Hillary turns on the tears again. (2 Viewers)

[cruize]

I had rather see her get emotional over caring about something, than seeing Bush smile while lying. Which is every word that comes out of his mouth.

 

[Pasty]

What does Hillary have to do with her supporters adapting Obama's chant?? How can you blame that on Hillary? In my opinion Hillary supporters have every right to take Obama's chant and apply it to Hillary as well, why not.

Perhaps you missed my point. Yes, the first part of my problem you got, and it's fairly normal: politicians love to steal the trendy message of the moment. That's a bit silly, but it's not a huge deal.

What capped it for me was the change in pronouns. To me, there is a qualitative difference between "Yes we can" and "Yes she can." Obama speaks collectively about "us" and "we," and reaching across divisions, whereas Hillary's perspective in my view is geared toward the Clinton legacy vs. the Republicans. It's more about her than it is about us.

And I'm not one of these macho guys who has anything against tears. The problem is that both times she's cried, it's been right after she started falling behind in the polls, and it's been when supporters have been heaping praise upon her or feeling her pain. The tears, if genuine, would seem to betray a self-centeredness that I don't want to see in the office, and if manufactured for the camera, would confirm the cynical nature of the campaign.

Just my opinion. By the way, if you read my posts, you'll see I'm about as far from a chauvinist conservative as you can get.

 

[DMaestro]

The problem is that both times she's cried, it's been right after she started falling behind in the polls, and it's been when supporters have been heaping praise upon her or feeling her pain. The tears, if genuine, would seem to betray a self-centeredness that I don't want to see in the office, and if manufactured for the camera, would confirm the cynical nature of the campaign.

Very well said.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

What capped it for me was the change in pronouns. To me, there is a qualitative difference between "Yes we can" and "Yes she can." Obama speaks collectively about "us" and "we," and reaching across divisions, whereas Hillary's perspective in my view is geared toward the Clinton legacy vs. the Republicans. It's more about her than it is about us.

Another good example of this is the first time she cried she made the comment "I have so many wonderful opportunities for this country".

I?

Really?

I know it was just a slip of the tongue but to me it was very revealing of how her mind works. It's all about her. Her opportunities. Her destiny. Her rightful place in history.

To Hillary it's "her" turn. Now, I have no doubt to some extent all politicians see it that way. You have to have a pretty big ego to think you can lead the free world and I'm not naive enough to think Obama is somehow a puritan with no sense of self. However, the narcissism of the Clinton's does appear to be on another sphere than the avg. political talking head.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

Pasty is on-target regarding the differnt pronouns used by Hillary and Obama. With Hillary, it's usually singular first person. With Obama, it's usually plural first person (And with Bill, it's either singular first person or plural first person that extends to only two people.)

 

[Sabine]

Whoa Gentlemen, your slips are hanging.....

I'm not promoting Clinton but I've watched both videos, and Clinton doesn't appear to be opportunistic or playing the fem card in either one.

Could it be that some of you are not as open minded as you see yourself? Taking that clip and turning it into far more than it was (starting with the thread title).....well, how very opportunistic.

 

[Pasty]

Whoa Gentlemen, your slips are hanging.....

I'm not promoting Clinton but I've watched both videos, and Clinton doesn't appear to be opportunistic or playing the fem card in either one.

Could it be that some of you are not as open minded as you see yourself? Taking that clip and turning it into far more than it was (starting with the thread title).....well, how very opportunistic.

I realize that there's no way I can prove this to you, but my reaction to Hillary Clinton's campaign is in no way a reaction to her gender. How she exploits it, along with how she plays the DLC/Clintonian political games--that is what I am reacting against.

I would enthusiastically vote for a female presidential candidate if she was delivering the message of Obama in the tone that he is taking.

She isn't. I do not and will not support her.

But I guess that makes me a sexist.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Whoa Gentlemen, your slips are hanging.....

I'm not promoting Clinton but I've watched both videos, and Clinton doesn't appear to be opportunistic or playing the fem card in either one.

Could it be that some of you are not as open minded as you see yourself? Taking that clip and turning it into far more than it was (starting with the thread title).....well, how very opportunistic.

Like I said she knows it appeals to women...

Seriously if it were someone else you'd see much different reactions. The cynicism toward the Clinton's is fully warranted and well earned.

 

[TPS]

>>Did you guys even watch the video?

No. I said as much in the OP. And look steltz, I respect where you're coming from and all. But when you're dealing with me, SBTB and PaTsy, you're kinda looking at some of the intellectual center-left of the forum ( :17: ). SBTB will claim to be a Conservative, but he knows better and he knows we know better. I don't hate Hillary, and I didn't hate Bill. In fact I was glad he won in 1992 and 1996. He just wasn't getting my vote. I'm not going to hate Hillary if she wins either. But she's not getting my vote. I've been around a little too long to trust anything Clinton. It doesn't have anything to do with gender either.

TPS

 

[RABDOG]

HEY SABINE!!!!!.....now as for hillary i think her crying the 1st time was fake and so do a lot of other people so i understand when people see this and are kind of skepticle

 

[SoonerJim]

I would vote for her over Obama. I could conceivably vote for her over McCain because I know the Clinton brand. I know Republicans would be less conflicted opposing a Hillary initiative than one from McCain because obediance to authority is a Republican character trait. The Reagan coalition was a one-off; McCain hearkens to a "muscular American populism" which he probably absorbed reading Teddy Roosevelt biographies. No wonder he and Hill are chummy; the nanny state continues unabated.

Those having dyspepsia over either candidate need to read history. A host of mediocrities have run for and won office. A Hillary election has the Bill bonus. A new generation of tarts revolving through the Oval Office turnstile promises continued Presidential psychoanalysis. This is intentional; it deflects attention from policy.

A vale of tears pave the way to the White House. If Thatcher had thought of that, she could have been Pope. We have today a White Trash Camelot, sullied by behavior which their Kennedy forebears successfully swept under the rug. Kennedy's strumpets were hot, but we get Monica and Paula. I feel cheated.

The first responsibility of a politician is to entertain. Clintons deliver.

Hillary in 2008!

 

[Sabine]

Well again, I'm not campaigning for Clinton, but here's what I see:

A thread was started about Clinton "crying again" - complete with a disapproving smiley, from a poster that admits he didn't bother to watch the video. Then, other posts followed as though it was fact. Why was it so easy to believe?

Similar tangents occurred the other night in the "McCain - More Wars" thread. Five seconds of a 39(?) second video taken completely out of context - very Pat Buchananish. Come on guys, I know most of you are smarter than that.

One of the anti-Clinton reasons posted was her decision to stay with her husband after all the skirt chasing he did. Personally, if my husband had done all the same things you guys would still be looking for his body. Marriage is rarely what we expect it to be. It is certainly much harder. Fortunately, we all get to decide on what will be our marriage's structure, anchor, goals, rules, etc... Most who have been married very long will tell you that those rules, anchors, etc.... change over time and usually require reassessing several times before the couple reaches the "until death do us part" part. Working past an affair calls for more character than I possess. But, just because I couldn't/wouldn't do it does mean I should define what love or a marriage is for everyone else.

A lot of attention has been given to the Clinton marriage as though we would really be re-electing Bill if Clinton wins. I expect some attention to be given to her spouse because of who he is, but IMHO the amount of attention it's getting reeks of the proposition that, if elected, the "husband is head of the [White]household". I don't think some would see (to the same extent) the Clinton campaign as the Clintons' campaign if HC had been a past pres and BC were running today.

As for the "I" versus "we" claims, I've seen a good bit of coverage on both of these candidates, and that wasn't my take. I'd be interested in some stats if anyone wants to back up their claim with some hard numbers.

As for the "her every move is contrived and conniving" claims, go back and watch the subject videos again. Those weren't prepared speeches. That was Clinton shooting from the hip to the events/questions of the moment - two stops on a very, very, very long and busy campaign trail.

As for the "I'm not a sexist" claims, I wonder what I'd find if I went back to the "Study shows men talk as much as women" thread and other threads of similar subject matter.

Hey RABDOG, I didn't see it that way. I find it interesting though that one of the questions she was responding to was about whether or not she did her own hair. Now really, do people ask Obama or McCain that? Clinton is running for the highest office in the land, is trying to get her message out, and someone asks if she does her own hair? What's that about?

 

[RABDOG]

now that was a stupid question, she's rich of course she doesn't do her own hair...you are gonna get stupid questions when you are the 1st anything to do something...that kinda reminds me of the question doug williams was asked before he won the super bowl...."how long have you been a black quaterback?" i think you are just gonna get some stupid questions..i'm sure barack obama has gotten some doosies

 

[TPS]

>>A thread was started about Clinton "crying again" - complete with a disapproving smiley, from a poster that admits he didn't bother to watch the video. Then, other posts followed as though it was fact. Why was it so easy to believe?

Believe whatever you want. I already said why I don't trust Clinton (Bill or Hillary) and I will stand by that and vote that way as well. You don't have to like it. Just the same, none of the reasons you ennumerated were mine except that I find their every move calculated and contrived. That's not going to change.

TPS

 

[Sabine]

Believe whatever you want.

That is what I see happening too often for something that is as important as the presidential election. People believe what they want to believe, without bothering to look further. We, The People, have become too lazy to challenge ourselves.

I already said why I don't trust Clinton (Bill or Hillary) and I will stand by that and vote that way as well. You don't have to like it. Just the same, none of the reasons you ennumerated were mine except that I find their every move calculated and contrived. That's not going to change.

TPS

Vote for whomever aligns with your views, and I'll be thrilled.

As for the "calculating and contrived", while I don't think either of the events captured in the subject videos were, there certainly are advantages to having a president that has the ability to approach his/her duties with a conscious, calculated, well thought out and laid out plan. To some extent, the election process can give us an idea of the candidates' skill in that regard and their ability to execute it. It's not necessarily bad characteristics to have when considering the job requirements.