yuck!

Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 12:38am
I saw the Hillary video and that was not by any means artificial. It was, I believe, a real 'trying to get a heavy burden out your shoulders by sharing it' thing.

I don't know what Mr. Edward's motives were (I doubt they were sexist)neither saw him commenting on this. But surely he has shown lack of touch and ungraciousness.

Posted by Frank42 at 01/08/2008 @ 12:39am
George Bush has a horrible heh-heh-heh laugh,

HEY MASK,

sound familiar?

heheh

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 12:53am
"Hillary Clinton, long criticized as cold, shows a bit of feeling and is attacked as overly emotional. "

i wouldn't put it past her to have pulled out the bag of onions as a new campaign strategy.

hrc is anything but weak. cry or no cry.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 12:55am
"I guess in his case metrosexuality only goes scalp deep, because today he sounded like quite the old-school bully boy."

i wouldn't put it past him to have pulled out the bag of punches as a new campaign strategy.

the ship's sinking.................

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 12:57am
Careful Katha. Your inner Feminazi is showing. Could you at least try to be a little more relevant by blogging about substantive issues rather than wasting our time with revelations about your own hidden insecurities?

Posted by Salvatore at 01/08/2008 @ 01:07am
Thanks, Katha. I said more or less the same in my own blog this evening (rashikesarwani.blogspot.com): "Today, the brouhaha was about her slight display of emotion at a round-table of undecided New Hampshire voters. All along, the pundits have been pleading for her to get personal with voters, and when she finally does, they castigate her for it. She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Take note: This is what the media do to accomplished, outspoken women."

John Edwards' comment today, plus his criticism of Hillary's attire earlier, makes it clear: The dude is a total sexist. I've also read that he voted for the Iraq War back in '02 b/c he didn't think a firt-term senator had the foreign policy cred to vote against war. Knowing this, all of his rhetoric about fighting for the middle class sounds a little inauthentic to me.

Posted by RKesarwani at 01/08/2008 @ 01:16am
I actually agree with what Katha and Schroeder are saying about the double standard with women.

Although I don't think Hillary is the best progressive candidate, in part, because of her emulation of the worst traits of men (e.g., appear tough on defense and tough on crime without regard to the consequences, especially on women). I think Hillary would have been a far more effective candidate by following her intuition (not "female" intuition) rather than emulating male toughness.

Her decision to emulate Karl Rove's "divide and smear" politics in Iowa, for example, turned off many women voters as well as men. And Obama actually got more of the female vote than Hillary in Iowa, even though this is supposedly her base. This should have been a wake up call for Hillary, but instead she has persisted in the same old pantsuit.

If I were advising Hillary, I would tell her to ditch the pantsuit, look more feminine and attractive in a professional way, and focus on the "progressive change" she would bring as president rather than resorting to smears of Obama. But it is unlikely that Penn and Co. are going to advocate that kind of makeover, and will continue with the Democratic version of Rovian politics, pantsuit and all, leaving it up to future female politicians to learn from Hillary's mistakes.

Posted by Metteyya at 01/08/2008 @ 01:24am
"John Edwards' comment today, plus his criticism of Hillary's attire earlier, makes it clear: The dude is a total sexist."

~Rashi

Yeah. Like totally.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/08/2008 @ 01:38am
Posted by METTEYYA @ 01:24am

Not bad, Mett.

One of your better posts I think.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/08/2008 @ 01:39am
Katha your gender-based textual analysis of what Edwards was reported to have said does not change the fact that on the basis of public positions and voting record the one person in this democratic field of candidates who would have the hand on the nuclear button, or any other "trigger" is not the supposedly sexist Edwards or any of the men of this crowd but the AIPAC favourite, Kyle-Lieberman voting, Iraq war promoting, tear-dropping Hilary. The dead bodies of Iraqis, Palestinians and all the people whom her politics would doom to more misery should count as far more precious than your feelings and the effect Edwards' comment had on them. And before you cast aspersions about insensitivity regarding women's rights and sexist type-casting ask Hilary if she thought about the effects of the rise of fundamentalist Islam on women, when she approved the invasion and destruction of Iraq (and never even expressed a regret).

As for Edwards "peddling" his wife's sickness, well he has taken a lot of flack about it. Hilary's tears on the other hand should be fair game fair game in a political campaign where she has after all assumed the mantle of the UberHawk. And don't tell your readers that Clinton supporters have not been directing people on youtube videos of Edwards combing his hair. Would this perchance have been your own purpose when you closed your piece with the Parthian shot of the metrosexual allusion. Can one now accuse you of casting Edwards as effeminate, and therefore directly attacking, in the most crude of fashion, a whole category of often-embattled masculinity just because you used this line?

Posted by dimik72 at 01/08/2008 @ 01:41am
Oh, come on! Has anyone OTHER than Hilary ever had Katha's vote? She has been shilling for Clinton since BEFORE HilBill was in the race!

Hil's crocodile tears are just more coaching from Mark Penn, just like the famous - and similarly phony - cackles at the debate. Emotion from that woman is just not believable! If Edwards wanted to slam her, THAT's what he would have pointed out. But maybe that would have been belaboring the obvious?

Posted by sjduskin at 01/08/2008 @ 01:46am
I think your over reacting.

Posted by SeanM at 01/08/2008 @ 01:47am
Here's a fun version of John Boehner's crying --that I referred to earlier in this thread-- in Congress:

John Boehner Cries

Obviously Hillary didn't pull anything like these shenanigans, but the context is key in the case of Hillary.

Why the misting eyes right now of all times? And why in reference to, "I don't want to see us go backwards."?

Anyone who doesn't see this as a bit of theater, is pretty gullible to say the least, in my humble opinion. And that includes my girlfriend --we had a mild tiff about this one.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/08/2008 @ 01:58am
she was not 'slammed' for having feeling; but for reacting to personal attack. a President must be able to withstand constant personal attack; i could never do it. i would not take Edwards words to mean he is sexist; this would seem to perhaps more reflect your own bias. some people are always looking for certain prejudice, and this mostly reflects their own; ie yours. Here is the real issue: Hilary is much more concerned about her own performance, winning, how people perceive her, than any new idea for the American people. a bright, intelligent woman, who's career on the national stage is history. we need a President who can shed a tear for the community and how far off course it is; not only their own electability.

Posted by ojai44 at 01/08/2008 @ 02:36am
we need a President who can shed a tear for the community and how far off course it is; not only their own electability.

~Ojai @ 2:36am

Succinctly said.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/08/2008 @ 02:42am
Katha's critique of the double-standard is right on. I just wish she would have had a woman to defend other than Billery.

Posted by KansasBob at 01/08/2008 @ 03:51am
I agree that sexism is still rampant in our country and culture, and that successful women are often (always?) held to shifting, ambiguous double standards.

BUT, Hillary and her supporters are hardly the ones to be calling foul over low blows, not after some of what they've been dishing out. It's a presidential campaign after all, and she knew what she was getting into. She's got the memory to recall the flap about Gore's 'earth tones,' and Kerry's speaking French and surfboarding, doesn't she? It may not be Edwards's best moment, but as far as presidential campaigns go, it's hardly worth (doh!) crying over.

Posted by Rintrah at 01/08/2008 @ 05:47am
Anyone who doesn't see this as a bit of theater, is pretty gullible to say the least, in my humble opinion.

Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/08/2008 @ 01:58am | ignore this person

Bingo. Come on people! Hillary is a professional politician. If you believe this performance on her part, you are falling right into her hands. A moment of weakness? Give me a break! It was a tactical move to play on the sympathy of voters. Period. And, per some of the posters here, it's working.

I don't like Hillary's platform and especially her financial supporters but she has got to be one of the strongest women around. And, if she didn't give so much ammunition to her rivals, she probably wouldn't be attacked so much. That doesn't mean she can't show emotions but that isn't Hillary's MO. Deception is.

Posted by FritztheCat at 01/08/2008 @ 08:08am
Like Pollitt was ever planning to vote for Edwards to begin with--considering the intoxication she experiences sniffing the arseholes of her sisterhood of the priviliged class. I actually watched the footage of Edwards and thought his response was relevant--especially considering that Hillary used almost the same language as John Edwards did -- "I mean, this is very personal for me. Not just political." Newsweek observed that Hillary spoke before 16 voters and "about 100 members of the media."

Pollitt writes: "Ooh, right,we need a big strong manly finger on that nuclear button! Even if that finger has spent most it its life writing personal injury briefs in North Carolina, which, when you come to think of it, is not an obvious preparation for commander-in-chiefhood..." Ugly right-wing smear there, considering that because as a trial lawyer (you know, one of those maligned terms by the Right--like "liberal")he did challenge the entrenched powers in defense of the little guy--just as he champions the cause as a candidate. And it was Hillary herself that had to emulate NeoCon bullying as a show of toughness to portray her willingness to push the button. Now she whimpers her feelings are hurt. Give me a break!

As a woman, I am sick and disgusted by Clinton's poor little girl act. What a princess she is-back when her throne was inevitable, she always had that smug, self-satisfied look after she responded to every softball tossed her way. How dare anyone roll up the red carpet of the Bush-Clinton dynasty!!!! Recall how they manipulated "Dean's scream" (something the pundits still sneer at as if it was credible rather than manufactured)by replaying it endlessly and reinforcing the common perception that he was somehow off his nut--when he was holding a pep rally for his supporters. This poor widdle Hillary piece--a continuation of those-bad-boys-are-picking-on-me ( or as Pollitt states "today he sounded like quite the old-school bully boy")is cynically used for the sympathy vote and it stinks of Nixon-you-won't-have-me-to-kick-around-anymore whining. On the one hand Clinton claims she has all this experience--and then she wails about the country "falling backwards". Ahh--excuse me, Senator Clinton, but the reason the rallying cry of "change" is so inspiring is because folks are sick of the enabling trend promoted by the DLC brand of new Democrat that done brought us to the brink of the abyss. Instinctively they grasp at the concept-without realizing Obama's happy talk of bi-partisanship and unity employed as triangulation strategy ultimately leads to capitulation.The problem is Obama is a slicker operator than Hillary. the last thing we need in these times is a weepy woman---gees could you make it any worse for the rest of us, Hillary? Where would little Hillary be without her sorority sister Pollitt championing her gender as pathetic cover to ignore all her deliberate politcal calculations and multitude of failings unrelated to gender, while scolding Edwards. Is it any wonder the generational theme is so successfully championed, considering what pundits of the status quo NOW generation ladies have become.

Posted by Lil at 01/08/2008 @ 08:29am
Well I'm glad that Pat Schroeder is comfortable with George's finger on the nuclear button.

Posted by abell12ct at 01/08/2008 @ 08:46am
Also she says that tears show that Hillary is human. Well we all know that to be false.

Posted by abell12ct at 01/08/2008 @ 08:47am
Hillary is in a double-bind but she put herself there.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

Posted by martincaver at 01/08/2008 @ 08:47am
Posted by LIL @ 08:29am

Lil for Katha'a job anyone?

That post just caused me to turn the furnace off. It was gettin' too hot in here.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/08/2008 @ 09:23am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/08/2008 @ 09:23am

Nobody is as pure as LIL when it comes to politics....ask her!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 09:37am
It's funny, just two days ago I read an article, I think on The New York Times about what Hillary must change to be able to win Obama. It's explained that an exhausted emotional Hillary is the type of Hillary that is most personal, and most likable.

2 Days later we see her exhausted, emotional and crying. I'm sorry, but the writer of this article is either in Hillary's campaign team or she is really, really naive. It's pretty clear to me those are crocodile tears being shed, and I feel sorry for all voters who are naive to the point they will swallow this act.

Not that it matters, Hillary is already done, the race is over. Just shed some more tears for Hillary to let that sink in.

Nothing can stop the Obama train as its steaming ahead to take over this country, not even a small army of naive feminist ladies and ladymen whom think its still the 70-ies.

Move over babyboomers, you screwed up our country long enough, its time to move on and neither your tears nor your flower-power feminism is going to stop that.

Posted by BlackIsBack at 01/08/2008 @ 09:52am
It is truly disappointing to see you fall for yellow journalism. Edwards "pounced"? If you had bothered to check other sources, you would have found that Edwards' first response was that he hadn't heard anything about the incident and really couldn't comment. So the remark that you quoted was his response to the question of what the American people expect to see from their candidates--someone who is capable of standing up to the strain of the campaign and, ultimately, the highest office. John Edwards paid Hillary the ultimate compliment of treating her the same as he would any other candidate, without any gender bias. Furthermore, if you look at the records and the platforms of John Edwards v. Hillary Clinton, you'll find the John is way to the left of Clinton's current positions and always has been. John speaks to the economic injustices of women while Clinton rakes in money from large corporate donors. John Edwards is the most enlightened candidate I've ever seen on women's issues. It's beneath you to start throwing in with the corporate media by trying to smear him.

Posted by grayslady at 01/08/2008 @ 09:54am
Katha's knee-jerk summation of this situation is a perfect representation of the death knell of old-wave feminism. What this world needs is more people who can come to the table to look at issues without a prejudgment based on their gender, race or class. Anyone who can't see that Hillary was doing a little acting for the cameras can't see past the end of their face. Sure she was tired. They're all tired. But that little breakdown was a view into Hillary's internal tantrum over the outcome to which she feels entitled -- one that, thankfully, has been wrested from her.

Posted by crumbtrail at 01/08/2008 @ 09:56am
Old wave-feminism is exactly how I would describe it crumbtail, and thankfully the younger people who didn't live trough the 70-ies can see beyond that and thankfully its not the route that Obama is taking.

If he did you would hear him speak about injustice and rascism at every turn but his charm is that much like todays young people he doesn't try to take advantage of differences of race or sex.

This whole attempt to get back into the race by using sexism and flower-power feminism is really disgusting. I'm very happy and confident that most Americans have let that old age behind them and can see past that, and they will see it for what it is, a pathetic performance of someone willing to sell her own soul to get into the white house.

Posted by BlackIsBack at 01/08/2008 @ 10:07am
I don't know about anyone else...but the delving into every detail of candidates personal lives really puts me off. Why does Clinton have to fake tears? Why do we need to know how much Edwards haircuts are? so what if Obama tried drugs? Why does no one ever want to talk about the issues? I hear more about these candidates petty personal details and NOTHING about their policies and positions as presidential candidates. Is this a popularity contest or a presidential election? I can't tell the difference.

Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 10:26am
(1) I saw the tape, Clinton's reaction looked genuine to me. Yes, they chose to run, but I think a lot of you do not appreciate what all of these candidates go through. I think if you tried to put yourself in their shoes, you would understand that being under constant scrutiny and attacks for several months day after day MIGHT take a toll.

(2) Edwards' comment was a cheap shot. While not the most sexist comment ever uttered, it was clearly directed at Clinton, and whether intended or not, was based on a gender stereotype.

(3) In the end, I could care less about the event.

(4) The only ones who seem to care are members of the press. The coverage I have seen makes clear that the media is trying to turn this into the "Dean Scream" of 2008. I am not a huge Clinton supporter. However, I do want to see a fair fight. It would be a shame if this event became bigger than what it was. Hopefully with the speed of this primary season, it will blow over for Clinton. But, as usual, the MSM wants to shape the story and play a part.

Posted by Hman23 at 01/08/2008 @ 10:31am
I know one thing. I never really disliked Hillary, didn't really like her either, but she never annoyed me until rescent weeks. First there are these fake tears, but far worse is that in an effort to force a win she went the Bush/Rove strategy and started to warn us about Al Quaida wanting Obama in office.

When I read that news today I finally understood why the conservatives always seem to hate her. It finally dawned on me what a horrible woman Hillary really is, to use the same fear mongering strategy that Bush did.

And mark my words, those comments about Al Quaida are her final nails in the coffin. With me and I'm sure with a whole lot of people who are sick of G.W. Bush and his fearmongering, she finally lost all credibility now.

Game over, and as her final days clearly show, no damage done, she never deserved it anyway.

Posted by BlackIsBack at 01/08/2008 @ 10:36am
If you If you criticize Hillary then you're a sexist.Criticize Obama then you're a racist.Criticize Huckabee and then you hate Christians.

Posted by i'm nobody at 01/08/2008 @ 10:39am
Pleeeeze. So she got filled up. Big deal. She certainly expected a better showing and must have been terribly disappointed and, given the dismissal of her experience and planning that this represents, being choked up is understandable and, sorry, cynical folks, clearly real. What's the matter with you, anyway?

Posted by foxinabox at 01/08/2008 @ 10:44am
This blog post shows how a lot of media people are missing the point. It isn't a discussion about whether or not she is strong, because, as many people have pointed out, these tears were so obviously faked. It isn't about her strength or control, it is about how she will play the gender card in front of a group of women, when all other efforts she has tried have failed.

I love that she can turn on the tears yet stay completely on her campaign message: "ready on Day One". Yeahh, fake and manipulating anyone? Of course she turns on the water works around a group of women, but would never do that with a non-female audience. Is this by chance? Does she just not care about the future of our country soooo much when addressing non-female-only groups? How after "35 years" of being in the public and being in complete control of every moment does she all the sudden "slip" to show off her soft side now that her campaign is losing bad? Yeah, nice show, nice show. She should get nominated for an Oscar for that performance. Of course if she got to the general election, somehow I think that the Republicans would be jumping on that little gem as an example that she is about two seconds from crying and having a breakdown, just during a campaign, let alone when real life or death decisions come to her desk. Yeah, doesn't so much play well. I'd give her a hand for caring so much, if it wasn't obviously so contrived, if I didn't know how politically motivated everything she does is.

And of course this is personal. Any idiot can see how she looks at Edwards and especially Obama, with this fake smile and this pissed look in her eyes that just screams "THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE MINE, I DESERVE THIS, I WAS INEVITABLE, HOW DARE YOU GET IN THE WAY OF MY PLAN!!!" If she really cared so much about the course of this country it wouldn't lead her to tears that Obama is winning, because if it were about the future, instead of a personal quest for power and the history books, she would be assured by strength and character of Obama, the positions he has, his great judgment (see: Iraq, Iran), and especially what he can do for the Democratic party (i.e. energize and win), and what he can do to bring the country together. Edwards obviously cares about the future of this country, he doesn't have to tear up to do it, but he is genuine enough not to try to tear down the best thing the Democratic party has produced in decades. He puts his principles above personal ambition. Sure, he'd LOVE to be president, but he won't do it at all costs. Hillary obviously will.

Posted by bridoc at 01/08/2008 @ 10:49am
Even though the coverage of it seemed to be approaching the Dean scream, the spin on it was more of sympathy--like a last ditch effort to grab at any straw with mass media coverage saturating the air waves and the only voters in attendance used as mere props, while using another candidate's lines. If that isn't orchestrated... The Clinton machine is well-connected to the power elite that elevated Kerry out of the dirt and they have alot at stake in promoting Clinton--but if she continues to be a liability and the unfavorables continue to handicap the odds, there will have to be a contingency plan. That could be the hollow feel-good campaign of Obama--exploiting the bleak horizons and the long downhill slide of the US. Obama has demonstrated his willingness to play ball--whereas the Clinton brand is becoming Bush league.

And there isn't anything pure about that other than pure political calculation.

Posted by Lil at 01/08/2008 @ 10:50am
What's the matter is that we are not naive. Sorry, I still don't buy it.

Here's a quote from Hillary during the debate:

"I think having the first woman President is a huge change..."

She's trying to use her gender to get elected. I'm just so happy that Obama isn't like that (or he would have lost my support). I'm so happy he stands above that and sets the RIGHT example by focusing on what he stands for and now what he is.

Posted by BlackIsBack at 01/08/2008 @ 10:51am
if i were going to vote on womens' issues alone, i'd vote for biden. from what i know he has done the most in this area.

the thing that bugs me most about hillary is her corporate connections.

edwards seemed truly authentic and "at home" in his comments. i was considering voting for him. now i will not. but i'm sure all the macho men of the u.s. ate it up.

Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 10:54am
blackisback- where is that story?? I'd like to read up on that...I can't believe she would say something that stupid. Please post a link!

Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 10:57am
Pollitt, you're watching too much TV. Lots of stuff gets said in a campaign, but the only really important things are position papers and what we sense are the candidates' real priorities. Do you really, REALLY want more money politics in Washington, which is what Hillary will provide, or do you want someone who at least OCCASIONALLY will say no to the monied interests (in favor of, oh, say, a thing like WISDOM and what's good for the country)? Come on, Katha, stand up straight, take a deep breath, calm yourself, and try again.

Posted by barnesgene at 01/08/2008 @ 11:01am
i'd like to read it too, blackisback.

Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 11:01am
some of you need a course in reading comprehension. nowhere in this post does ms. pollit say she is voting for clinton. nowhere does she suggest others should do so.

when she said he lost her vote, doesn't that seem like she was going to vote for him til now?

Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 11:05am
So was my comment deleted or did it never show up in the first place? No email telling me you deleted it? Did you consider it a personal attack because I stated the author's "reasoning" in stating she'd no-longer vote for Edwards over this is the same "reasoning" that gave us 8 years of Bush? If you're voting based on nonsense like this, it is the same as voting for Bush 'cause he's the one you'd like to have a beer with or because Al Gore "claimed to invent the internet." It is bogus and uninformed. Vote based on policy, not on "he was mean to someone". The Republicans won't pull any punches this fall and whinging over this is idiocy. You're the ones saying she's not able to handle these attacks, not Edwards.

Posted by Lynxreign at 01/08/2008 @ 11:18am
I love it when the left eat their own----one less progessive to worry about.

Posted by Len Mosse at 01/08/2008 @ 11:27am
Posted by LYNXREIGN 01/08/2008 @ 11:18am | ignore this person

Lynx, this is the first post I've seen of yours. Maybe the other one just didn't got through and got lost in cyberspace?

From what I can tell, the authors/reporters here are pretty thick skinned (unlike some of our presidential candidates) so I don't think they would delete your post.

Posted by FritztheCat at 01/08/2008 @ 11:28am
didn't go through...

i got education

Posted by FritztheCat at 01/08/2008 @ 11:29am
Most people would believe the authenticity of Mrs. Clinton's eyes "misting over" IF she had divorced her husband several years ago, and IF the N.O.W. had run him out of office as they tend to do most other adulterous philanderers (if not in preference to them)!

Posted by Bluehawk at 01/08/2008 @ 11:32am
The only candidate who addresses the real issues I care about is Dennis Kucinich. The fact that he has been marginalized by the media - and by the other candidates - leaves us with three toss-ups. Of those three, I dislike Hillary Clinton the most and dislike Edwards the least.

I admit that the main reason I dislike Clinton is that Bill Clinton presided over a host of unsavory legislation, like NAFTA, deregulation, the sanctions that killed many thousands of Iraqi children, and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy. He dismantled, or at least helped to dismantle, welfare. The legacy he left was a path to the divide between the wealthy and everyone else, the destruction of the middle class, and the immigration problems brought on by the devastation of Mexican workers.

A recent article on Alternet at http://www.alternet.org/story/72336/ by David Morris sheds more light on this subject.

I really like Katha Pollitt and read her articles first when The Nation arrives at my house. I even agree with her that the whole "Hillary in tears" thing is probably sexist, although I do remember that Gerald Ford was castigated for his emotional reaction to his wife's cancer, so it may be that tears are just "not acceptable" in US presidents. I also don't know that I think Edwards' reaction was out of line, and certainly not considering many of the comments made by the Clinton team about other candidates. I just don't understand Pollitt's support of Clinton. There may be laudable qualities about Clinton that I don't see, and perhaps I should not judge her by her husband's performance.

I can judge her for her support of the Iraq occupation, her "all options on the table" policy concerning Iran, her keep-the-insurance-companies-in-the-loop health care plans, and her middle of the road politics (which are far more rightwing than I prefer). Clinton's version of "change" seems to be to change back to the 90s. What this country definitely does not need is that old re-run. And, finally, I haven't heard any substance whatsoever come out of her mouth. She talks about experience and accomplishments, but she is short on examples. SCHIP and knowing her way around Washington are among the few.

In any case, in the absence of a Kucinich nomination, I may have to grit my teeth and vote for the lesser of two evils. In spite of the lesser still being evil, a Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, or Romney presidency is probably too high a price to pay for my principles.

Posted by LeeAnnG at 01/08/2008 @ 11:34am
I do think that taking cheap shots at Hillary for "crying" is wrong and promotes the message that women are too "emotional" or "irrational" to hold high offices.

I wonder, though, how Hillary's supporters explain away a much less publicized quip of hers in New Hampshire stealing plays from Karl Rove's book of dirty tricks by invoking last year's failed terror attempts in the UK as being the fault of "a new guy in office" and then telling people that only she has the experience to keep us safe... who does she think she is, Guiliani??

Posted by laura_k at 01/08/2008 @ 11:43am
Well, Katha just lost my readership. Well, not just this post but all of her other "if they don't stop attacking Hillary I'm going to vote for her" missives dating back to last year. Yesterday it was the Hillary is different just because she is a woman post - yeah just like Thatcher was different than other Conservative PMs. Like HRC's emotional outburst (for her that was an outburst) Katha's take on this subject reinforces stereotypes about women in general and feminists in particular. So if Hillary doesn't get the nomination she is entitled to, then Katha will show 'em. She just won't vote - and all those people without health care and the soldiers wanting to come home can be damned. Yes, a very healthy mature reaction for someone wanting women to be taken seriously in the real world. And Loveloki, don't be condescending to people when you aren't able to see what has been right in front of our faces for months now.

Posted by Steve1us at 01/08/2008 @ 11:43am
Come on. Does anyone really believe Hillary almost cried? I'm almost cynical enough to believe her campaign planted the question in order for her to demonstrate that she's human. The only person less likely to whimper like that is Guliani. The Clintons don't do anything in politics that isn't absolutely calculated. Unless you count indiscretions, I guess.

Posted by sbenasso at 01/08/2008 @ 11:45am
where, praytell little stevie, does ms. pollit say if hillary doesn't get the nomination she is entitled to then she won't vote?

Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 12:01pm
The only person less likely to whimper like that is Guliani.----Posted by SBENASSO 01/08/2008 @ 11:45am

Probably true. Only time Giuliani cries....is when he writes out the alimony checks!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 12:04pm
I love you, Katha, but I can't get behind this argument.

Hillary may be the first female candidate with a shot at the job, but is not the first candidate to get slammed for a display of emotion. It may not be a substantive issue, but in the dog-eat-dog of campaigning, it's certainly not a surprising response.

Additionally, over the years Hillary has been more than willing to throw a little hawk (read: testosterone) into the mix in a transparent effort to improve her electability. She voted for AUMF and refused to apologize, or even concede that it was a mistake.

Sorry, but I'm not gonna let her have it both ways.

Posted by drhammer at 01/08/2008 @ 12:24pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/08/2008 @ 12:53am

!!!

Posted by drhammer at 01/08/2008 @ 12:27pm
The only person that sounded like a school yard bully was Hillary Clinton when she responded to the next question with the 'I can keep America safe from terrorists, Obama can't'.

It's good to see that Hillary will use every political trick in the book, including those she herself condemned when used by the Republicans. She may as well cry, she is done.

Posted by jaguarxjs at 01/08/2008 @ 12:50pm
I don't think Edwards was saying was targeted at her because she was female. Edwards has been lowballed constantly first off. So many comments about his hair cut its ridiculous. I have seen people with that kind of hair who spend 15 bucks on a hair cut by the way it's not expensive to do that. Edwards has money so he gets attacked for every small thing that displays that.

Edwards was making a very valid point about the White House. Look at Clinton and a lot of other Presidents. They go in with nice brown or blond hair and come out gray. It is a stressful job and you are under a lot of pressure. Do you really want someone who can't handle the pressure put on your by the primaries to be your President? I sure don't if you can't handle this pressure it's only going to get worse once you're in the White House.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:06pm
could all of you otherwise reasonable people just pretend, just for a moment, that this thread is about edwards, not hillary?

i didn't learn much either way about clinton through her welled eyes. i did, however, learn something about edwards. i think that is ms. pollit's point in this thread.

please re-read what she wrote. it is about edwards.

kucinich is the best. he is perfect. he is my favorite.

who will i vote for? i don't know. i do know, however, that it will not be little mister macho punk, edwards.

Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 1:07pm
I am also going to have to agree with black on this one. Hillary has used her gender to define herself so since she put it out there she is going to be attacked for it. She is trying to say "I am a woman therefore you should vote for me because it's a change." But then when she is attacked that also serves as a defense because since she has put such heavy emphasis on it anyone who sends a more personal attack her way, which by the way she has done to the other candidates and was not called sexist for it, she is immediately defended by saying the other candidates must therefore be sexist.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:08pm
Isn't it a little sexist to say that every man who attacks her more personally is sexist by the way? Or too macho. The double standard works both ways. You make a comment of A woman being too emotional not all women a woman and all of a sudden you are criticizing all women. Anything a man says about her will automatically be run through the sexism meter to see if they can suck some sexist meaning out of it because that can be used to demonize her competition while avoiding the fact that she has taken low blows too.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:13pm
If [Obama] did you would hear him speak about injustice and rascism at every turn but his charm is that much like todays young people he doesn't try to take advantage of differences of race or sex.

Posted by BLACKISBACK 01/08/2008 @ 10:07am

She's trying to use her gender to get elected. I'm just so happy that Obama isn't like that (or he would have lost my support).

Posted by BLACKISBACK 01/08/2008 @ 10:51am

Oops. Obama today courtesy of msnbc.com:

"The state was not, according to the experts, designed for me. There were not a lot of people who look like me in Iowa."

Obama still got your vote?

Posted by Hman23 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:15pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/08/2008 @ 1:15pm

Well his point is correct. Everyone was saying he couldn't possibly when in Iowa because he was black. I don't consider that using his race, I think thats just pointing out what everyone told him.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:18pm
It's not nearly as contrived as the comment Hillary made during the primary about her being a woman and electing her because she is a woman would be huge change in the White House. She using the fact that she is female to try and say that she will therefore be better qualified. Obama in that comment was just pointing out what everyone said. That he couldn't win in Iowa because they wouldn't vote for a black person.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:20pm
Probably true. Only time Giuliani cries....is when he writes out the alimony checks!

heheh

Posted by MASK 01/08/2008 @ 12:04pm

crying would make the mascara run.......................

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 1:22pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/08/2008 @ 1:18pm

Please. If you are going to get on Clinton for it, be honest about Obama. At least Clinton comes right out and says it. Obama alludes to it, implies it, and talks about his "improbable journey." But his lack of an explicit reference is pure political calculation. Don't kid yourself.

"In the history of African-American politics in this country there has always been some tension between speaking in universal terms and speaking in very race-specific terms about the plight of the African-American community," Obama told National Public Radio earlier this year. "By virtue of my background, you know, I am more likely to speak in universal terms."

It reflects Obama's style, but also the demographics of Iowa and the country, which make the approach a political necessity, said Gordon Fischer, an Obama adviser and former Iowa Democratic Party chairman.

For Clinton, the opposite is true. Women tend to vote in higher numbers than men, so playing up her gender can be viewed as smart politics. At almost every stop, including one in Iowa Saturday where she was flanked by her 88-year-old mother and 27-year-old daughter, Clinton talks of her pride at becoming the first woman president, but she always follows it with a caveat, saying that's not why she's running.

In contrast, Obama needs to transcend his race, Fischer said. "He has to be there. Politically that is the place to be."

First black president? Obama never says it [tinyurl.com]

Posted by Hman23 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:25pm
Maybe it is a political move. But I think he's right in doing so. I don't support Obama personally but I don't like candidates that run on their physical differences. By differentiating yourself you are seperating yourself. Even if you are using it in a positive light you I think it is still negative. I think no matter how you play it calling yourself a "black" president is just building up more ways for racists or in the case of hillary sexists to attack you. You shouldn't be the "black" president or the "female" president you should just be the American president.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:31pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/08/2008 @ 1:31pm

Agreed.

Posted by Hman23 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:34pm
I would say before you make any slams on Edwards, see the entire interview. Katha has distorted the report. When directly confronted with Clintons "tears" (excuse me, but she didn't cry)...he said he had no comment, then he said what a tough job the Presidency is AND how difficult these past months have been. Yes, he said it takes strength...well, duh...it does. He didn't say anything about Clinton not having that strength. Come off it....don't be like the other press...

Posted by tundramoon at 01/08/2008 @ 1:52pm
Senator Clinton is not another man; things are not all equal. We are not, for once, comparing the positions of three men candidates. She is a woman and a Democrat. Certainly, although on the better side of the range, a DLC type. That said, the only better position on anything Obama has taken is his on nuclear weapons and the only better position Edwards has taken is on support of unions. Clinton is better on the rest, sad to say, except, of course with respect to Kucinich. What many of the above writers resent is that she is a forceful, confident woman, as well as resourceful and competent. That's why I will support her in the primary. I don't care what her personality is. All things are not equal, except very nearly the positions of the top three candidates, and it's time we voted for a woman presidential candidate. It's women's turn. For the next 225 years. Period.

Posted by webbh at 01/08/2008 @ 2:24pm
Loveloki I told you not to be condescending. It's Steve. You and Katha and Maureen Dowd and HRC are just proving all the sexists right - exhibiting personal qualities that might fly at a Hannah Montana concert but not the kind one wants to see in a President or a columnist - or even a poster on the Nation site.

Posted by Steve1us at 01/08/2008 @ 2:56pm
i know ya did, stevie. that's why i referred to you as little stevie. still no evidence to back up your claim, stevie?

Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 3:00pm
its been hours now, stevie.

Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 3:01pm
While I agree that Ms. Clinton is in the same bind as any woman in today's workforce--double standards all around--you're jumping on John Edwards is overblown.

Consider that his comments referred to her comments, not her tears. It wasn't the show of emotion, per se, but rather the whole, contrived sympathy ploy--comments and histrionics.

No, I'm not doing the double-standard thing myself. If Ms. Clinton got teary in a speech, say, conceding and leaving the race, and then Mr. Edwards or anyone gave us a, "see, too emotional" type comment, you'd have a point. But the whole incident smells of campaign consultant scripting!

Posted by kmr214 at 01/08/2008 @ 3:19pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/08/2008 @ 1:15pm

I'm not an Obama fan, but in this example he was not using his race to solicit votes, he was illustrating that he was capable of doing well in a very white state. The implication is that won the state not because of his color, but because voters identified with the substance of his politics.

Despite the fact that I personally don't see a lot of substance in his politics, he still isn't playing the race card here.

Posted by drhammer at 01/08/2008 @ 3:21pm
If that's part of your argument then why isn't it black peoples turn for the next 200 years?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2008 @ 3:27pm
" All things are not equal, except very nearly the positions of the top three candidates, and it's time we voted for a woman presidential candidate. It's women's turn. For the next 225 years"

The post above was directed at this comment.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/08/2008 @ 3:29pm
I think Hillary's tears were genuine. I just wish she'd gotten as choked up when she voted the authorize the use of force in Iraq. Maybe then, my sympathy would be a little more expansive.

Posted by gillygirl at 01/08/2008 @ 3:55pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 01/08/2008 @ 3:21pm

I acknowledge your point and I that Obama is not as explicit about race as Clinton is on gender. However, look at my 1:25 pm post to see why that seems to be. If Obama's advisors told him to talk about breaking through as the first black president, he would do it. Look, I am not anti-Obama or pro-Clinton by any means. I think I am growy weary of the folks who seem to think he can do no wrong or that he is SO different than any other politician.

Posted by Hman23 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:28pm
There IS a reason that the Clinton campaign cannot win the nomination based upon the calculus of "first female president", namely, it is that no longer does gender constitute a sufficient or necessary condition for favoring anyone in politics. Maybe it should, but it doesn't anymore... thank heaven.

Some die-hard feminists might still cast their primary vote for Hillary, but most know she cannot be elected so long as she has her husband dragging her backward. Too many Americans will vote against her, for anyone else, just to keep her husband out of the white house and off of television lecturing us for another 4-8 years.

Too bad. She, by herself, has promise and makes a very fine Senator from New York. She, with her husband, make an intolerable political disaster.

We'll see if Carville, Begala and Stephanopolous, the Clintonian triumvirate axmen, are able to resurrect the debate between now and February 5th. I, for one, do NOT want to see how Mr. Clinton would decorate the white house.

Posted by Bluehawk at 01/08/2008 @ 4:49pm
I agree definately a cheapshot!

Posted by Bustnheads at 01/08/2008 @ 5:26pm
Hillary Clinton is the fakest thing on Earth. So was her stage-managed "emotion." Every genuine word out of her mouth is about as warm as it is feminist. She is and always has been a social climber, nothing more. She needs a divorce and several years of intensive psychotherapy.

Posted by mdawson65 at 01/08/2008 @ 5:27pm
Katha, this was a pile of road apples when Rebecca Traister of Salon wrote it, and it hasn't got any less stinky now.

Posted by igsjr at 01/08/2008 @ 5:59pm
Oh please. I really can't feel sympathy on this argument. Hillary didn't cry - and am I supposed to feel sorry for her after she smeared Obama over and over again - and then went on to do the most Rovian thing imaginable, by injecting "a vote for Obama or a vote for Edwards is a vote for the terrorists". She lost all my respect for her. She is playing dirty, and is simply crying for herself - not for our country. This is why she said "this is personal".

Posted by balleryna2 at 01/08/2008 @ 6:02pm
Well, all I can say is that the Hillary haters are here, too. They never cease to amaze me, always defending themselves as simply judging Hillary on the facts (usually facts that are flat out wrong or highly distorted) while repeating all the right-wing memes..

From the beginning Hillary has had to deal with the psychotic hatred of the right-wingers, a huge double standard, and unprecedented MSM hate-filled TV shows & columns. When was the last time you saw a "news" person jeer a loser?

All of these people defend themselves as being "objective", but, basically, they start from the premise that Hillary is a 4-star b***h who has no morals or personal convictions & judge every act or word from that starting point. With that frame of reference, she can't win: if she smiles, it's fake; if she frowns, she has a bad temper. In short, if there is any way to spin anything she says or does as a negative, they do.

One example: Obama touts his bi-racial background constantly - and that's enough for Andrew Sullivan, et.al., to anoint him the Saviour of the Nation. Hillary mentions that she's a woman and she's playing the gender card.

If you took most of the anti-Hillary attacks, changed a few words & applied them to Obama, there would be wholesale horror & firings in the MSM. But racism is a legitimate charge; sexism isn't.

The most depressing part of this whole thing is the number of prominent women who, to prove that they, too, are part of the "boys' club" join in.

Bottom line: if you can't criticize Hillary on facts (like the vote to go to war against Iraq), your criticism says more about you than about her. It's OK to oppose Hillary because she voted to go into Iraq. It's OK to oppose Hillary because she wants universal health care. It is NOT OK to oppose her because she married Bill and didn't divorce him.

Quite frankly, I've been on the fence all year trying to decide whom to vote for, but after Obama's smirky "you're likable enough" and Edwards' equally smirky remarks, I'm voting for Hillary.

Posted by LCaution at 01/08/2008 @ 7:39pm
It is NOT OK to oppose her because she married Bill and didn't divorce him.

Posted by LCAUTION 01/08/2008 @ 7:39pm

Right off, I'll declare I'm a part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ;-)

Now, defend your statement above!

A woman forgiving her husband once, or even twice in a long marriage....can be understandable....but twice is really pushing it!

How many self-respecting people can truly respect a woman who has been HUMILIATED time after time after time.....PUBLICLY AND WILLINGLY! Yet, many women are/were HRC supporters, how ironic! And this is the best the Fem `movement' can do?

What's the lesson here? Forgive your man AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES just as long as he can help you break some nanometer-thick glass ceiling?

Posted by Happy at 01/08/2008 @ 10:26pm
Quite frankly, I've been on the fence all year trying to decide whom to vote for, but after Obama's smirky "you're likable enough" and Edwards' equally smirky remarks, I'm voting for Hillary.

Posted by LCAUTION 01/08/2008 @ 7:39pm | ignore this person

So your diatribe about issues was meaningless? Because now you are going to vote for someone, not because of the issues, but because she is the "victim?"

Your entire post made sense until the last paragraph. At that point you classified yourself as those you are rallying against.

Posted by FritztheCat at 01/09/2008 @ 08:58am
BARNESGENE is right, Pollitts' making too much over this. For one, Hilli obviously didn't take too much of a beating, judging from last nights results. And as far as the nuclear button goes: I'm not going to be reassured too much even if there's a "small feminine" finger on it either, so lose the attitude, Katha.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/09/2008 @ 09:26am
It's worth noting that, however spontaneous her show of emotion may or may not have been (and I tend to think it was a genuine expression of her frustration), the focus of her distress was the fact that her presumptive status as the best candidate for the job wasn't being recognized. That's a fairly shallow and self-centered reason for emotional distress. Hilary's style is irrelevant. The substance of her policies what I care about, and on that score - ESPECIALLY her foreign policy -- I won't vote for her anymore than I would have voted for Maggie Thatcher. And I am a lifelong, unapologetic "old-style" feminist.

Posted by AudreyH at 01/09/2008 @ 10:03am
Get a grip, Katha. This syndrome would be in play for any woman running for office. That doesn't make it nice or fair, but it is increasingly beside the point with respect to HRC.

The focus here needs to be Clinton as a candidate; and for progressives, (or even addled liberals) I can't see how she is the best one. She likes to talk about her record and experience - but let's remember what those eight wasted years under Bill & Hill were really like: http://www.alternet.org/story/72336/

And considering the Clinton campaign's existing record of planting audience members for their events, it's not such a stretch to imagine that Hillary's 'Oprah moment' wasn't just a cynical ploy. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/

Personally, I am sick to death of hearing apologists for this hideous candidate fall back on the gender card. Hillary is a tough customer, and I don't think anyone underestimates her. She simply shouldn't get a pass. There is too much at stake for us to accept this DLC nightmare.

Posted by usfbear at 01/09/2008 @ 12:52pm
You Hang in there Katha. There are a lot of sexists, guy from the angry white guy backlash and Edwards supporters in denial making comments. But you are right and they have a lot to learn, a really sad commentary on the American male considering it is 2007. And they wonder why women voted for Hillary? But the saddest part is that these men are supposedly liberals.

Posted by TeresaInPa at 01/09/2008 @ 4:29pm
Hillary cannot run as anything but a female, just as Obama cannot run as anything but a black man. they cannot be faulted for that.

Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 5:27pm
Katha Pollitt, you have amazed me yet again. I am sharing this article with everyone I know.

Posted by alisaborovik at 01/09/2008 @ 6:37pm
Pollitt, you are barking up the wrong tree. You are responding to a media distortion. The original link is: http://politicalticker.blog s.cnn.com/ [politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com] Unfortunately, the link is expired.

At a New Hampshire campaign event, presidential rival 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."

Edwards was just making a general statement on the challenges of the job. He was not commenting on Hillary Clinton or attacking her. The media and commentators have distorted Edwards' general statement, and I am trying to set the record straight.

P.S. I've been a longtime Emily's List and NOW member, but support Edwards for president. Edwards is our best bet for stealing the Republican base, avoiding vote caging, and winning back the White House.

Posted by IreneChang at 01/09/2008 @ 6:39pm
As a feminist, I was disheartened today when I clicked to read this blog post and found an advertisement for Maxim depicting a half naked, sexed up woman. I was trying to read an article about the challenges of being a female candidate and the lingering sexism that exists. How ironic that next to an article railing against a society that is unfairly judging a female candidate's appearance, is a ridiculous photo example of a woman as a sex object. This just further emphasized to me the challenges women in our society still face. Feminism is not dead.

Posted by baumanka at 01/10/2008 @ 10:50am
Oh Katha... puh-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze! I'm a woman and I didn't buy Hillary's "acting!" for one minute.

Stop the faux-dramatic, "Edwards just lost my vote." We all know you're taking literary license to enhance a thin narrative.

Hillary's fake crying moment embodies what is wrong with the feminist movement spin. In one breath, Hillary claims piling on in Philly, puts out an ad with light airy classical musical to convince us she was indeed piled, hops in the car and rushes up to Wellesley to extoll the virtues of an "all-female" education that prepared her for the all boys' club of presidential politics, with an adoring throng of impressionable young minds and wrinkled faces looking on approvingly.

When Iowa was in the midst of spurning her, she trotted out the life-size cut-out of Chelsea (see, my womb worked once) and her mother (yes, I had one of those, too) and girlfriends (got some of those, too) for a feel-good "The Hillary I Know" Tour, Part I.

In NH, when the polls showed them about to get clobbered again, Bill and Hill played race and gender. Her feelings got hurt at the debate and boys were piling on again. "Poor Hillary, she's old, and short, and not male (and by extension, not black). And Hillary like LBJ can finish the job the lazy, inexperienced black man can't." (Hillary claiming Obama needed to do more "spade work" and Bill claiming Obama's resume is "the biggest fairy tale", while she was busy denigrating the historical significance of JFK, RFK, MLK and LBJ.) And the finishing touch was the phony crocodile tears and voice catch (which Bill must have schooled her on. "C'mon, Hillary, feel the pain. Remember how hurt you were when I cheated on you with that woman? Go there, tap into the emotion. But don't bite your lip, cuz that'll give it away.").

Hillary CANNOT be the epitome of the feminist ascendency to the "throne" if she is going to play the "little girl" role. If you want to play with the boys, you need to remember, big girls don't cry.

Hillary is getting slammed for a cheap theatrical trick. And while it pulled her behind out of the fire this time, she can't play it again every time she's down in the polls. Geez, who knows, next she'll be claiming Obama's verbal "attacks" amount to "abuse" as defined by the Violence Against Women Act.

There will be a woman in the White House one day. It just will not be Hillary Clinton. And that's not because she's a woman. IT IS because she's a Clinton.

Posted by jade7243 at 01/10/2008 @ 11:24am
I wonder if Ms. Pollit has changed her tune since writing this column. Ruth Conniff over at The Progressive certainly has, after more careful consideration. Here's the deal: What we all should be looking at is the substance of her actual words -- "Barack Obama presidency = death; why won't you morons wake up and realize how much you need me?" While Ms. Pollitt beats up on John Edwards, she ignores his very valid point about what Clinton's words revealed about her lack of character.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 01/10/2008 @ 11:27am
But the saddest part is that these men are supposedly liberals.

Posted by TERESAINPA 01/09/2008 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person

they're assholes first and foremost.

Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 1:16pm
Imagine if the same question had been asked to Edwards and he displayed the same response as Hillary. My guess is he would have been fried by the media and the Clintons.

Posted by johnnyrocco at 01/10/2008 @ 2:03pm
HITOMY you responded with this crap " there's no evidence to back this up; UH yes there is evidence of this sexist crap. Tucker Carlson ripped Hillary yesterday.. and it is implied that crying is weak. I work in a profession where we see dead babies and people die every day and the tough males I work with shove those feelings down so much that they a)take their lives b)divorce at high rates c) drink their lives away. If they could only show some emotion then maybe it would help us not be hardened. And, smug SOB we have in office, I'd rather have someone be vulnerable than do what that prick has done.

Posted by beekeeper at 01/10/2008 @ 3:39pm
If you think that Hillary was not genuine in that 'crying' response then you are clearly clouded by your hate for her and your bias. Give me a break.

Posted by beekeeper at 01/10/2008 @ 3:41pm
During the past weeks of this Obama-rama, I've been thinking that I could vote for Edwards if Hillary were knocked out of the field. (I am not going to support a 12 year old who trivializes the hard fought efforts of the 90s, or who implies that those battles aren't coming back the instant there is a Democrat in the White House.) But I agree with Katha Pollit: Edwards lost my vote. A man who could utter such a snarky comment about Hillary welling up is a closet misogynist.

Posted by Rhetor at 01/10/2008 @ 5:49pm
Posted by BEEKEEPER 01/10/2008 @ 3:41pm

calm down. you're going to break out in hives.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/10/2008 @ 9:37pm
Clinton was using Edward's words. During the debate he said this is personal, not political or academic and Clinton said the same words. This was a response to Edwards--so how could this not be calculated to some extent? We can't pick apart every comment by candidates to find racism or sexism. It does take strength to be president and it is hard to campaign. I also think realistically that Bill Clinton is a very dominant male who will influence her if she becomes president. A woman needs to take criticism, attacks, and stand up to men to be a leader, not to whine about sexism when none was intended. I think most men are sexist to some degree, but both Edwards and Obama are married to strong women and they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by lynninsf at 01/10/2008 @ 9:39pm
I owe Katha Pollitt an apology. It is for a post from another thread, and while I don't believe I was personal, I do believe I was at least politically torpid.

I'm not a Clintonista, but I couldn't have been happier for Hillary the other night. It was a beautiful moment to witness.

I hope Ms. Pollitt is doing well.

Posted by Scrub at 01/10/2008 @ 9:50pm
Women. "Edwards just lost my vote." Imagine the nerve, opportunistically attacking George Bushs war-monger assistant in the Senate.

Katha, Miss Clinton has blood on her hands; Miss Clinton has slaughtered innocent people.

Oh, but how dare anyone attack "the fighter" at an opportunistic moment.

What are you trying to say, Hillary Attackers, that women are emotional?

Posted by conshame at 01/10/2008 @ 11:01pm
WEll, I'm a woman and I didn't believe it for one bit. Call me whatever you want, but I also believe her misty eyes was for her and her alone. Oh poor me. Personally I wouldn't give my critics the satisfaction. Shit, she didn't cry while talking about children dying because of a lack of healthcare. No, she cries because she's frustrated that people don't like her. Yeah right. Like I'm gonna buy that load of crap.

Posted by k330k at 01/11/2008 @ 1:42pm
It turned me off when listening people questioning the "tear" was real or "manufactured"?

Mainstream media should be blamed. How dare even ask such a cynical question in the first place?

I saw the segment. It is real.

You may support Obama, but that should not prevent you from seeing the moment as it is.

C'mon, HIllary may not be your candidate, but she is definitely not that bad as you like to imagine or some anti-Clinton mainstream media try to portray.

She is still a human being who deserves her dignity and her fair chance in this election.

It is obvious that Obama is media's darling. But we want a fair and neutral coverage of all candidates. So eventually we voters decide.

Posted by seanmac at 01/11/2008 @ 4:17pm
ms. pollitt,

i've noticed that you are smiling in your picture.

what does this mean? don't you realize the implications?

and,

why is your background redder than everybody else's?

what does THAT mean, eh?

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2008 @ 12:21am
Context: With out context your coments are blather.

Posted by mrh at 01/13/2008 @ 12:56am
Context: With out context your coments are blather.

Posted by MRH 01/13/2008 @ 12:56am

yes, you are quite right. to whit:

JESSICA, I guess it is a little more to take when "one of you're own" tells you your full of it: Keep in mind that being liberated means living the way you want to, not the way feminists, who of course know better, think you should, so its quite possible that many women out there have looked at what, say the Eve Enslers of the world promote, and simply find their aspects wanting. So please lose the Chip from the Shoulder, and Smile in a photo or two!

Chip Thornton

Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/07/2008 @ 1:22pm

************************************************************************

It doesn't take much wit to critique people's photos, JOMAMMA.

I'm sure Jessica's father loves her for reasons that have nothing to do with her looks. Pervert.

The fact that even your otherwise reasonable wife rejects feminism is proof that the anti-feminist movement has been very successful in it's propaganda. Up is down, black is white, war is peace, yada yada yada. And to think, if it weren't for the women's movement, she wouldn't be educated OR be permitted to vote.

Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 2:01pm

************************************************************************

Off-topic, but not much...

Interested in Ms Valenti's take on the fact that "The Naiton" is running ads (with a photograph of a young lady in plunging neckline) for Maxim, the pseudo-Playboy men's mag....as leader for some of its political posts under Campaign 2008?

Is there no concern about some women (like Ms vanden Heuvel maybe) on the LEFT working against "the Movement" for profit?

Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 3:57pm

************************************************************************

Also, I think you're being truly well, stupid, with respect to your gratuituously ugly comment about comments about photographs demonstrating misogyny.

Posted by FEH 01/08/2008 @ 12:06am

************************************************************************

most of the time he needs no photo--just the mention of a name will do. and his comments on appearance are always limited to whether or not they are sexually attractive.

Posted by LOVELOKI 01/08/2008 @ 01:06am

************************************************************************

OK, why does everyone keep mentioning "sleeveless top"- what is so scandalous about a frigging tank top?? katha is also wearing a tank top in her photo- big deal! "attractively arranged"? Its thrown onto one shoulder! you think thats "fashionable"? better thumb through that Cosmo again and get on with the latest spring fashions my dear. And for a self professed "feh-branded feminist", your obsession with Valenti's looks and total disregard for anything she wrote is quite telling.

Posted by JRO555 01/08/2008 @ 09:20am

sorry if "the context" is a few days old. the idea just "gelled"

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2008 @ 01:09am
If you If you criticize Hillary then you're a sexist.Criticize Obama then you're a racist.Criticize Huckabee and then you hate Christians.

Dear I'm Nobody, You've got this right. Edwards gets a lot of attention for this while the press ignores his message. But The same thing is true for Hillary, they spent all their time talking about her tear, and ignored her message.

Posted by wmnorton at 01/13/2008 @ 3:19pm