link Everyone was talking about the tear on Wednesday. Or to be more precise, about the near-tear. Was it for real? Women who've spent years in Texas politics said yes, they believe Hillary Clinton when she came perilously close to shedding a tear on the campaign trail earlier this week. "I saw the tears. I connected, and I'm sure a lot of women did," said Sylvia Garcia, a Harris County commissioner who supported New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. It was indicated late Wednesday that Richardson is dropping out of the presidential race. "At that moment, she wasn't a candidate being handled, she wasn't following her talking points. She was just herself, excited and passionate," Garcia said. Support from women in New Hampshire's Democratic primary on Tuesday put Clinton ahead of Barack Obama, a fellow U.S. senator who is on his own history-making quest, to become the nation's first black president. Women were crucial to Obama's first-place finish in Iowa just five days earlier. Lyn Ragsdale, dean of Rice University's School of Social Sciences, predicted Clinton will steadily gain support from women as the campaign moves to bigger states. But even among women who are backing other candidates, Clinton's display of emotion resonated. Sissy Farenthold, a former state legislator and two-time candidate for Texas governor in the '70s, supports Obama but identified with Clinton as a woman running for office. "I've spent my whole adult life trying to get women in public office, including me," she said. "The tears, I guess I can't help but relate and think of my own experiences." Nancy Sims, adjunct professor of political science at the University of Houston, said many women likely empathized when Clinton's eyes welled tears after a voter asked about the rigors of the campaign. "She looked exhausted, and every woman in the country looked at her and said, 'I know exactly how you feel.' " Sarah Weddington, an Austin attorney and former state legislator who's supporting Clinton, found the tears sincere. "But," she said, "I also think the campaign said, 'It would be easier for people to warm to you if you showed more emotion.' " The history of female candidates for president is longer than you might think, dating to 1872 and candidate Victoria Woodhull. Erika Falk, a communications professor at Johns Hopkins University and author of Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns, said emotion has been a pitfall for all of them. "Women's emotions are always reported more frequently than those of the equivalent men (candidates)," Falk said. "That's one of the stereotypes we have of women." So when she saw the video of Clinton chatting with a voter in a New Hampshire coffee shop, Falk expected the worst. The woman asked a basic question: "How do you do it?" "It's not easy," Clinton told her, eyes briefly filling with tears. It's not like Clinton has to sprint home after an 18-hour day of campaigning to pack school lunches and help with homework. Still, Sims suggested, the moment resonated with women all over the country. "It's a reminder of all of our everyday lives," she said. For a social scientist, the election will provide a treasure of data about female presidential candidates. As the mother of an 8-year-old daughter, Falk is even more excited. "Even if Clinton doesn't win, she knows there's a woman running for president." Clinton has a long way to go before securing the nomination, of course. And if the experience of other female candidates is any guide, it won't be easy. " ... I think donors are more willing to take risks on male candidates. With women, they ask more questions," Garcia said.
I thought it was authentic. I'm actively rooting against Hillary winning anything...but I think she was being real.
i think it was real too. honestly, i think hillary is the best suited for the job as far as actually having a plan and not BS. she seems like the only candidate who has actually thought about what needs to be done. every debate ive seen, if she is asked about an issue, she'll give you a specific plan on what she would do. all the other candidates fumble around and give a general answer but cant really give a specific plan that would work. however, im turned off by her personality. she rubs a lot of people the wrong way. she seems like she was one of those teachers pets. which may not be a bad thing if you want to be president. but it would definately affect her ability to win over the doubters bc they have such a hard time of believing whether she is genuine. if she does win, its gonna be tough for her to implement her plans bc so many people doubt her motives. when she almost broke down my first reaction was "she is human!"
Oh give me a break. Did you libpigs all forget about your hero Slick William's ability to cry on demand? Hillary is as phony as they come and I don't believe for one second that her "near tear" was genuine. Hillary's ace in the hole is trotting our her husband, which I'm certain will happen on a large scale before super Tuesday. It looks like he's already giving her some ideas....(if they're on speaking terms)
It was also the NH debates that helped Hillary/ hurt Obama. I'm a pretty big Obama supporter but i couldn't help but feel sympathy for Clinton during the debate. In particular the likable question posed to Hillary followed by Obama's snarky "you're likable...enough" comment, ironically enough probably helped Clinton's likability/hurt Obama. I imagine that, coupled with the diner moment, other people felt the same thing. As an aside, another personal influence on how sympathetic I felt towards Clinton, is just how blatantly sexist many commentators and voters seem to be towards her. Sadly i don't think it is a universally shared concern, but in reading a lot of the political blogs and forums (on both sides of the aisle) during the debate there was a lot of overtly sexist comments that made me just feel bad for our country. For example in thecorner national review blog during the republic debate made many comments regarding Romney temperament when he was attack. The consensus was that in the face of such attacks he should response with anger, and that a good candidate and a good leader should response to this types of attacks with indignation. Yet later that night when Hillary responded to a tag-team Edward-Obama attacks she was derided for her indignation. In reality a large part of that, imo, is just that a woman defying gender norms for behavior is treated in a way that a man (romney) isn't. That response, with more overtly sexist (being called a b*tch, etc) wording, seemed to be universally applied across both aisle in the blogs/forums i read last week. I realize that sexism and different standards applied for our candidates, just like i realize that Obama probably faces equal if not greater discrimination in his campaign. But just seeing such blatant sexism directed toward her just increased the amount of sympathy i felt this week.
I don't know if it was real or fake, but the fact that "the tear" is being credited for swaying the vote for the POTUS is mind-boggling.
but what if a man cried? it goes both ways. I will admit that I did not personally see the debate or the "cry" but when I heard about the cry I thought it would hurt her because frankly I was thinking in terms of a presidential candidate. But its hard to say without polling, maybe the fact that she cried brought out women. and it me be less of a double standard as much as how men and women voters react differently to something like that..
Perhaps. However, when a presidential crisis arises and events don't go her way, will she break down in tears? A weak President with this type of mental instability is a very, very dangerous uncertainty for this nation to face.
Sure, except that the behavior we as a people identify with leadership or "presidential" tend to align more with masculine and male gender norms. Being aggressive, for example, is a quality that most people would want in a leader or a president, but something that goes against female gender norms. You right that if a male presidential candidate acted in a way that went against male gender norms, he would probably face some of the same critiques. But that not really an issue, because what we view a good qualities in a leader is almost universally consistent with male gender norms. Also, to you second point, studies should that men and women voter react different to women candidates violating gender norms. However, i don't think this even helps Clinton with women. The studies I read in college on this subject showed that women voters penalize women candidate who break traditional female gender norm, more than male voters do.
I agree, but I don't women are in a no win situation. I totally understand the notion that a woman who is a leader is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't in terms of show leadership qualities that tend to be attributed to males. this is a complicated subject and admitedly I am speaking from personal experience. What I tend to find in (and this may be a cop out) is that it all depends on the individual Hillary for instance isn't hated by some because she is percieved to be an all out go getter. She is hated by some because she is perceived to be an opportunists. And that same trait will get you hated as a man. Growing up in Houston, Kathy Whitmire was the first mayor I remember. From what i remeber she was short in stature, soft spoken, and feminine for lack of a better term. She was a fairly popular mayor in a fairly conservative town. Now some a little older maybe able to give you a more accurate description but the point is she wasn't penalized for displaying feminine traits imo. Who likes an in your face, agressive boss whether its a male or a female? Who likes a weak emotional boss whether its a male or female?
I think it was real. I was very put off by the bit about "some of us are right and some of us are wrong" that came within seconds of the tears and I was put off by what I regard to be the reason for it (she was clearly emotional over her seemingly bleak prospects rather than the country's), but I understand it and it humanized her in a very powerful way. And that after years of trying to prove she was strong enough to compete in a man's game, which had the effect of de-humanizing her. The thing nobody seems to be talking about is the "Iron My Shirt" guy, which I think probably had an equally big impact. And that I would find easy to believe was planted. The story of NH was women going back to Hillary. It would have been the perfect move to send a mysoginist, straight out of central casting, just before the vote to remind women what was at stake.
Agreed. Hillary's character issues are colored a lot about how people perceive women ought to lead/stand out in society.
I agree that Clinton has traits that have nothing to do with gender role/norms that people may dislike about her. As for your example, i would guess (don't remember this actual point in the studies i've read, but i'm sure there is data on it) that conservative voters look even more favorably than democrats/liberal on women candidates that act/have views that are consistent with female gender roles and norms. So it's not at all surprising to me that a conservative voting block elected female candidate that acted in traditional female behavioral norms. It would be a surprise for me if the opposite happened ( a conservative block electing a female candidate with masculine traits.) Take Hillary Clinton, in most ways she violates traditional gender roles and behavioral norms. It's my opinion that she is penalized for this to a certain extent by all voters, even within the democratic party. I would also guess that conservative voters react much more negatively to these violations than liberal voters. lets suppose that Hillary has the same traits as she does now, but is a republican, married to a republican ex-pres, and has a conservative ideology. In this hypothetical i don't think she would have near the success in the republican party as she has had in the democratic party, in large part due to negative conservative reaction to her personal/political traits. If we accept this point (and the research backing up this point) as true i think we have an answer to your original question as to why her crying helped her in NH. It's because voters of all kinds reaction more favorably to women candidates who act according to traditional gender roles/norms. Hillary's crying was one of the few times she has exhibited or acted in accord to a traditional female gender behavioral norms. Even if that act (being emotional, or crying) isn't a quality we want in leaders, people, and women esp (who if we believed the data react strongly to female candidate and their traits) reacted favorably. What other explanation is there? It's not a quality we want in a president and if a man did it, he would be crucified. It's best to look at it as a sociological question rather than purely a political one.
honestly I think its just women got out and voted as if to say, "lay off the woman". here's something to remember also that Obama is going to have to remember if he doesn't want to be surprised again. democratic women don't vote. at least most women tend to be demcrats. hillary crying may have just drawn them out. I do find it interesting that she is liked by democrats because she demonstrates more of the male traits of leadership. I always felt that she was liked by dems because she stood by her man. I never viewed her as a masculine female type leader. Sure she broke the mold as far as involvement in her husbands presidency. But honestly, when I think of out spoken first ladies, the first name that comes to mind is barbara bush.
