She really found her voice today in Connecticut. It's tough out there, and Hillary gets it. She gets it.

Once, fine. Twice, fugeddabout it. I smell desperation.

Anyoen else get the sense that Obama will win big tomorrow?

Hillary gets so abused. She is such a survivor. She really found her voice today. I just can't help identifying with her when she cries. We've all had days like that. She's tough. Go get'm Hillary! I relate to you.

virginiacentrist: haha!

There's a video:

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.../clinton-holds-emotional-meeting-at-yale

It's over. Hillary wins.

In a surprising upset, Hillary Clinton defeats Oprah Winfrey to win the presidency of Ugogirl.

www.theonion.com/.../48741

This is just another display of Hillary doing whatever it takes to win votes. I gave her the benefit of the doubt last time, but no more. If it is her and McCain in the general, I hope Bloomberg gets in the race so I have someone to vote for.

Tep: I have exactly the same sense about Obama tomorrow that I get about favored sports teams before big games, or for Democrats before presidential elections.

I'm a Twins fan. And a Vikings fan. And a Nationals fan. Grew up rooting for the Cubs and the Red Sox, too. Did campaign volunteering with my parents for Carter and Mondale.

So I take my heightened this-has-gotta-be-the-day feelings as proof that Clinton is about to wipe the map with my broken heart and wrap up the nomination tomorrow. The team I root for always loses. Always. Patriots loss last night? All me. I don't even like football anymore, but I tuned in for the first time in years because, darn it, I just wanted to be watching when the Patriots -- the team I backed in 1986 to upset Da Bears -- finished off the greatest single season ever.

I blame Denny Green for my inability to trust others.

That reminds me, don't forget to tune in to Hillary's very special "town hall" special on the Hallmark Channel tonight ...

I thought it was ridiculous when people were saying that her waterworks in NH was some sort of ploy, but now? The woman doesn't so much as choke up for more than fifteen years in the public spotlight, then twice in 30 days? And each time less than 48 hours before a crucial primary? It's tough to see how this will have the same kind of "humanizing" effect as last time. I think an Okay-Okay-We-Get-It-Already-style backlash is much more likely.

You know, this whole thing has been an education. I honestly had no idea that identity politics function as subtly as they do. I mean,  I'm African American and a cousin of mine said the other day that he tfelt that the Clinton's have lost middle class black America forever. Not because they attacked Obama in a racially charged way or because they've pushed forward African American surrogates to make some of those attacks, but simply because those surrogates were "the embarrassing sort." Which was sort of to say that if they'd used Harold Ford, I wouldn't be as upset right now, His sum up went like "I have a daughter, I don't want her to see Sheila Jackson-Lee on TV, I want her to see Susan Rice."

I kept thinking, he's right, seeing Rice forced to answer Jesse Jackson questions stuck in my craw in a way that nothing else had. In kind of a reverse of the pride/satisfaction watching Melissa Harris-Lacewell eat Gloria Steinem for lunch (on Democracy Now) engendered. Unfortunately, as political tipping points go, it wasn't exactly a bright red line. I had no idea that there was some kind of sweet spot at the point where my race, socio-economic status and educational background intersect that once struck would cause me to act in an irrational way (I'll vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nod).   So I really don't think that commentators should be so quick to dismiss where that spot might exist for certain groups of women.  

um, weren't you all about not feeding the freak show?

In the past couple days, there are some signs that Hillary has the momentum again, at least here in California. In on the street interviews women again are coming home to Clinton in the final hours. Perhaps Clinton is thinking along the lines of "a tear in time saves mine."

Wow.  I'm sure hoping we won't be inspecting the faces and tear ducts of our candidates with such intensity for the next 9 months.  Aren't there any issues? Isn't there a war? Have we already written and read everything of any substance, that we are now plagued by these ruminations on the possibility of moisture in the eye of a woman?  Can anything be more ridiculous?

Neil

Maybe the dorky PC guy on the commercials should take a cue and start tearing up in his next spot:

www.nytimes.com/.../04link.html

Has anyone commenting here actually taken the time to look at the video? It's no big crying game moment. It's just her talking about her past works with pride. I feel a lot less hope for this country if it's stuff like this that sways a single voter in any direction. Honestly, who's policies do you like? Who seems ready for the job? Answer that question for yourself and get out there and vote tomorrow.

I agree that while the momentum is definitely with Obama right now, it's not enough to put him over the top, certainly not in any "big", decisive way. FWIW, my not-so-bold prediction is that Hillary will come out with slightly more states and more delegates, including California. But the story will be, "Hillary Clinton, who as late as two weeks ago held a 20-point advantage in California, barely eeks out a victory..." which is almost as good for the big Mo as an outright Obama win.

tomeg -- "... *coming home* to Clinton"?!

arsonplus - fascinating, thanks. I think that Irish-Americans of my father's generation went through the same kind of generational considerations with JFK's candidacy. JFK was the anti-ward heeler, the cool Irish Catholic, savvy, sharp, sophisticated: the un-Mick who could make every Irish-American proud of his heritage, be he an assimilated suburban GOP Irish-American or a lace-curtain South Boston harp. JFK's rise meant that middle-class Irish Catholics had arrived.

JJ Gould - sort of like Auntie Em and Dorothy. When they see Aunt Hill crying on the small screen, teh wayward ones rush home

I watched the clip...that was it? Totally agree with twtrader's reaction.

Sheesh.  Cue Roy Orbison and get on with life.  I'd rather be hearing about tomorrow's weather forecasts and how they might spike/dampen turnout (it might be snowing here for tomorrow night's caucuses--do all the Obamaniacs get out and caucus anyway, or do Hillary's old codgers and coots brave the elements better?).  

The timing is somewhat suspicious, but I have no reason to discount the real possibility Clinton may simply be very frustrated to see all her (their) planning and hard work falling short of assuring her the nomination she has so wanted for so very long. I'm not voting for her but I don't begrudge her a tear or two in the moment at a very stressful time. What's wrong with wanting a little sympathy? Were she a man, I would add "after all (s)he is a human being, whether you like h(er)im or not?".

The tough guy archetype in American society cannot be denied, but neither should it be passively allowed to dominate us, even politics. The compulsion to assert and maintain one's tough guy persona is as limiting and pernicious as any compulsion; eventually it sets one up for an inevitable fall and loss of face, that in reality should restore one to sanity and true compassion.

The same archetype is by tacit agreement associated (even identified) with the male gender in our society, entered into by both genders, their respective reactions and judgments equally suspect.

I haven't seen the clip yet, but can tell you that CNN has been showing a tiny clip of the tears, every half hour or so, with no context other than a voice over to say that someone who used to work with her showed up at a rally. It's completely nothing, and it only seems to be borne of "hey, viewers seem to like it when she cries - and she did that today, so lets show it." They're also kind of desperate for stuff, since I'm now seeing a tour of CNN's empty tourbus.

JJGould - like tep said. I might have enclosed the phrase in quotes but I was feeling lazy and guessed most folks would pick up the meaning. Guessed wrong, huh? Sorry.

well, not that I like it but I will defend Hillary. Can anyone imagine just how tired these candidates must be? When you are past the point of exhaustion people get more emotional. On a normal day, she might be a cold, calculating witch, but these are not normal days so I will cut her a little slack.

tep / tomeg -- Ah! I thought there was something of Judy Garland in the Clinton Campaign vibe since NH ...

Nepotism/coattail-riding-to-power + crying when the times are tough = bad for women, no? She's become a parody of the parody of _women as the weaker sex_. Where's the feminist outrage?

Blackton, all the other candidates have faced the same exhausting, emotionally draining campaign. Yet they're not crying on national TV just like the last time they were facing defeat and used morning-before tears to "reconnect" with voters.

I didn't pile on the first time around because I thought it was kind of endearing to hear Hillary's real voice, which is actually much more attractive in a person-you-want-to-listen-to way than her normal public voice. But twice, in identical circumstances, in less than a month? I see cynical conniving, a total act. But maybe it's genuine, and she's just not up to handling the pressure of running a primary campaign. (After all, this is the first time she's ever had to run a real primary campaign.) And if she's not up to this, she's gonna get creamed in the real election, and even if she wins then, how can she possibly be up to the job of president if a few weeks of hard work unbalances her?

I'd be kidding about making such a ridiculous claim, except that those are exactly the terms on which Clinton's surrogates asked us to judge Obama's responses to Obama's dishonest and dishonorable campaign tactics last month. Sauce for the goose.

one tear is ok and humanizes , the second  just negates and reveals something disturbing.  a loser mentality.  it is said that the sorriest loser is the silver medalist.  what could have been.  that is the one with the long stare and clinton has it.  that is what i see when i look at the photo.  the woman is crying -- not once, but twice.  how pitiful is that.  no, emotions cannot be released like that in politics. world politics.  a possible horrible scenario exists with a female president, who cracks under pressure. especially if her ego and ambitions are bruised.

Why does no one mention how last minute this event was?  I didn't know she was on campus til I saw a hastily placed blurb in the YDN at 2:00 in the afternoon.   That certainly adds to the possibility it was planned, doesn't it?  

"I thought it was ridiculous when people were saying that her waterworks in NH was some sort of ploy, but now?"

QFT.

I think Dubya has the best take on it:

"Fool me once, shame on---shame on you.....uh...if you fool me you can't get fooled again."

guyminuslife,

It's "Fool me once shame on.. shame on you... eh.. um.. a fooled man can't get fooled again." by the way.

And Bush is an idiot. This whole ridiculous discussion about the so-called fake tears is really sad. But then, that's just me. I enjoy a conversation about candidate policy positions. Way more boring I guess.

"Once, fine. Twice, fugeddabout it. I smell desperation.

Anyoen else get the sense that Obama will win big tomorrow?"

Sure! Because whatever the heck actually happens short of getting zero votes and zero delegates, he's going say he won "big".

Winning is the easiest thing in the world to do when you get to make up the rules of the game and the crowd cheers.

Well, as a big Obama fan, I just think any voter who votes based on a tear has got other problems.  Likewise, I think any booster who gets all worked up because their less favored candidate teared up is perhaps a little bit obsessive.  But what I do worry about is a backlash against the backlash.  HRC does bring this on herself, but the press is obsessive about this tear, and hypothesizing that its calculated. This WILL continue the 'press is picking on me' meme.

My opinion, in NH it may have mattered.  Here, I think those who are turned off by it probably exceed those turned on by it happening 'again', and I think HRC is smart enough to know that.  So it was probably just a moment. As what was once inevitable, and her's by 'right', has suddenly become a dog fight that keeps getting worse and worse for her.  She's tough, and would never respond to a question about the race like that, but I wouldn't be surprised by any show of emotion from any candidate who had undergone such a dramatic reversal despite working so hard.  Heck, I'd have granted Rudy a pass on a tear, if he weren't such a jerk...

Hillary Votes for the War

You never say you're sorry

For being so untrue

Well, you can cry me a river

Cry me a river

I cried a river over you

You drove me, nearly drove me, out of my head

And you never shed a tear

Remember, I remember, all that you said

Told me, weapons of mass destruction

Told me I was out of luck and

Now you say you love me

Well just to prove that you do

Come on and cry me a river

Cry me a river

I cried a river over you

I cried a river over you

Thought you all would like this - was out to dinner tonight with co-workers at a fairly nice resturant in New York.

There was a TV on in the background. One of the guys looked up and said "oh oh oh! Here they come!  here they come!" A bunch of other people in the resturant said "here they come!!" after that and voila - there were Hillary's tears, live in CNN.  

The whole place went "oohhh Nooo! !" lots of Bronx cheers (tounge fart sound) booing, laughing.

Wandrey, you just made me homesick!

Just a suggestion: why not concentrate on the substance of what Sen. Clinton is saying in her remarks during which she becomes emotional? The concept of being a strong advocate for children over an extended period of time can in fact be an emotional thing--whether it is Hillary Clinton or someone else.

That the very geniuine be seen as disingenuous may say more about the process or the negative predisposition of the person doing the observing and commenting than it does about the person who visibly feels the emotion and is not afraid to express it. Could it be that we have become so obsessed with the process that we are losing the substance of what the process is supposed to be about?

That the service to children without a voice is something that moves someone to emotion is entirely natural--it should not be a subject of derision, even if it is by a candidate you oppose in the election.

What a sorry pass we have come to.

you're right TULLIUS - I think we're awful because we're tired too.  

Tullius:

Your comments made me cry.

Do I get to be president now?

The subject being addressed was, if TULLIUS understood the clip and the setting, the provision of legal and other advocacy services to children in poverty, young people who were potentially subjected to abuse and neglect.

The focus of the organization in New Haven on these critical and important concerns of low income and minority youth is something that could be a proper focus of a blog or a series of comments.

Yet, why is it not so?  To Senator Clinton's very great credit, whether one supports her or not for the presidency, she dedicated a very great portion of her life to these issues and concerns and has achieved great accomplishments oer the course of time. This needs to be recognized and appreciated.

This is not to detract from Senator Obama or Senator McCain, each of whom has accomplishments as well.

But why is it necessary to trivialize Senator Clinton's concerns for these important issues?

To do so diminishes the person trivializing Senator Clinton's emotions about her longstanding involvmenent in these issues and support for them.

Oh, stop.  The reason that so many scoffed the first time around is due directly to the context - notably, she was speaking of how the difficulties of the road, on her.  Please.  Really, why not trot out every single bad 'road' song ever produced by some rock band that is trying to get their fans to believe that somehow their life on the road between gigs is 'hard'.  What, Bob Seger is going to pop up the next time and sing "Turn the Page"?  Just stop.

Ok, so now we have a new context. Hillary is vaguely misty about the children, and so therefore the criticism says somethng about those who criticise, we are the barren life-less, soul-sucking monsters who are stripping her of her humanity.  Please.  This is a political creature, and so therefore I do not doubt the possibility that this is becoming a habit.  

You see, a good many folks have suggested that Obama's weakness is his inability to fight dirty, to fight to win, to do whatever is necessary.  And yet, when something like this happens folks spring up to defend, to protect, to explain away, and castigate those who dare notice that this all seems rather coincidental.  Why could this not be tactical?  Why cannot this simply be a different tactic?

Nope, we simple are told to write it all off to fatigue.  Give her a break. She is tired.  Campaigning is hard work.  They haven't slept.  

Right.  When Romney cries he was mocked.  Hillary gets misty?  Oh, no, she is expempt from such criticism.  Yet, why do these tears only happen just before primaries in doubt?  Oops, cannot ask such questions, the Clinton family is above reproach - they feel our pain.

Sorry, my inner cynic is erupting like a bad case of boils.

Nice column on the pathology of Hillary-haters by Stanley Fish:

fish.blogs.nytimes.com/.../index.html

PC:

That column is sooooo idiotic.

This is a politician who supported the war, and now claims she didn't. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, and she protests that her authorization vote was the only way to secure the peace.

She deserves the hate. Every bit of it. Some of us look at Hillary Clinton and see a spoiled brat. A child who thinks she deserves the Presidency because of her last name. And it reminds us of Bush...

twtrader,

Huh. I had just watched the clip before writing that to get the verbatim. I rewatched it just to double check, and it goes more like,

"effoolmehcangefool'gin"

You're probably right, but I'll just blame it on his diction. Yankee poser.

I don't hate Senator Clinton.  I dislike, and will vote against, what she represents :nepotism, dynastic succession, the status quo, faux feminism, crass political aritifice, pure Machiavellian hyper-pragmatism (do whatever is necessary to retain power, regardless of issues of ethics).  This has nothing to do with the person, it is a symbol of what we cannot accept in American politics.  

We cannot accept two poltical families that might hold power for nearly 30 years.  It really is as simple as that.  If you want to call me a Hillary hater, that is your choice.  But you would be completely, utterly wrong.

Oh, and who really bothers to listen to Stanley Fish regarding anything.  Honestly.

TULLIUS -- J.J. Gould applauds everything Senator Clinton had to say today about the concerns of low-income and minority youth, as he is sure everyone else here would. It's simply not a sign of general moral decay or whatever that when the emperor trots in nude, we should remark on his nudity, despite the virtues of what he may have been saying while nude.

Costello -- That Stanley Fish blog thingy from the NYT is the most obfuscating, unilluminating thing I've read on any topic in recent memory: Let's throw all criticism of and potentially justified distaste for Senator Clinton in with the most out-there, misogynistic, and/or wildly conspiratorial right-wing crap about her; smear everyone implicated by comparing them homogeneously to anti-Semites; and then toss off a vapid caveat to pretend we don't really mean to compare criticism of Clinton to anti-Semitism! Awful ...

JJ Gould:

Amen. And though I probably venture into that wildly outrageous territory occasionally - you're right about the article.

The weird thing about Clinton hatred is that it's definitely much bigger amongst young people. I know this is anecdotal - but I know about 40 people under 30 that have a negative opinion of Hillary. The only person I know who doesn't...well - he works for her fundraising operation. And even he apologized to his friends for doing so.

arsonplus & tep: provocative posts. A personal tipping point for me is Cincinnati politics. The highly-regarded black mayor hasn't picked sides, yet. Ohio is a Clinton machine kinda place. A bellwether red state that could turn blue. Last week the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus endorsed Obama. Little noticed - but Democratic insiders noticed. They'd been in Clinton's pocket, for years.

I grew up in Cincinnati, in an area called Price Hill. Clinton could never carry Cincinnati, Obama just might.

TULLY - I would LOVE to be able to concentrate on the substance of what Sen. Clinton is saying. But there are all these distractions, y'know? Like crying episodes, or that she and her husband did not support the war, or her husband telling us that Obama's not serious about health care, or that he's a racial ambulance chaser a la Jesse Jackson....

I would be delighted if, at the start, and the end, of hteir next joint public appearance, BHO and HRC were to make a joint statement a la "Our party is making history. Whether you support the female candidate or the african-american candidate, rest assured that you will be making history too. So please, make history-- and vote for the *** person whom you think is best qualified, regardless of gender or race, to be president."

If/when Billary morphs into Hillary, and Hillary makes a statement like that, I'll consider voting for her, as I was (probably) inclined to do before January, when she and her husband displayed such appalling behavior.

Part of wht Fish is saying is that the more "mainstream" Hillary-haters, including the so-caled "responsible" press, are  closely channeling what is truly a very lunatic fringe, and that they share psychology and motivation with them. There are so many postings here that give good evidence of that, and that substiutte personal villification and personal hatred for discussion or analysis of issues. I can't imagine what jjgould finds so difficult to understand in Fish's lucid writing--but his response is a typical sneering, non-propositional response of this category of poster.

Pcostello, part of the problem of Fish's piece is that he's essentially saying that Hillary can only legitimately be judged on the basis of the policies she is proposing. Never mind that her actual record in office on the issues most important to Democrats is strikingly similar to John McCain's voting record. So Fish is asking us to judge Hillary on the basis of her statements of abstract principle relating to hypothetical future actions. But Fish himself has blazed a brilliant intellectual trail against the notion that abstract principles even exist.

The bottom line for many, myself included, is that there is much that Hillary represents. Almost none of what she represents can be judged positively. Much of what she represents is anathema to liberal values and the progressive movement in particular. And a critical portion of what she represents is simply incompatible with the basic ideals of American republicanism and democracy. If the chairman of the Joint Chiefs staged a coup, and promised to enact universal health care and end the war in Iraq and balance the budget with higher taxes on the wealthy and all the rest of my preferred policy agenda, and the only alternative to enlightened dictatorship was another eight years of elected reactionary idiocy under George W. Bush, I'd take Bush. Simple as that. There are things more important that party platforms, and support for Hillary cannot be squared with any of those things.

So, my loyalty to party, my preference for advancing the liberal agenda, and my abiding love of this country do not allow me to vote for Hillary Clinton. In the widest terms, I will have a hard time squaring myself with membership in a party that would nominate her for the presidency. This is based on my most deeply held political principles; it's not hysterical or irrational, and it long predates my preference for Biden, Edwards, and Obama.

Then again, the fact that I'm judging Hillary based on what I believe to be abstract, universal principles would prove my irrationality to Fish. Which is Fish's great trick: Anyone who disagrees with him is always an irrational dupe. If you argue from pragmatism, he retreats to principle. If you argue from principle, he says principle is an illusion, and only pragmatism matters.

I really would like to point to one progressive piece of legislation - ONE - that Hillary championed (at the risk of alienating general election moderates, needless to say) that she wrote or even supported while in the Senate.  But I can't.  I'm not a member of the lefty police, just a Democrat, that's all. Remember us Hillary?

She even voted for that hateful, disgusting "bankruptcy" bill!  As I've said before - I think any Democrat who voted for that bill should be thrown out of the party. If we stand for anything, we stand for not handing over poor middle class sods (80% of whom were bankrupted by MEDICAL BILLS) to the banking industry so they can make 1000% profit that year rather than 999%.  I'm pretty sure that isn't too much to ask.

I lean right on military stuff, but even then - the reason Hillary is mistrusted is that she didn't even have the guts to really own that bankruptcy vote or any of the other right wing boot licking bills that she voted for.  

She'd excuse it away, still does, with lame excuses a child can see through (what the eff does "I'm glad it didn't pass" mean - nothing. Nothing except "I got mine").  

How is this even "pragmatic"?  Not standing for anything but looking cool to general election moderates means you stand for nothing.  And it means the only respect and trust you *really garner is from your buddies in Hillary Land.  Democrats threatning to vote for McCain are saying they'd rather vote for someone they are reasonably sure they can trust - warts and all - then to validate the Clintonian everything-is-about-ME.

The one glimmer of hope I have in all this is that of Hillary gets the nomination and somehow gets voted in past the 50% of the country that can't stand her, then maybe she'll actually begin to stand for something.  She'll have finally gotten what she's wanted her whole life - nothing wrong with that - and maybe, just maybe, she can show some ideological backbone for once in her life.  As in: real, *concrete* bills, real *concrete* votes that aim to support the party she actually belongs to.  Ok, we won't even touch the hard stuff lke Iraq and the economy, let's start off with some basic Democrat 101 stuff you may need to bone up on after kissing rump to he right for the last several years so you can get this shot at being Pres:

How about standing up for gay folks Hillary? As in - not just half-assed, no risk yammering but step the eff up and DO something risky to stop the institutionalized bigotry that still rules the land in the military and in tax policy.  Do you have the guts?

How about rescinding tax breaks for the oil companies?  Even those guys seem perplexed as to why they have them and have said so - that one isn't even that risky.  

If you want people to trust you Hillary, then BE trustworthy and STOP blaming all your problems with that on someone else.  OWN YOUR MISTAKES.  Take a risk for us over here in your supposed party and maybe we can find a way to support you again.  I'm not making any promises, but meet me half way and I'll give it a shot (I'll never forgive Bill, so don't even ask).

I think a prize should be awarded for

B E S T

P O S T

O N

T H I S

T H R E A D

to

virginiacentrist

for the following post:

_______________________________________________________________________

Tullius:

Your comments made me cry.

Do I get to be president now?

________________________________________________________________________

Also

HONORABLE MENTION

to

virginiacentrist

for the following post:

________________________________________________________________________

This [Hillary] is a politician who supported the war, and now claims she didn't. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, and she protests that her authorization vote was the only way to secure the peace.

She deserves the hate. Every bit of it. Some of us look at Hillary Clinton and see a spoiled brat. A child who thinks she deserves the Presidency because of her last name. And it reminds us of Bush...

_________________________________________________________________________

What is wrong with all you people?  Did you watch the video?  Hillary did NOT cry.  If she got a little emotional following her introduction, it lasted all of two seconds!  This is so completely a non-event, except as yet another example of how certain elements of the press simply lust for any tiny irrelevant little detail that might confirm thier preconcieved notions.  Look, Hillary got some color in her face for a second after an emotional introduction with a small group of supporters.  What a phony!

Why do you all put up with this - eat it up, even?  I know many of you hate her, but does that make this crap OK?  For now, they're not doing it to Obama, but just wait.