Big Girls Don't Cry

But Hillary does.

In its daily E-mail update, the New York Times said today:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's teary-eyed exchange with a voter and her sharpened argument on experience were among the turning points in New Hampshire.

The Times was correct to lead with her "teary-eyed exchange with a voter" before mentioning "experience."  If you look at other articles about Hillary, you'll find that most writers believe that her tears gave her an emotional connection to women voters who swung the state to her.

The media have been wanting to anoint Hillary since she announced.  The day before the vote, New Hampshire TV folk were close to mourning the fact that her 20 point lead had disappeared and that Mr. Obama was 10 points up in the polls.  Then came her tears and a flurry of articles about how earlier presidential candidates had been undone when they cried in public.

Crying in public may create an emotional connection to women voters, but an emotional connection is a lousy reason to elect someone to sit within arm's reach of our nuclear arsenal.  One of the advantages of our interminably long process for choosing a President is that we find out who can take it and who can't.

Regardless of ideology, regardless of experience, situations come up that don't fit into anything anyone's ever thought about before.  Frankly speaking, we were caught flat-footed by 9-11 and had to make policy on the fly.  Going emotional in such crises is a recipe for disaster.

Although nobody wants to admit it with Hillary in the running, the most important qualification for President of the United States is emotional stability.  There will be pressure. There will be fatigue.  There will be frustration.  The last thing we want is a President who makes an emotional connection to an enemy head of state who chooses the right moment to ask about her well-being and makes her fall apart.

Worse, there will be moments when every nerve is crying out to grab the Nuclear Football, push the button, and let God sort the bastards out.  Is that what we want to happen?

As Mr. Obama has pointed out, Mr. Rumsfeld had experience, and look where that got us.

Sure, Hillary spent 8 years in the White House, but so did the pastry cook.  When asked about her accomplishments, she speaks of all the things she's advocated such as writing books that tell us we're too dumb to raise our own children, and that we parents need government help.  Advocacy is one thing, but what has she done?  She cried.

Big girls don't cry.

Will Offensicht is a staff writer for and an internationally published author by a different name.  Read other articles by Will Offensicht or other articles on Politics.
Reader Comments
It worked though, boy didn't it! They say she got 60% of all female democrats. And that's after the giddy female crazies that run after edwards and obama.
January 10, 2008 12:46 PM
I saw the same polls. Gallup is still scratching his head.
January 10, 2008 12:48 PM
It's the scriptwriters guild strike: An overdose of 'reality shows' on TV and voters have become suckers for 'raw emotion', even fake (and let us all hope it is fake, just another dirty trick)
January 10, 2008 1:21 PM
Agreed, this is the worse thing of all. If she's faking, fine, that's just another dirty trick. We're use to those. But a leader who cried for real? I shutter think.
January 10, 2008 2:09 PM
Is history repeating itself? Jezebel, of Bible fame, I Kings 21, saw her husband crying and wanted to comfort the "leader". In the end lying, deceit, and a judicial murder took place. I also saw the newscasters dumbfounded. They had been at the polling places along with the Gallup people. I have my sincere doubts about a change in the voting. Time will hopefully show the truth.
January 10, 2008 2:56 PM
Ah, Will....

"If there's a smile on my face, it's only there to fool the public. But when comes down to foolin' you, now Will that's a different subject. Don't let my glad expression give you wrong impression, really I'm sad, I'm hurtin' so bad.....
Smokey Robinson
"Tears of a Clown"

First, the Clinton Cackle. Now, the Clinton Cry. What's next? The Clinton Croak? Here comes the double standard... what would the media do if Huckabee, McCain or Romney cried? I can see the campaign donations flooding in to the Clinton crew from outlying precincts such as Russia, Iran, and Cuba.
January 10, 2008 5:21 PM
I think the left is more emotional than the right as a whole because of their traditional message. Maybe that's why more women vote left and men vote right?

Of all the conservative candidates, Huckster has gotten more emotional than the others by far. Does that tell us something up the true Huck?

Romney has probably been the LEAST emotional considering how much he has gotten beaten up by the press and his piers. Giuliani as well.
January 10, 2008 5:34 PM
I love hearing people express the ludicrous sentiment that somehow Hillary tearing up during a question and answer session during a campaign stop would at all be indicative of her emotional stability when facing questions of whether or not to detonate bombs. Are you kidding me? She spent eight years under a microscope while in the White House with Bill, been a Senator from New York since 2000 and you're worried she'll be trigger-happy? Laughable. Before she teared up, these same people were complaining about her being too robotic and now she's suddenly unstable. This is nothing more than petty, sexist hyperbole. Why don't you try writing about the real issues rather than playing People magazine.
January 11, 2008 5:24 PM
Matt's comments seem quote plausible, but he's forgotten the difference being the one on the line and #2. There is NO FEMINISM in saying that not everybody can be #1. When Robert Sarnoff died and his son took over RCA, the son could not hack it and RCA went out of business. Not too long ago, a VERY successful president of the Coca-Cola company stepped aside for his hand-picked successor. The successor had been at Coke for years, but he had been #2! The guy could not hack it and was fired by the board.

Being president of the US is arguably a bit tougher than being president of Coca-Cola or RCA, but in both those cases, the hand-picked, well-trained MEN who had been #2 flamed out, they could function well as #2 but they didn't have what it took to be #1.

Hillary has never been #1 until now. Sure, there was pressure, and scrutiny, and criticism, but it was directed at her husband, not at her. NOW she's on the line and she can't take it.

Ed Muskie and Gary Hart were both blown out of the running when they cried during the NH primary. Hillary is being given a pass because of her gender.

We NEED a long, exhausting, frustrating primary season - it separates those who can take it from those who can't. She can't. I hope the voters figure that out.
January 11, 2008 6:23 PM
I agree with Matt. This is just a (male chauvinist) double standard. A touch of emotion does not equate to loss of logic. Who is to say that just because Hillary expresses more emotion than her male counterparts did that that ALSO means she has (in that same instant) thrown logic to the wind. If she had done something irrational WHILE being emotional, than fine - you're logic holds up. But tearing up at a conference does not signify a loss of leadership experience. Bush has been portrayed as a strong leader, even a brick wall, from the right. Yet, I have seen videos of him tearing up.
January 11, 2008 7:29 PM
Here's the key.... since when is tearing up supposed to help at the polls? So she tries break the mold of "witch" or "she man". The establishment of the connection with those of like gender and fit within the norm of femininity. A double-edged sword for a possible leader of the "free" world.
January 11, 2008 8:32 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...